An infinite series of finite causes.

[seer]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The cashew begins to exist
the cashew has a cause
and the cause is a fruit, end of story.

That is what an atheist would say!

[shunyadragon]

You are conflating the scientific method and scientific findings. It is not a misuse of science. There is nothing really more to say other than that it is wrong for you to claim what scientific findings can and cannot be used for. I have really never heard anyone say this before.

You are trying to separate scientific methods from scientific findings, which is not ethical and a misuse of science.

Well yes there is Methodological Naturalism clearly limits the use of objective evidence and science and the findings of science to the hypothesis and theories of science. If it does fit it is not science. Scientific objective verifiable evidence, and the findings are neutral to any theological nor philosophical questions that do not satisfy the criteria of Methodological Naturalism.

Example provide scientific evidence or findings that can be used to support a theological belief.

That is why natural theology uses scientific data in its arguments.

Misuses.

[element771]

You are trying to separate scientific methods from scientific findings, which is not ethical and a misuse of science.

I’m not trying to do anything. They are separate since one is how we come to a conclusion and one is the conclusion.

And you are right, the conclusion is neutral which means it can be used by atheists and theists alike when formulating an argument.

I’m sure you don’t agree so please continue to lecture me about how you know more than people who actually do science for a living. That never gets old.

It’s like I am living in that commercial where people pretend they are experts because they stayed at a holiday inn.

[Tassman]

Just because scientific methodology operates under the assumption of methodological naturalism doesn't mean that the findings of science are some how off limits.

The findings of science are “off limits” to those seeking to use it for purposes for which science was not intended nor suitable.

But they aren't using the scientific method, they are using the conclusions.

The conclusions generated by the scientific method are distinct from the process.

Scientific "conclusions" are always a work in progress, and falsifiable...especially at the 'cutting edge' level of modern physics. There are no absolute conclusions in science, as opposed to religious beliefs; consequently scientific findings cannot be validly used to support an absolute belief system.

This is not feasible because cross discipline studies are necessary to provide a complete picture of reality. The findings in both the hard and soft sciences often guide the other.

True, but ‘theology’ is not a science at all, either hard or soft. Theology is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that a god exists. Since there is no verified evidence of this, the rest is commentary on a nonexistent being.

I am not arguing this.

I am arguing that WLC uses scientific findings in his philosophical argument and that there is nothing wrong with this.

Again, he isn't using the scientific method..just the conclusions from science. This is not the abuse of science because WLC doesn't claim to be "doing" science.

Yes there is a lot "wrong with this". WL Craig attempts to use selective findings from a discipline which specifically operates on the assumption of a non-supernatural universe, in order to support his faith-belief in the diametric opposite. It’s a tacky, opportunistic misuse of scientific data.

"Not God" or "Without God" is still a claim to knowledge.

No it's not. "Not God" or "Without God" is merely a claim of insufficient evidence to support belief in gods, or a god.

[seer]

It’s like I am living in that commercial where people pretend they are experts because they stayed at a holiday inn.

You nailed it!

[carpedm9587]

Except all those other things can be proven or disproven.

Yes they can - and have. I was comparing the amount of further attention they need from me - not how I came to the conclusion.

[seer]

Yes they can - and have. I was comparing the amount of further attention they need from me - not how I came to the conclusion.

Well I'm glad that we agree there are some things that we take as fact that we can not prove.

[carpedm9587]

Well I'm glad that we agree there are some things that we take as fact that we can not prove.

I don't think I ever said otherwise...indeed, we have to take many of these things "on faith." I cannot prove to you I am not a brain in a vat, but I find I act each day as though I believe I am not. Since I cannot prove it, I am essentially taking it on faith.

[element771]

The findings of science are “off limits” to those seeking to use it for purposes for which science was not intended nor suitable.

We may as well stop here.

There is no reason for scientific findings to be "off limits" to any argument.

Certain things are "off limits" to being studied by science because they cannot fit into the scientific method. I agree 100%.

But to just make a blanket statement about who can and cannot use scientific findings is absurd. I can think of several hypothetical situations that would show this position to be completely ridiculous.

[carpedm9587]

We may as well stop here.

There is no reason for scientific findings to be "off limits" to any argument.

Certain things are "off limits" to being studied by science because they cannot fit into the scientific method. I agree 100%.

But to just make a blanket statement about who can and cannot use scientific findings is absurd. I can think of several hypothetical situations that would show this position to be completely ridiculous.

I have to admit I have not tracked this exchange from its outset, but this response caught my eye. The sentence...

The findings of science are “off limits” to those seeking to use it for purposes for which science was not intended nor suitable.

...would seem to me to be true is a bit...(looking for a word)...authoritarian...(i.e., off limits)...but the general sense of it seems to be pretty obvious to me. Indeed, I look at the sentence and find I could soften it a bit, and then give it the general form:

The findings of <discipline> should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which <discipline> was not intended nor suitable.

So:

The findings of theology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which theology was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of philosophy should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which philosophy was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of biology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which biology was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of astrophysics should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which astrophysics was not intended nor suitable.

You would disagree with these statements? They almost seem trivial to me.

Are you reading them differently than me?

[element771]

I have to admit I have not tracked this exchange from its outset, but this response caught my eye. The sentence...

The findings of science are “off limits” to those seeking to use it for purposes for which science was not intended nor suitable.

...would seem to me to be true is a bit...(looking for a word)...authoritarian...(i.e., off limits)...but the general sense of it seems to be pretty obvious to me. Indeed, I look at the sentence and find I could soften it a bit, and then give it the general form:

The findings of <discipline> should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which <discipline> was not intended nor suitable.

So:

The findings of theology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which theology was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of philosophy should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which philosophy was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of biology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which biology was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of astrophysics should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which astrophysics was not intended nor suitable.

You would disagree with these statements? They almost seem trivial to me.

Are you reading them differently than me?

Oh I agree that it is too authoritarian and arbitrary.

A couple of things...

Cross disciplinary research uses findings as they were not intended to all of the time. Some of these are the most novel areas of research.

Let's take theology out of the question so there is no idea of bias or presuppositions.

If astrology claims that a certain planetary alignment predicts the birth of a new king in country X. Does it really follow that those astrologers cannot use astronomical data needed to show that this alignment happens? This alignment data certainly doesn't pertain to astrology but there is no reason that they cannot use the alignment data to support their claim.

IMO, there should not be any restriction on what data that you can use for an argument...the argument should stand or fall on the quality of the argument and data used not the type of data.

The idea that science cannot underpin arguments as a starting point leaves the impression that critics do not like the conclusion of the argument but can't find away to counter it. Instead, they just want to make science "off limits" because that allows the argument to just be dismissed as opposed to countering it.

[carpedm9587]

Oh I agree that it is too authoritarian and arbitrary.

A couple of things...

Cross disciplinary research uses findings as they were not intended to all of the time. Some of these are the most novel areas of research.

Let's take theology out of the question so there is no idea of bias or presuppositions.

If astrology claims that a certain planetary alignment predicts the birth of a new king in country X. Does it really follow that those astrologers cannot use astronomical data needed to show that this alignment happens? This alignment data certainly doesn't pertain to astrology but there is no reason that they cannot use the alignment data to support their claim.

IMO, there should not be any restriction on what data that you can use for an argument...the argument should stand or fall on the quality of the argument not the data used in it.

I think you might be focusing entirely on "not intended" and ignoring "nor suitable." Indeed, upon reflection, the "not intended" part is superfluous, given the presence of "nor suited." If he had said "or suited," I would agree with your statements because I agree conclusions from one discipline CAN be used for purposes not originally intended. Would you agree that these sentences are almost trivially true?

The findings of theology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which theology is not suitable.
The findings of philosophy should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which philosophy is not suitable.
The findings of biology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which biology is not suitable.
The findings of astrophysics should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which astrophysics is not suitable.


P.S. I have to admit, I do enjoy taking apart language and seeing what makes it tick. You are one of the few people here I appear to be able to do that with with no concern I may insult you in some fashion.

[element771]

I think you might be focusing entirely on "not intended" and ignoring "nor suitable." Indeed, upon reflection, the "not intended" part is superfluous, given the presence of "nor suited." If he had said "or suited," I would agree with your statements because I agree conclusions from one discipline CAN be used for purposes not originally intended. Would you agree that these sentences are almost trivially true?

The findings of theology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which theology is not suitable.
The findings of philosophy should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which philosophy is not suitable.
The findings of biology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which biology is not suitable.
The findings of astrophysics should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which astrophysics is not suitable.


P.S. I have to admit, I do enjoy taking apart language and seeing what makes it tick. You are one of the few people here I appear to be able to do that with with no concern I may insult you in some fashion.

Sure but that is where Tass' argument falls apart.

Theological point: Universe had a beginning.

Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

To say that someone cannot use this data to support this theological point is ridiculous.

I don't get insulted easily ....especially if I know that it is not intended as such. I don't get that from you.

[seer]

I don't think I ever said otherwise...indeed, we have to take many of these things "on faith."

Like universal moral truths?

[carpedm9587]

Sure but that is where Tass' argument falls apart.

Theological point: Universe had a beginning.

Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

To say that someone cannot use this data to support this theological point is ridiculous.

Agreed.

I don't get insulted easily ....especially if I know that it is not intended as such. I don't get that from you.

Thankfully - and back atcha.

However, it is my experience that a significant number of theists find the atheist position inherently insulting. I guess that is to be expected. Belief in god is not an abstraction to most of the theists I know, and wasn't to me either (back in the day). So to hear someone say, "god doesn't exist" is to hear someone essentially claim that people who believe god exists are worshipping/relating to something unreal, a "figment of their imagination," if you will. I can easily see how that would be received as "inherently insulting."