luvluv

Starboy:

It is very possible for a historian to take the claims of one religion over another if there is better empircal or historical support for one religion than there is for another. Some historians believe this is the case for Christianity. So long as they are honest in their search for and appraisal of the evidence, I see no reason why a historian could not come to the position that Christianity is better supported than other faiths. As long as he or she could back up this claim with extensive evidence, I see no reason to reject it out of hand.

I never said it was sufficient, in fact I specifically said it wasn't sufficient. You said that it played no major role in science, and I said it did.

Alls I'm saying is that you made a sweeping generalization about my beliefs (they are all in my head) which cannot be justified scientifically. If you maintain this belief, it is a philosophical belief, and you are a philosopher. Or you could retract the statement, and withold judgement as to whether or not the supernatural can occur. Otherwise, you're being hypocritical.

Starboy

I agree it is used, and it doesn’t surprise me that it would be applied in cognitive psychology, since it is another example of an area of philosophy that branched off to greener pastures. But parsimony as a guiding principle leaves me flat. After all it is the goal of science to explore reality and invoking parsimony is assuming something about reality unnecessarily, since the results of experiment on nature is a much more convincing scientific argument in any situation where parsimony might be applied.

Claiming science is a philosophy is like claiming that science is literature since practicing scientists must publish their work. Yes it is a kind of literature, but so what. Thinking of it in that way does not impart any sense of what it is.

Ditto, unless of course luvluv agenda is to support the religious cause.

Hey! That was my sentiment.

Yes I do. A long time ago I was an FSU graduate student working on my dissertation in experimental super-conductivity, but since then I have been several kinds of manager, engineer and entrepreneur. I would very much like to get back into science.

Starboy

Starboy

Or you could have supplied the evidence, unless of course it was all in your head.

Starboy

luvluv

I didn't make any claim about my beliefs. You made the claim that not only my beliefs, but the beliefs of all supernaturalists, were all in their heads.

Now, unless you can demonstrate that scientifically, then it is simply a personal philosophy of yours. Since you disdain philosophy, you should ammend your statement.

Starboy

I have tried, but I can't get them to cooperate, since it is they that claim otherwise.

Starboy

luvluv

Nice dodge.

Starboy

Perhaps, or just another illustration that all Christian have to go in is faith. It would be refreshing to encounter more Christians that understood that.

Starboy

RichardMorey

Sure, I mostly agree with you. Often, though, because we of course do not have direct access to reality and we also (unfortunately) have, time and monetary constraints, we have to decide where we are going to spend our time. Parsimony has a hand in that. That does not mean that scientists believe that the universe holds to this "parsimony" standard; eventually (hopefully) the best theory wins out regardless of whether it is parsimonious or not.

Occam's razor is not a logically sound principle, but neither really is induction (as Hume showed). It does not keep it from being useful in many cases.

What, then, were Russel, Popper, and Kuhn writing about when they discuss science? Science is a particular kind of epistemology - it has something to say about knowledge, belief, and the justification thereof. I share your distaste for non-scientific philosophy and I see a time when non-scientific philosophy is a part of the past. Many of the issues of classical metaphysics have already been dealt with, or are being dealt with, in cognitive psychology or physics (thank goodness for that).
But science is an epistemology. Tentative beliefs (theories) are justified by successful experimentation and dodged attempts at falsification. Insomuch as these theories are true, they constitute knowledge about the universe.
This epistemology is gives us a method of determining whether to evolutionary theory is a better explanation then a Christian fundamentalist's creationism. Epistemology is philosophy. Science just is more successful than other philosophy.

Cool. I hope you are successful in getting back into science.

Biff the unclean

While he isn't particularly religious, the author is very critical of the naturalistic paradigm. Particularly irksome to him was the habit of the naturalist of "co-opting" the mysteries of life. He says that naturalists have a tendency to claim all mysteries as "future knowledge" thus absolving them of the need for humility or from the possibility of certain aspects of existence being beyond human understanding. He says that this tendency creates a egocentric and man-centered concept of viewing the world and that it makes people inconsiderate and disdainful of the need to respect the sanctity of life and the environment.
I'm what you might call a professional naturalist in the sense that I get paid to do it. Wendell Berry is a poet, not a naturalist. Were he a naturalist he would know that it is the religious point of view of nature, and not the Atheist, that has caused so much harm and is continuing to do so. The idea that man has been given dominion over the animals. That man isn't an animal, that nature is to be tamed and subjugated. That man should never limit the size of his families. That the world is a veil of tears, a place of trial before our true home. That God is separate from nature, as is man.
It is these religious based concepts that have wrecked havoc on the planet. It is being so ego centric and vain that you think you are created in the image of God that is the problem.
I still get a chill when I remember our Secretary of the Interior, Watt, (under Regan). He saw nothing wrong with destroying the environment because Jesus was returning soon and we wouldn't need all of these trees and animals and things anymore when the rapture came.

Fortunately for all of us, in the past few decades naturalistic (Atheist) thinking has replaced the superstitious worldview. It's too late for many species, but we are working day and night to save the rest.

RichardMorey

To be fair, Biff, not every religious person feels that way. Many religions stress a coexistence with nature, and even many Christians are environmentalists under that term "stewardship." I agree that the idea that nature is to be subjugated is a dangerous idea, but it could just as well be done by the atheist industrialist as the religious industrialist. There is no creed for atheism; there is nothing to guarantee that atheists must feel sympathy with other species. Many do, but many Christians do too.