Church + Girlfriend problem.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger




There's a thing called context.

There's a thing called inability to read.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It's a philosophy, just like methodological naturalism.

However, I submit that methodological naturalism is philosophically untenable, just like agnostiscism.

How so?

Well, naturalism is not science, it is the philosophical foundation of it. Just like mathematics is not science, but you don't have science without mathematics.

That's what he said, just in different words. He didn't say naturalism is science or anything hinting at that. There's a thing called inability to read.

Sorry, if that last part was a bit mean. But it's a point that needs to be made.

[binTravkin]

I just know when we go to church we have stuff the preacher reads and we respond as a congrigation in saying "so sayeth we all" I think it real simply goes back to the church of long ago and that part just didn't get lost in translation so to speak.

That's what they say..

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
How so?

There are two cases where methodological naturalism holds true:

1. Ontological naturalism is true
2. Where there is non-interventionist god

2 directly violates Occam's Razor. Thus, methodlogical naturalism reduces to ontological naturalism. It in itself can't be defended philosophically.

Methodological naturalism is a 21st century deism. It's a position one adopts only to dazzle the diehard religionists.

Originally posted by DaShi
That's what he said, just in different words. He didn't say naturalism is science or anything hinting at that. There's a thing called inability to read.

Sorry, if that last part was a bit mean. But it's a point that needs to be made.

No. TA said "...science positions itself..."

That's not correct. Science did not position itself. Scienstists had always worked with a set of unstated assumptions, but philosophers seek to place science on a foundation where it would not fall over.

You really need to work on your comprehension skills.

[Bill3000]

What I am saying is that the 'supernatual' is just that part of the universe which we can never understand (do experiments on or discuss mathematically).

Wait, how exactly is this true? How is it that there is a part of nature that we can never udnerstand other than our faith that we will never understand it? While it is impractical to obviously learn all of the entire universe, that does not mean that we can't approach closer and closer toward the goal. If the supernatural was real, it would be possible to observe it and obtain information about it. But the problem is that all attempts to observe the supernatural, or things that are claimed to be supernatural, tend to break down, not showing the pattern that was claimed or the like. Even if we could not discuss experiements, we surely could discuss at least some mathematics about it - every pattern can be approximated by mathematics.

That does not say that we can't do physics (experiments&mathematics) on that part which it is possible to do them on. And just because we can't probe all regions (possibility space) doesn't mean that it isn't useful to probe the ones that we can. Science's success shows that if there is something (inherently supernatural or not) out there 'messing' with us, it isn't doing so in a that has disrupted our science so far.

Isn't this against Occam's Razor? The laws of physics being uniform across the universe is the most basic tenet of science - what use would allowing something that we cannot observe or have no records of existing outside of our own assumptions of the universe be in this case? Plus, if the supernatural isn't "messing" with us, then wouldn't it better to assume that there is no supernatural forces to mess with?

It is similiar to the question if aliens are responsible for the highly energetic cosmic rays we see. While this would make useless the theories (with black holes or quasars) that we currently have about them, it doesn't invalidate the method. In addition, it wouldn't invalidate the process.

It would invalidate the process for that particular subject, as well as bring questions as to if there actually is influence by nonterrestrial intelligence in other matters. How do you know that there are no other celestial matters which are influenced by extraterrestrial intelligence if this was shown? Once you take into account these factors, you need to take into account it everywhere. For example, if the law of conservation of energy is vioilated because it is found that some energy leaks or comes from a parallel dimension, you need to take it into account everywhere, because the conservation of energy in our own material universe would not be a tenet of science. It's a basic assumption in science - invalidating this assumption would invalidate the theories which have that assumption.


What I am saying here is that, in the end, what we would consider the supernatural would simply be part of the laws of nature which we do not understand yet. It is more elegant to say that god could "edit" the properties of the universe by taking advantage of the properties of the most fundamental laws of physics, rather than rewriting the laws of physics in a particular way altogether. Probably the best example I could think here is changing the shape and size of the compact dimensions in string theory, assuming that it is true, of course.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Bill3000


Wait, how exactly is this true? How is it that there is a part of nature that we can never udnerstand other than our faith that we will never understand it?

Umm, it takes a lot of faith to think that we will understand all parts of nature, since many of our current theories (like String Theory) can never (as far as we can see) be tested experimentally.

Those who think that String Theory will ever become science, like QED is science, have more faith than many religionists..

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Bill3000
If the supernatural was real, it would be possible to observe it and obtain information about it. But the problem is that all attempts to observe the supernatural, or things that are claimed to be supernatural, tend to break down, not showing the pattern that was claimed or the like. Even if we could not discuss experiements, we surely could discuss at least some mathematics about it - every pattern can be approximated by mathematics.

Err, you completely missed my point. What we dont' have the mathematics to explain or the technology to probe is to us as supernatural as God or anything els e like that.

Back 2000 years ago, all attempts to understand lightning was left with supernatural explanations, does that mean lightning is supernatural?

Also, the definition of supernatural is that it isn't capable of being explored using our technology or mathematics.

If we could start defining angels and the like with math, and could make instruments to probe ghosts (like in ghost busters), those things would quit being supernatural and would isntead be just another branch of science and the natural world.

Jon Miller

[DaShi]

No. TA said "...science positions itself..."

That's not correct. Science did not position itself. Scienstists had always worked with a set of unstated assumptions, but philosophers seek to place science on a foundation where it would not fall over.

No, he said that "science assumes a position." And why you used quotes, when it is wrong, baffles me (well, not really, I already sent you a pm as to why). So it's clear that you're misunderstanding what he said. Although, you hit correctly in the next paragraph. What you're thinking he said is that science takes a position. See below. Now you could argue that he's wrong about science's assumption.

You really need to work on your comprehension skills.

I see nothing has changed with you. Sad. Seriously, take my first suggestion.