Creationism vs. Materialism/Naturalism

Wyrsa

12:08

@GratefulDisciple well I do "like" you as well. So no reason for either of us to stop doing that. Politics shouldn't stop people from being friends.

Ideology is a problem, if left unattended it replaces God in our lives.

It replaces intelligence as well, you don't need to think if you can xerox out the ideological response

The problem I have with "never trust a politician" is that it is an ideology in this case. If you understand the entirety of their situation, then you could trust them. But the majority of people do not.

I do not envy the position of political figure. And my statement is one I think is correct, abstractly politicians are supposed to be fed all information, and combine all of that together, with all considerations to end up with the most optimal response for their authority position.

This of course never happens, the information is flawed or too vast on the input stream. Or corruption and greed affect the "conbination" step.

the situation for a politician is impossible in modern times, who can possibly know "all the potential impacts for a pipeline project"? You literally cannot. The animals involved, the chemicals involved, the neighborhood involved, the economic impact, the criminal impact, the safety impact, the logistical requirements, ... and on and on. But the politician when properly performing thier role should choose and take responsibility for what is in their judgement the optimal compromise.

Someone is always unhappy in the end... that's how humans are

GratefulDisciple

19:04

@Wyrsa I don't think it's ideology; it's about the nature of political activity of having to appeal to a wide spectrum of people, and how in the end not every promise can be fulfilled, and thus several sectors of the electorate will not be happy.

Secondly, it's the hidden cost element when politicians shift attention to "punishing" the enemy that during campaign makes people cheering up. Already in the news headline, American farmers are gearing up for Chinese retaliation of not buying their soybean products. Every policy has its negative consequences; politician rarely include the full disclaimers of what they sell.

@Wyrsa I didn't expect them to process all the info; they need to delegate have his qualified staff (i.e. have public affairs degree, have relevant experience, etc.) to process them and THEN present him with the top 2-3 points. Once he decides, then he needs to sell it and needs to absorb the political cost. But if it's a good decision, the nation will benefit, and history will remember him as a good president.

But if from the get-go a president uses the blame game, heavily distort information, misdirect attention to conspiracy theories, etc. this behavior has nothing to do with the above 2 issues (hidden cost and processing complexity) but instead adds a self-inflicted third reason why this kind of politician should NOT be trusted: self-aggrandization.

@Matthew One way to move this discussion forward is this: You can show evidence in high school science textbooks, WHERE does it teach God doesn't exist? That God is unobservable by human soul? That God "had nothing to do" with Creation (i.e. that God did not create the universe ex nihilo)? If you can show this, you have ammunition for your argument.

@Matthew You keep mentioning "Jesus rose from the dead", which I agree is a miracle. However, this is NOT a scientific claim nor can it be scientifically proven because the instruments were not ready to measure Jesus's resurrection. If someone today is hooked up to a machine 24/7, yes, if that person comes back to life, we DO have scientific verification of a miracle. But in Jesus's case, it's no longer possible.

Most miracles are one-off events that also don't affect the laws of nature that science is establishing. Science does NOT have to say miracles cannot happen in order for scientists to do their job. Again, show me WHERE in science textbooks it says that God cannot do miracles.

What Hume did was philosophy, not science. People who buy into scientism DOES use Hume, but in so doing, they no longer wear their scientist hat.

Matthew

19:22

@GratefulDisciple Obviously they're not going to come out and say it. Counter-question: where do they suggest God might exist, as opposed to asserting that everything can be explained without reference to God? How many claim that consciousness is a purely chemical process (implicitly denying the existence of the spiritual)?

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew It's not their job to talk about God. But I'm challenging you to prove your point that scientists are out there pushing atheism to the high school kids.

@Matthew The study of consciousness is part of the philosophy of mind, it's not a simple science.

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple Is history science, or isn't it? If "the Sun formed from collapsing gasses", a historic claim, is a scientific claim, then "Jesus rose from the dead" must be also. If "Jesus rose from the dead" is not a scientific claim, then neither is "the Sun formed from collapsing gasses".

GratefulDisciple

If neurologist / cognitive scientists / behavioral psychologists / psychiatrists want to study the possible emergence of consciousness from material brain, then they NEED to qualify their findings as such. They have no jurisdiction to say consciousness is a PURELY chemical process.

@Matthew No, history is NOT science. You cannot observe the past in a laboratory under controlled condition.

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple Scripture says God made man from the dust of the Earth, as a special act of Creation. "Science" says man is an accidental descendant of pond scum. How do you not see a contradiction here?

@GratefulDisciple ...then Big Bang and Common Descent are not scientific claims.

@GratefulDisciple "Science" claims that consciousness is a purely chemical process.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew No, science doesn't say "man is an accidental descendant of pond scum". That's a particular theory of atheistic evolution, and that theory is a philosophical one.

@Matthew It's NOT a claim. It's an assumption. If data suggests otherwise, assumption will be revised / discarded.

Matthew

19:29

@GratefulDisciple I agree, but it's taught as "science" in schools.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew Same answer as my "Big Bang" / "Common Descent" answer.

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple Keep telling yourself that. I've been watching data come in for years that contradicts the existing models. They aren't discarded. The underlying reason for those models is to deny God; discarding them is not an option.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew Let's bring in some data. Let's enter your "exhibit A" into this "courtroom" (i.e. a high school science textbook). You'll be prosecuting attorney, I'll be defense attorney. We'll analyze the narratives in that book.

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple Have you not noticed how often Common Descent is claimed to be a "fact"? How any competing hypothesis is slandered? Described as "pseudoscience", "propaganda" and even "lies"?

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew They aren't discarded possibly because there's not much reason to. Again, it's not to deny God. There are plenty of God's interactions with human souls that are NOT the province of science.

@Matthew Bring in your "Exhibit A" please. And write up your opening statement in a case titled..... what kind of lawsuit is it.... a slander case?

Yeah.... it would be fun... but gotta work. I'm sure it's not that hard to find a science textbook in archive.org. Or even a free one that is open source.

Matthew

19:35

@GratefulDisciple Look at any secular source discussing the origin of life. Or, sadly, BioLogos. "Evolution" (i.e. Common Descent) is never presented as anything other than 'established fact'. How many even mention other possibilities?

GratefulDisciple

Maybe this website has your exhibit A: OpenSciEd

Matthew

What I find ironic is that you yourself are adamant that Common Descent is fact, yet you're requiring me to demonstrate that it isn't presented that way.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew I never said "Common Descent" is a fact. I do however, say "Jesus rose from the dead" as a fact, but not scientifically proven.

This case is about your claim that high school science textbooks slander Christianity, or teaches atheism.

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple Science doesn't "prove" things anyway.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew Science "proves" by demonstration of how cause leads to effect.

Matthew

19:39

Heh. Ironically, guesthollow.com/high-school-biology-online-textbook is one of the first results for "high school biology textbook" and is explicitly Christian. One of their 'selling points' is "references to evolution were taken out". 🙂

@GratefulDisciple ...so we agree Common Descent (and billions of years) are not "scientific claims"?

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew So that qualifies for my proposal 1-3 days ago that if I were a high school principal, I would use that kind of textbook.

@Matthew They are assumptions, not claims. Just like the Ptolemaic conception of our solar system before the Copernican conception takes over as the ruling assumption.

Matthew

If nothing else, I could certainly point to Wikipedia presenting them in a very biased manner.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew Come on. It's going to be fun. Let's be rigorous and play the lawyer game for once. You write your lawsuit using the prevailing standard and be ready to be prosecutor. @Wyrsa can be judge. I'll be the defense attorney.

Plenty of law briefs in the Internet to serve as template. Just use the rubrics, no need to be precise like writing code. So, include at the very least: the names of the parties, the laws violated, the charge, the evidence, etc. It's @Wyrsa responsibility to make sure it's actionable, and not frivolous.

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple None of us have time for that. 😛

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew But that would be a productive improvement rather than going the same points over and over.

Matthew

19:46

You're looking for a smoking gun. But the murder weapon is slow poison.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew You have to prove it's a poison brought about by the scientific community (of which there are plenty of Christian members, including my extended family members), not by atheists.

Matthew

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explan…

GratefulDisciple

Of course, I also agree atheists bring poison, but they brandish their murder weapons in the air like Atilla the Hun, such as the Four Horsemen of Atheism.

Matthew

Lyell wanted to "free the science from Moses". Darwin wanted to explain life without reference to God.

@GratefulDisciple ...and you're buying what they're peddling, no?

Did you ever watch this? youtube.com/watch?v=Yf3mR0XQe9Y

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew That would be an example of an activist atheist that is NOT stealthily introduce poison to a high school kid; you have to show that a high school science textbook includes that quote.

@Matthew Did I ever give you that impression? I'm not atheist, I have lots of other ways of showing how God is in the world while letting scientists do their job within the framework of the mainstream philosophy of science. BTW, I rarely read science books (except my school text books and I don't think they promote atheism).

Matthew

19:58

@GratefulDisciple That's a demonstration of "science"'s objectives and bias. And, no, a textbook isn't going to include that (yet), it would be too obvious.

@GratefulDisciple Do you believe Earth is billions of years old? Do you believe humans are descended from unicellular organisms?

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew Aren't you making the same kind of "false reading" that we accuse Critical Theory proponents of making when do "false reading" of the Bible, and other Western Civ books? The similarity is to focus on "bias", not fully fleshed-out statement.

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple What's your evidence that I am? In my experience, the most fervent supporters of Big Bang and Common Descent are equally zealous at denying that God exists.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew "The most fervent supporters of Big Bang and Common Descent are equally zealous at denying that God exists." We can make that a thesis to be proven, as though you're writing your M.A. in sociology thesis, since that's a sociological claim. I can play your academic thesis's main reader while @Wyrsa can be your second reader.

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple Well, that one is trivially proven. Go poke around Philosophy.SE for a bit. If you need help, look for anything Mark (if you can figure out how to identify his stuff with his user deleted) or I participated in.

Mind, I did qualify that claim with "in my experience". Whether my experience is "typical" would be a separate matter.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew What's Mark's and SRL's usernames after they are converted into user123456 format? I really need to make a suggestion to Meta that their Q&A are still linked for easy search. Note: each community will have different post-conversion usernames.

@Matthew So you had your share of atheists banging your doors or offering you poison the same way prosperity gospel & WoF & prophecy & tongue-prayer peddlers do to me? I can feel your pain.

In my case, I have to toughen-up my theology and hermeneutics so I will be impervious to those false prophets and false teachers. It's a lot of hard work and time to do research and readings.

Matthew

20:10

@GratefulDisciple I don't know offhand. You can probably figure it out from Questions to which I posted Answers on Philosophy.SE.

GratefulDisciple

@Matthew OK, thanks. Just by tracing your footsteps there I'm bound to come up with their user IDs.

Anyway, really gotta go and do some work now. Have a good rest of the day.

Matthew

@GratefulDisciple I wouldn't say they "bang on the door" per se, but they sure come out of the woodwork any time someone claims Big Bang or Common Descent aren't true. Food for thought; why are they only threatened by that?

@GratefulDisciple I can recommend some resources. AiG, CMI, IRC... 😉 I do recommend watching youtube.com/watch?v=Yf3mR0XQe9Y some time.

Transcript for

Creationism vs. Materialism/Naturalism