Alvin Plantinga’s new book on Science and Religion is out.

[headheart]

Do you think that "involving" God in the sciences in any way is always God-of-the-gaps reasoning?

Yeah! I think it was Prof. Jeff Schloss who said God helped his science. Even the creationist Dr AE Wilder-Smith (God rest his brilliant bones) claimed divine assistance in some of his discoveries.

Peace,
Eric.


OFF-TOPIC BUT FUN.

1. The "End" of Love: Evolutionary Psychology, Altruism, and Human Purpose BY PROF. JEFF SCHLOSS
2. LOGOS IN NATURE - DR. AE WILDER-SMITH

3. VIDEO:


Altruism In Evolution: A Christian and Non-Theist Discuss - The Veritas Forum at Cal Poly SLO

[Whag]

Imagine in the future that Darwinian evolution (or neo-Darwinian evolution, or whatever you want to call the current mainstream theory) is bettered and replaced in the future by some other naturalistic theory of evolution. Would that show that Darwinian evolution had been unscientific? Clearly not. Obviously the fact that a theory is rejected by another does nothing to show that the older theory is unscientific. So if you want to show that Newton's "use" of God (or anyone else's) is unscientific then you need to say something interesting about it other than "it was overthrown".

Nightbringer, this post is why I'm not responding to you point by point. You avoided my reply to this, so it is a waste to respond to you anymore. You cannot at all compare evolutionary theory with creationism, which has no evidence. Evolution has tons, and science needs tons of evidence, and that's why it would not be called "unscientific" if it was "replaced." You fundamentally misunderstand the obstacle to progress that GOTG is.

And you still don't understand the Newton issue. It's not that he had a notebook full of ideas to be "overthrown." He literally gave up and allowed someone like LePlace to solve the problem. So it's not the same thing, and yes, of course it's unscientific. What he proposed involves literally no math at all. So how is that science?

I can only assume you don't understand GOTG enough to claim I misrepresented you. That's why I asked that question about a natural phenomenon that we don't know the origins of. I'll pick one. Echolocation. Let's say we stop investigating that and say that God gave animals who didn't have biosonar biosonar. I'm trying to understand your line of thinking because you've haven't really been clear and have evaded important questions about what you're actually proposing.

[headheart]

I can only assume you don't understand GOTG enough to claim I misrepresented you. That's why I asked that question about a natural phenomenon that we don't know the origins of. I'll pick one. Echolocation. Let's say we stop investigating that and say that God gave animals who didn't have biosonar biosonar. I'm trying to understand your line of thinking because you've haven't really been clear and have evaded important questions about what you're actually proposing.

I hope it's not my turn to spin the line of phrase you used on me. Are you two done yet?

[Whag]

I hope it's not my turn to spin the line of phrase you used on me. Are you two done yet?

I think, at the very least, when anyone claims that science must pay stronger heed to religion and philosophy, they should be prepared to say how. I don't want to be linked to Plantinga's essays about methodological naturalism for the answer. I'd rather hear about the practical applicability of science paying more mind to religious ideas and concerns.

[headheart]

I think, at the very least, when anyone claims that science must pay stronger heed to religion and philosophy, they should be prepared to say how. I don't want to be linked to Plantinga's essays about methodological naturalism for the answer. I'd rather hear about the practical applicability of science paying more mind to religious ideas and concerns.

I understand.
In my faith statement I begin with no divisions and find it helps me to relax and enjoy the Lord and the cosmos. It wasn't always that way. Believe it or not my studies in theology allowed me to ease into studying biology and physics and really enjoying them. I'm more into Anthropology but I do enjoy rogue66's - Fossil Finds. Peace, Eric.

ps. So what are your roots?

[Whag]

I understand.
In my faith statement I begin with no divisions and find it helps me to relax and enjoy the Lord and the cosmos. It wasn't always that way. Believe it or not my studies in theology allowed me to ease into studying biology and physics and really enjoying them. I'm more into Anthropology but I do enjoy rogue66's - Fossil Finds. Peace, Eric.

ps. So what are your roots?

If only Plantinga et al knew how to relax and enjoy the Lord of the cosmos, they might have built some epistemic cred.

My roots are skeptical. At the age of 7 I began questioning enough of the core claims of the Bible to determine that's exactly what its author would want me to do. No one ever taught me how to switch off skepticism or logically explained how belief amounts to virtue.

[headheart]

If only Plantinga et al knew how to relax and enjoy the Lord of the cosmos, they might have built some epistemic cred.

My roots are skeptical. At the age of 7 I began questioning enough of the core claims of the Bible to determine that's exactly what its author would want me to do. No one ever taught me how to switch off skepticism or logically explained how belief amounts to virtue.

He's a philosopher and they cannot just change direction. There has to be a lot of thinking and argumentation before that happens and he seems to be very content. I've learned more about life in my struggles than in times of ease.
I'm not sure such a thing can be switched off but Os Guiness wrote some interesting things about it in his first book. Faith in two minds.
I'm not sure that beliefs do. Have you read Galatians 5 where the one fruit of the Spirit is self-control. Tom Wright's new book Virtue Reborn has some interesting thoughts about that. I still that the incarnation and atonement are laden with wisdom that is there for the picking.

Peace,
Eric

[Tassman]

-------> :0
....

I have been engaging in “earnest dialogue” like crazy. My “little version of atheism” is based on the lack of substantiated evidence for the existence of the supernatural and your complete lack of “earnest dialogue” has done nothing to change my mind.

....

Hopefully you will one day free yourself from the bondage of irrational supernaturalism.

-------> :0


You mean your "little" straw doggy. Keep on pounding your "little" drum.

Let the "unbinding" begin.
Eric.

In what way is this a response?

Please just defend your own assertions. These hit-&-run tactics of yours are unacceptable. Further, the fact that you run away could indicate that you are unable to defend your assertions, and surely that can’t be correct.

What “preconceptions, misconceptions”, am I “loaded more and more” with? You said it; defend it.

And: “…people have "patiently" tried to point you in the right direction”. What “right direction” are you referring to?

And: Just what is “the right pathway” that you hope I find my way onto?

And: To what “unbinding“ are you referring to when you say: "Let the unbinding" begin”.

And in your dialogue with Whag: “supernatural stuff is good in books but it's of no use to a contemplative. It goes into the box marked garbage and ends up on the fire of silence along with ten years of naturalism”.

So you are a “contemplative” it seems. This does not exonerate you from addressing that which I have been endeavoring to get out of you in several threads. Are you arguing from the position of supernaturalism or naturalist? And, please explain what is meant by the bolded. Taking refuge in mystic "dark night of the Soul" stuff is mere evasion.

[nightbringer]

Not what I'm getting at, though for new explanations to have merit they need to have explanatory power. Attempts to use god as a reason has, in every instance I've ever seen it used, amounted to "we don't know, therefore it must be god"

Of course they need to have explanatory power, where have I denied that? You are just repeating yourself, I'm granting (if only for the sake of argument) that using God as a scientific explanation has always previously failed. What I'm asking is, what follows from that? Is God, as a result, to be banished from the scientific enterprise from now on? If so, why? What is the reason for that? What is the argument? Please actually articulate it.

Is there an example of this happening in reality?

I'm not going to chase this red herring. I presented an illustration/thought experiment to demonstrate that just because an entity has been invoked before in a failed scientific hypothesis, that is no reason to reject it from future theories. Whether there is an analogous case to that black hole illustration in actual history is utterly utterly irrelevant. The point is, if that imaginary history had been true, would we reject black holes from science? Yes or no. You do not need a real example to confront that same point. If you fail to answer I shall rightfully take the evasion as nothing more than a dodge.

Regarding god, how many different things that were once thought to be god actively doing stuff are now understood as natural causes, predictable. It's not a single instance of god-explanation being replaced by natural-explanation, but numerous examples and they are all one way. There hasn't ever been a scientific discovery reversed because of something someone gleaned from a religious text, has there?

Suppose this is true, I'm asking; what of it?

Especially if we expand this to religion in general, and not just Christianity, we see a pattern of ancient civilizations trying to understand the world and, almost inevitably, anthropomorphizing it. It makes sense that they would. Everything that happens, they see an actor behind. Everything on their level they see has people/animals taking action and causing results. So when it rains they imagine "whose causing that" and, bam, storm god. The shifts from animism to polytheism to monotheism is a consolidation of powers, so to speak.

This, I think, is the most illustrative thing you've said. It seems to me that you are just compelled by a certain narrative of how things are going for human beings. "Before we invoked gods to explain things and now we use material causation." Your existential sense of where humanity has come from and where it is going, relegates God to a stage in human development that we have passed. You sense that God must be excluded from science because, so it seems to you, we're simply past that. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that this stance can't be supported from any actual argument from the sciences. One believes it only in as far as one finds that narratives a compelling and sense-making account of where we're at.

Even in the black hole example, if black holes had explanatory power, then the scientist would then be beholden to show this, facts, arguments, the whole shebang.

Whenever people have tried to do that with god as having explanatory power, it hasn't panned out.

But what are you actually getting at? You're leaving it all up to me to interpret what principles or arguments you're actually implying. So what if it didn't pan out then. What does that have to tell us about any future attempts?

What principles are those?

I should very much like an answer to that myself. I have tried to flesh out the minimal pointers to your own thoughts that you've given me but you aren't satisfied with my articulations. Well how about you actually explain more fully what you think a "god-of-the-gaps" explanation is, whether an inference to God in the sciences is always such an explanation, and why you think that.

[nightbringer]

Whag, would you agree that the following is what God-of-the-gaps reasoning looks like?

1. There is currently no plausible naturalistic explanation for X.
2. Therefore, God is the cause of X.

[headheart]

Tassman/Jamie,

Is it getting chilly in here again?

Perhaps a little Loreena McKennit will brighten up you tuneless phrases:


Loreena McKennitt - The Dark Night Of The Soul (HQ)

O naturalist do not mock the one who loves you.

Firstly, so as not to burden another thread with more of what we've already discussed on this forum and per email I'm not going to repeat myself.

Secondly, Tassman/Jamie readers please refer to "There is no evidence for the biblical (J)esus" for my final words in this regard = post 3376 )

Finally, the truth is Jamie (though I did prepare a full reply for you) I really don't feel comfortable repeating what I've said to you over and over. It's getting creepy. As this is not the place nor the setting for engaging / discussing my personal prayer style and now seeing as you've turned aside to finely tongued wordage (my short prescription follows) perhaps such energies would be better spent in silent contemplative prayer. In short I don't need to argue what is clear from my earlier points. Journey prayerfully.

Peace,
Eric.

[Whag]

Whag, would you agree that the following is what God-of-the-gaps reasoning looks like?

1. There is currently no plausible naturalistic explanation for X.
2. Therefore, God is the cause of X.

Yes.

[Whag]

I presented an illustration/thought experiment to demonstrate that just because an entity has been invoked before in a failed scientific hypothesis, that is no reason to reject it from future theories.

First, please don't say entity when you mean God. Second, since God is immaterial, how do you expect science to fit God into the math and the models in "future theories"?

Your argument is speculative. The premise seems to be envisioning a complete turning of science on its head in the future where science finds a way to plug immaterial variables into existing models. That is ludicrous. You can't base a strong argument on that kind of speculation.

[nightbringer]

First, please don't say entity when you mean God. Second, since God is immaterial, how do you expect science to fit God into the math and the models in "future theories"?

Your argument is speculative. The premise seems to be envisioning a complete turning of science on its head in the future where science finds a way to plug immaterial variables into existing models. That is ludicrous. You can't base a strong argument on that kind of speculation.

Urgh. Whag you seem completely unable to ever actually understand any point I'm making. NOTHING I said in that illustration was about a complete turning of science on its head. It was ONLY an illustration to demonstrate that just because the existence of a particular entity has been wrongly inferred before, that doesn't mean it always will be. Which, frankly, shouldn't need pointing out at all since it is an incredibly obvious matter of simple logic. And I will damn well use the world "entity" if I like seing as I was talking about the absurdity of a general principle that I took Jaecp to be supporting.

Consider our conversation over.

[Whag]

Urgh. Whag you seem completely unable to ever actually understand any point I'm making. NOTHING I said in that illustration was about a complete turning of science on its head. It was ONLY an illustration to demonstrate that just because the existence of a particular entity has been wrongly inferred before, that doesn't mean it always will be. Which, frankly, shouldn't need pointing out at all since it is an incredibly obvious matter of simple logic. And I will damn well use the world "entity" if I like seing as I was talking about the absurdity of a general principle that I took Jaecp to be supporting.

Consider our conversation over.

From wiki:

An entity is something that exists by itself, although it need not be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate.

In business, an entity is a person, department, team, corporation, cooperative, partnership, or other group with whom it is possible to conduct business.

There a confusion of terms here, since science doesn't deal with entities. That's more a term for business, in addition to philosophy and religion.

That's why I think it's safe to assume that when ID brings up entities, they're referring to God.