Feser - Problems with his view of science and religion

[MaxVel]

Defining 'scientism' does not help when it is inconsistent 'layman's' club word.

Feser defined his terms, so your complaint about how others use the word is irrelevant and a dodge.

Empty assertion, doubly so since you have clearly shown that you understand neither Feser nor Aquinas.

I understand them very well.

Obviously you don't. You whiffed completely on three objections to Feser. You can only claim Aquinas' arguments are circular by using a broad definition of 'circular argument' which robrecht showed is doubtful even applies; and you repeatedly argue against 'Aquinas design argument' as if he had one, and as if it was the same as Paley's argument (it's not). You clearly have not even a beginner's grasp of Thomistic terminology, which means you can't make sense of the arguments.

The Last Superstition and Aquinas.

You've read both? And you still make threads and posts like the ones here? Wow, just wow.




Please re-read chapter three (particularly the end pages) of 'The Last Superstition' ; and Feser's presentation of Aquinas' Fifth Way in 'Aquinas' for discussion of design arguments and Aquinas' arguments .

[shunyadragon]

Feser defined his terms, so your complaint about how others use the word is irrelevant and a dodge.

Defining 'layman' definitions poorly and vaguely does not work on a professional level.

Obviously you don't. You whiffed completely on three objections to Feser. You can only claim Aquinas' arguments are circular by using a broad definition of 'circular argument' which robrecht showed is doubtful even applies; and you repeatedly argue against 'Aquinas design argument' as if he had one, and as if it was the same as Paley's argument (it's not). You clearly have not even a beginner's grasp of Thomistic terminology, which means you can't make sense of the arguments.

Reread that post, because I used two definitions, and Aquinas is clearly circular in both. You are making the same mistake as Robrecht selectively quoting my post.










You've read both? And you still make threads and posts like the ones here? Wow, just wow.




[/QUOTE]

[robrecht]

Reread that post, because I used two definitions, and Aquinas is clearly circular in both. You are making the same mistake as Robrecht selectively quoting my post.

You are still misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting the thread you are referencing. I discussed both definitions you cited (Sober & Rabkin), even though you did not properly attribute the second definition (Rabkin). In fact, it was you who used a partial quotation of the unattributed definition of Rabkin and did not even recognize its proper context and meaning and why it did not apply as a valid critique of Aquinas' fifth way. If you dispute this summary, please go back to the thread and properly contest my actual posts rather than misrepresent them here.

[metacrock]

Dr. Edward Feser is considered one of the prominent Theologians of contemporary Christianity. He has recently published Scholastic Metaphysics where provides considerable detail concerning his view of the problems of the relationship between science and Religion. In this explanation he attacks atheism, but unfortunately misuses science in this misdirected attack. The following is from an interview with Dr. Feser. His unfortunate use of the concept of 'Scientism' further clouds the issues. I believe he makes some of the similar mistakes as Plantinga makes concerning a theological view of science.....

First, it is false to assume that many or even considerable scientists consider 'science alone gives us knowledge of reality.' In reality only some if not only a few scientists believe this. In reality his description of 'scientism' is not popular today at all. It represents only the extreme of 'Philosophical Naturalism,' which represents only a minority of scientists, and the population in general. Most scientists believe in a diverse variety of beliefs, which do not directly influence their basic philosophical view of science.

a lot more than you think. Plus it include many big names. But why does it have to be all or most to be a problem,? Certainly that view dominates atheism.

....

Second, he makes the statement that science should include philosophy and theology. In reality science is based on the philosophy of science that has evolved over the centuries on dealing with the nature of 'How science can best interpret and understand the nature of our physical existence. Over the years philosophers like Popper have contributed to the 'Philosophy of Science.'

no he did not say it should he gave problems either way. That was the board side of the dilemma. science3 does not include philosophy of science. that runs into definitional problems for the idea of science.

I do not see any constructive contribution for the advancement of science in the writings of the ancient philosophers, nor theologians. Many contemporary Christian Theologians including Feser and Plantinga offer nothing constructive toward advancing the independent Investigation of Truth in science.

short sighted. I do. Mostly from the standpoint of understanding the paradigms. It wont produce discoveries in science but it helps us understand why we are doing something we call "science" and what it means to do it/

Third, including Theology in science is dangerous turf. The foundation of science is 'Methodological Naturalism,' which fortunately does not make any theological assumptions nor 'belief' considerations in science. This separation includes the rejection of any assumptions of atheism, nor the existence nor non-existence of Gods.

I believe in basically non overlapping magisterial but it's not entirely true that science has always been naturalistic. Newton practically wrote design argument into the laws of physics.

[shunyadragon]

a lot more than you think. Plus it include many big names. But why does it have to be all or most to be a problem,? Certainly that view dominates atheism.

Atheism assumes ontological naturalism as a philosophy, and it is not based on science. This has nothing to do with the Methodological Naturalism of Science, which will not nor cannot make any metaphysical philosophical assumption on the existence nor nonexistence of God(s).





no he did not say it should he gave problems either way. That was the board side of the dilemma. science3 does not include philosophy of science. that runs into definitional problems for the idea of science.




short sighted. I do. Mostly from the standpoint of understanding the paradigms. It wont produce discoveries in science but it helps us understand why we are doing something we call "science" and what it means to do it/





I believe in basically non overlapping magisterial but it's not entirely true that science has always been naturalistic. Newton practically wrote design argument into the laws of physics.[/QUOTE]

[shunyadragon]

Ignore the previous post. It is screwed up.

a lot more than you think. Plus it include many big names. But why does it have to be all or most to be a problem,? Certainly that view dominates atheism.

Atheism assumes ontological naturalism as a philosophy, and it is not based on science. This has nothing to do with the Methodological Naturalism of Science, which will not nor cannot make any metaphysical philosophical assumption on the existence nor nonexistence of God(s).

no he did not say it should he gave problems either way. That was the board side of the dilemma. science does not include philosophy of science. that runs into definitional problems for the idea of science.

There is most definitely a philosophy of science. It begins with Methodological Naturalism. Also the philosophical assumptions of uniformitism, which are constantly being tested in the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

short sighted. I do. Mostly from the standpoint of understanding the paradigms. It wont produce discoveries in science but it helps us understand why we are doing something we call "science" and what it means to do it/

He describes Ontological Naturalism as scientism, and describes it as an unsustainable philosophy and it will not produce discoveries, which is nonsense. Ontological Naturalism is a philosophical assumption, and never intended to produce discoveries. Atheist scientist do science like everyone else, Methodological Naturalism.

I believe in basically non overlapping magisterial but it's not entirely true that science has always been naturalistic. Newton practically wrote design argument into the laws of physics.

True, but modern science is based on Methodological Naturalism and is based on 'naturalism.' The use of the word 'scientism' implies science, which is false.

[metacrock]

Atheism assumes ontological naturalism as a philosophy, and it is not based on science. This has nothing to do with the Methodological Naturalism of Science, which will not nor cannot make any metaphysical philosophical assumption on the existence nor nonexistence of God(s).

you must not deal with atheists much. That looks nice on paper when you look at what Dawkin's, Stenger Churchland, Wilson Harris, Krauss and many others say it doesn't hold water. the thing is these guys think they are automatically experts on all of reality.

[metacrock]

Ignore the previous post. It is screwed up.



Atheism assumes ontological naturalism as a philosophy, and it is not based on science. This has nothing to do with the Methodological Naturalism of Science, which will not nor cannot make any metaphysical philosophical assumption on the existence nor nonexistence of God(s).

wrong. They do philosophy as science while espousing hatred of philosophy. Krauss has a chapter about killing philosophy but his talk about there being no God is philosophy.

There is most definitely a philosophy of science. It begins with Methodological Naturalism. Also the philosophical assumptions of uniformitism, which are constantly being tested in the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

I know there's a philosophy of science that what I did my doctoral work in. I said philosophy of science is not inherent in doing science. I thought you said it was. we may just be talking past each other again.

He describes Ontological Naturalism as scientism, and describes it as an unsustainable philosophy and it will not produce discoveries, which is nonsense. Ontological Naturalism is a philosophical assumption, and never intended to produce discoveries. Atheist scientist do science like everyone else, Methodological Naturalism.

I use the term scientism in a boarder since. but that's basically right.

True, but modern science is based on Methodological Naturalism and is based on 'naturalism.' The use of the word 'scientism' implies science, which is false.

Implies the attempt to turn science into a ideology like Marxism that supersedes all other thinking.