Debating an Atheist

[CThomas]

What you mean to say is "methodological naturalism," not "methodology naturalism." And there is absolutely no need for science to adhere to MN on the grounds you articulate. Any more than it is necessary for science to commit to "methodological determinism" -- and hence rule out all of quantum physics on a priori grounds -- on the ground that if you admit the possibility of randomness you will stop looking for non-random explanations for unknown phenomena.

[mattrose]

I would have no problem with science sticking to methodological naturalism if scientists viewed themselves and their work humbly and recognized its limits. The problem with methodological naturalism is when scientists begin to insist that all truth is discoverable by methodological naturalism. The reason that is a 'problem' is b/c it is a philosophical bias masquerading as an unbiased methodology.

[mattrose]

RE:"3. God of the gaps is based on ignorance. The ID movement is largely based on new knowledge."

No- it is still god of the gaps, ID is still "no one knows therefore god dun it." No ones knows...yet. Science seeks for, and finds, answers.

We already know you think that. I disagree. It's not at all like your fake quote. It's more like... 'this has every mark of a designer, so perhaps design is the best explanation. Science is at its best when it allows for all possible explanations and truly lets the evidence find its best match.

RE: "4. Belief in God is not a 'science-stopper' because we should want to know God's ways and because we can utilize His designs to be creative ourselves. In other words, we are highly motivated to do science in the Christian worldview."

If a scientist really believed in special creation rather than evolution, then it would be stupid and frustrating to look for naturalistic scientific answers for questions that have miracles as the true cause. Science is defined as 'methodology naturalism' because only natural answers are sought, and found.

Again, I think you are just plain wrong. It is the Christian worldview that largely birthed the scientific age. The scientific age was birthed, largely, by people wanting to understand the way God ordered the world. The first and best scientists did understand the limits of science, but that didn't stop them from utilizing science.

[steve7150]

If a scientist really believed in special creation rather than evolution, then it would be stupid and frustrating to look for naturalistic scientific answers for questions that have miracles as the true cause. Science is defined as 'methodology naturalism' because only natural answers are sought, and found.











It's God who gave us brainpower and it's God who gave us desire to create and discover what he made, therefore He expects us to use the gifts he gave us.

[TrumanSmith]

What you mean to say is "methodological naturalism," not "methodology naturalism." And there is absolutely no need for science to adhere to MN on the grounds you articulate. Any more than it is necessary for science to commit to "methodological determinism" -- and hence rule out all of quantum physics on a priori grounds -- on the ground that if you admit the possibility of randomness you will stop looking for non-random explanations for unknown phenomena.

RE: "And there is absolutely no need for science to adhere to MN on the grounds you articulate."

Science = "methodological naturalism," by definition. Christians in science don't object to this.

The issue with Christians isn't science, but usually philosophy, where scientific thinking is extended into philosophy as "philosophical naturalism."

[TrumanSmith]

Again, I think you are just plain wrong. It is the Christian worldview that largely birthed the scientific age.

But now you are left in the dust, as a Christian, if you reject biological evolution (common descent). Special creation is just ancient superstition... magical thinking.

[mattrose]

Again, I think you are just plain wrong. It is the Christian worldview that largely birthed the scientific age.

But now you are left in the dust, as a Christian, if you reject biological evolution (common descent). Special creation is just ancient superstition... magical thinking.

Well, you can play the role of a prophet if you like... but at least you're admitting that in regards to the premise being discussed (does the Christian worldview militate against science?) you were in the wrong.

[TrumanSmith]

It's God who gave us brainpower and it's God who gave us desire to create and discover what he made, therefore He expects us to use the gifts he gave us.

If someone seriously believed that God created humans from scratch, than they'd be real stupid for looking for how such creatures could have naturally arisen. It would be like me claiming that Bigfoot doesn't exist, and yet going out every weekend looking for footprints in order to learn more about Bigfoot.

Scientists have to follow their heart and head if they want to make a breakthrough. Why would they be trying to make a breakthrough in a field that they think is bogus? That's why that supernatural thinking is a "science-stopper." If they really believe in creationism (from scratch) then they should complain that universities are wasting valuable money and resources by investigating it. And there is a ton of research going on in evolutionary studies (and also corresponding successes and discoveries).

[TrumanSmith]

Again, I think you are just plain wrong. It is the Christian worldview that largely birthed the scientific age.

But now you are left in the dust, as a Christian, if you reject biological evolution (common descent). Special creation is just ancient superstition... magical thinking.

Well, you can play the role of a prophet if you like... but at least you're admitting that in regards to the premise being discussed (does the Christian worldview militate against science?) you were in the wrong.

Well- if you are a Christian and reject evolution, then you are against modern science. You can't say Christians are leading science if they reject evolution. It means they are now being left behind... really, just because of the conflict evolution has with their precious Holy Book. It means there was no literal Adam.

"Adam and Eve are therefore not presented as historically real people, but as parabolic actors on an all too familiar stage of rebellious self-glorification."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeab ... sm-part-9/

[mattrose]

We're not talking about the truthfulness of evolution at this moment. We were talking about your suggestion that Christianity, as a worldview, makes one anti-science. We've established that this point of yours is historically non-factual.

Are there some Christians who are anti-science? Sure. They are confused. True science is a helpful resource. Much of what you call science is actually a mixture of science and philosophy.