ydoaPs Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 That's not true. At best, science requires only the assumption of "philosophical naturalism" for the observables you are testing. It requires no assumption of "philosophical naturalism" for all of reality. Since most religious people are happy to admit the working and application of physical law to the majority of their local observations, I see no contradiction. Indeed, it would be an unproven assertion (i.e. a "belief") to apply naturalism universally, which one might reason was in contradiction with philosophy of science itself. Does science not assume the laws of physics are the same everywhere?
YT2095 Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 Does science not assume the laws of physics are the same everywhere? only under the same conditions I believe.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 How did this thread go from "why are they closed?" to being a great example of the answer to that question?
CDarwin Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 How did this thread go from "why are they closed?" to being a great example of the answer to that question? Sorry, that was me again. Like a said, I didn't say the argument should be accepted. I don't personally. It's just an example.
seven8s Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 How did this thread go from "why are they closed?" to being a great example of the answer to that question? Perhaps what is lacking is a estrogen perspective? <s>
john5746 Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 The Darwin Fish thread didn't go so well... Sorry. I think I'm the one that started the de-railing of that thread.
DrDNA Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 I think I'm the one that started the de-railing of that thread. Sorry, that was me again. I applaud both of your introspective attitudes and willingness to throw your bodies on the proverbial hand grenade, but I disagree. I went back and re-read your posts and could find nothing inappropriate. It was....[name withheld for selfish, self-serving, political reasons]...
thedarkshade Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 Why is it that the street named "sweet resonableness" always has a a one-way sign, and I of course am the only traveller who obeys it. (in my opinion, according to my beliefs). What and where is that? It seems interesting!
iNow Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 How did this thread go from "why are they closed?" to being a great example of the answer to that question? Something to do with loads of ignorant people who are narrow minded seemed to rattle the proverbial hornet's nest... Who beside me got an infraction in here? Gcol? I suppose your post was also deleted, because I didn't see anything that warranted it... Mine was the biggest infraction the system allows... Now THAT is something to be proud of! It's funny how subjective all of our posts are.
Phi for All Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 How did this thread go from "why are they closed?" to being a great example of the answer to that question?1st Person: "Please stop yelling."2nd Person: "I'M NOT YELLING! THIS, THIS IS YELLING!!!" I say we pick 4-8 people, divide them into two teams and do a formal debate on the question, "Should SFN have a sub-forum that allows religious discussion?" If it's determined that we should, we should have another debate on the question, "How can we keep a new Religion sub-forum from being like the old ones?" Perhaps what is lacking is a estrogen perspective? <s>It can't hurt. Unless there's going to be another Inquisition. That didn't work out too well for estrogenders. They burned too well.
gcol Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 Why will the topic not go away? While pondering it yesterday evening, An image of a circus performer came to mind. He rides two horses, a foot on each. One was named Belief system, the other Scientific Rigour. By great skill and practice, the rider managed to control both horses, to the enthusiastic amazement of the audience, who having paid their money, were suitably entertained. All was well for a while, until the horses diverged, they appeared to distrust each other, and the rider, to avoid a serious case of split personality, was eventually forced to firmly plant both feet on one horse, at which point the audience lost interest and yawned. Moral: 1. If wanting to do some serious horseriding, learn to sit on it properly. 2. If wanting to control different horses simultaneously, sit in a carriage and use long reins. 3. Steer clear of horses that seem predisposed to run in different directions. (Some horses even seem to be able to run quite fast backwards).
Severian Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 1. If wanting to do some serious horseriding, learn to sit on it properly. I am fairly confident that I can ride two of your proverbial horses better than you can ride one. And that is not because I am a circus performer - it is because I am a complete person, capable of both reason and faith, rather than some half-man, crippled so that I can only manifest one or the other.
gcol Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 rather than some half-man, crippled so that I can only manifest one or the other. How very fair and even handed of you, aimed equally at single horse riders, whatever the name of their steed. Your circus act should command premium prices.
Severian Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 How very fair and even handed of you, aimed equally at single horse riders, whatever the name of their steed. In my view, someone who exhibits faith without reason is equally crippled.
gcol Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 In my view, someone who exhibits faith without reason is equally crippled. Because I consider faith and reason to be horses of incompatible temperament, that view makes no sense to me, so I am unable to answer it. Perhaps someone with no fear of 100 lashes worth of penalty points can respond instead?
YT2095 Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 Because I consider faith and reason to be horses of incompatible temperament, therein lies your problem. well let me tell you that just because YOU don`t understand it, doesn`t make it Not So! it works independantly of what you understand (or don`t) and is Not contingent upon what You think. and BTW, Lose the lame "warning points" comments, else you`re likely to get some just for being an Ass hat!
Dak Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 In my view, someone who exhibits faith without reason is equally crippled. what about reason without faith? I can't really see anything wrong with that?
YT2095 Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 there`s nothing "Wrong" with watching a Black & White TV, but Color is So much nicer
iNow Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 Lose the lame "warning points" comments, else you`re likely to get some just for being an Ass hat! Comments such as this sure don't help, man... especially when you're the one handing out warning/infraction points.
gcol Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 there`s nothing "Wrong" with watching a Black & White TV, but Color is So much nicer Indeed, every child would probably agree with you. But for a meaningful adult learning experience, surely the unambiguity and clarity of Black and White is preferable? Young minds like pretty things.
YT2095 Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 especially when you're the one handing out warning/infraction points. I am? Really!??? ok, why don`t you ask him how many he`s had for posting in here? or anyone else for that matter:cool: when you have done so (if you have the balls to put your actions where your mouth is), I expect an apology from you for False accusations. so Get Asking mister! Indeed, every child would probably agree with you. But for a meaningful adult learning experience, surely the unambiguity and clarity of Black and White is preferable? Young minds like pretty things. what? like Horses and Circuses you mean?
iNow Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 I am? Really!??? ok, why don`t you ask him how many he`s had for posting in here? or anyone else for that matter:cool: when you have done so (if you have the balls to put your actions where your mouth is), I expect an apology from you for False accusations. so Get Asking mister! Wow... as I said, not exactly helping. Please don't worry about the magnitude of my manhood. I'm quite confident that my testicles serve their purpose. I was speaking from personal experience. If you haven't infracted gcol, then I misinterpreted. No need to get all pissy.
Severian Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 Indeed, every child would probably agree with you. But for a meaningful adult learning experience, surely the unambiguity and clarity of Black and White is preferable? Young minds like pretty things. Let me put it another way. You have two legs (I presume). You could perfectly well live your life only using one of them, maybe by hopping. But your life will be more fulfilling if you use both of them. Some of the posters on this site would have you handicap yourself by hopping everywhere. 1
iNow Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 Some of the posters on this site would have you handicap yourself by hopping everywhere. Or... use knowledge and rationality to build a wheelchair or an artificial limb or a motorized cart...
gcol Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 iKnow: Just to clarify, I have not (yet?) received any naughty points in this thread. Thanks for riding to my defence, I apologise to you for misleading you into danger. I wonder if YT hs suffered a "two horse split" injury. Very painful. Hope he recovers soon.
Recommended Posts