stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | 47
rvb8August 19, 2017 at 11:06 pm
Barry @41,
what is the point of a ‘science’ blog that never introduces new science, or science related topics?
“On The Magical Thinking Inherent In The New Atheism.”
Really?
Judge Jones said ID would be perfectly acceptable as a subject for study in Public Schools, so long as it was confined to the Humanities; Social Studies, History etc.
This blog would make a lot more sense if it had a title like;
‘Uncommon Descent: A Philosophical Journey Through Creation.’
|
the Firehose of Derp replies:
| Quote |
48
kairosfocusAugust 20, 2017 at 5:09 am
RVB8, again, kindly provide a credibly empirically observed case where functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information (especially text but also that implied by coherent, functional configuration) comes about by blind chance and mechanical necessity. Similarly, kindly show us how intelligence reduces to mechanical configurations originating by such blind chance and necessity, while preserving the credibility of knowing, reasoning and responsibly deciding. Further, kindly show us that scientific inference, theorising and explaining can be implicitly confined to a physicalist, evolutionary materialistic circle without begging questions regarding the goal of science as seeking truth about our world warranted by empirical evidence obtained via observation. And the like. If you look at that seriously, you will see that ID is about a major new issue in science: studying signs of intelligence and where they point regarding the objects, processes and phenomena of our world. Also, that such issues raise questions about ideologies embedded in science and education, the media, policy-making circles and more, requiring an effort to also address underlying worldviews and cultural agenda questions. KF
PS: Have you been able to acknowledge as yet that many dozens of ID-supporting contributions are now part of the corpus of peer reviewed, scientifically oriented literature? (Your attempt to push ID into “humanities” strongly suggests, no. Even, as it points to your support for self-refuting scientism. FWIW, the notion that “Science” effectively monopolises knowledge is a self-undermining philosophical claim. This illustrates the too often unacknowledged value of philosophical considerations in doing sound science. I suggest that a pondering of Newton, Opticks, Query 31, will do some good. Likewise, the General Scholium to his Principia.)
|
| Quote |
49
kairosfocusAugust 20, 2017 at 5:15 am
Mung, is a necessary being caused? Is there any possibility of a world without distinct identity, thus two-ness? Can utter non-being give rise to anything by exerting causal influence? Were there ever only true nothing, then, would that not forever obtain? Thus, do we not face the futility of proposed transfinite causal sucession to now or else a finitely remote necessary being world root? One, sufficient to account for rational, responsible, morally governed creatures . . . us? Is it then even up to the level of the high achievement, error, to imagine that everything has a cause? (Instead of merely manifesting utter — and too often, willfully insistent — ignorance and failure to understand, acknowledge and respect as significant what is meant when serious thinkers speak of God.) KF
|
| Quote |
50
kairosfocusAugust 20, 2017 at 6:07 am
F/N: One aspect of being with distinct identity is that it has characteristics which must all obtain at once of the same thing for it to be that thing. This implies that such must be mutually consistent, thus why a square circle is impossible of being: core characteristics for one half cannot hold while those for the other half also hold. So, a serious candidate being must be internally coherent in its core, defining characteristics. Of such [for all we know] possible beings, we have contingent and necessary beings. The first obtain in at least one but not in all possible worlds, reflecting that they are causally dependent on prior, external, enabling on/off factors, cf a fire and need for heat, fuel, oxidiser as well as a viable chain reaction. necessary beings are tied to the framework for any world to exist and so are present in all worlds, we see two-ness as a case in point. This then leads to the point that a serious candidate necessary being must either be impossible of being or else it will exist in any world. In this context the atheist cannot simply quip about believing in one fewer god-candidate than monotheists, but need to address being, existence of a world and existence of us as rational, responsible, morally governed creatures in it. As God is the most serious candidate necessary being, they also need to show cause as to why they imply that such a being is impossible. And, logic of being is rational evidence. Where also, understanding being, cause etc provide ground work for scientific thought on actual beings, causes, dynamics, etc. This includes that structure and quantity are characteristics of beings, thus we see the relevance of Mathematics and its power in Science and life. Again and again, philosophical considerations are key to understanding and undergirding science. KF
|
| Quote |
51
kairosfocusAugust 20, 2017 at 6:36 am
PS: One of the consistent patterns we have found over the years is that the errors of evolutionary materialism trace to worldview issues and/or to problems of conception tied to fundamental principles of reasoning. Such are so dominant that it would be irresponsible for this blog’s main contributors not to address such. Accordingly, we reject the sort of framing being imposed by RVB8 et al, that would try to block us from addressing the roots of their many errors. |
|
