Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

[bippy123]

As we will see by this quote the scientists who are in the current materialistic paradigm even admit to using philosophy in their science as professor lewontin admitted here



‘

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 explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.

This speaks volumes then I could say myself.

[Morny]

As Bippy pointed out, science itself is built upon a philosophy about how we go about knowing things. So the irony of such a statement, well... I suppose that's why many pop scientists are oblivious to their philosophy being mixed in with their science.

I, along with innumerable scientists, don't consider the basic tools of scientific inquiry as "philosophy", because of the very issue that you mention. People mix in and mix up those useful basic tools with the vast expanse of scientifically vacuous philosophy, like philosophical naturalism.

The scientific inquiry toolbox comprises logic/math, the scientific method, methodological naturalism, Bayesian analysis, abductive reasoning, hypothetico-deduction, ..., and oh, morning coffee, which I obviously need to cut back on.

In any case, everyone has their own personal worldview.
Some worldviews just fit with what we know about the world better.

If you prefer not to contemplate such matters, which form the basis to a deeper understanding of questions about life, meaning, purpose and the like, then I suppose our discussion is really at an end.

As well as anyone, I enjoy philosophy and wide range of other mental and physical pursuits. But scientific discovery is not an output of those pursuits.

Why are you even on this board though?

Because the title includes the word "Science" --- and it's my day to watch you guys.

[Morny]

Sorry to let you in on this morny but philosohy proceeds science . Most honest scientists know this and they make metaphysical interpretations of evidence all the time.

Then name an instance within the last hundred years, when philosophy was essential to adding to our scientific understanding of the world.

As we will see by this quote the scientists who are in the current materialistic paradigm even admit to using philosophy in their science as professor lewontin admitted here [...]

Regarding your Lewontin quote ...

Congratulations, at best, you've found a materialist. Materialism is an untestable philosophical position, which is not effective at testing and refining science beyond simply using the science toolbox I mentioned in the previous post.

That non-partisan science toolbox gives anyone from the strident atheistic to the fanatically religious a common basis from which to test and refine science.

[Byblos]

Then name an instance within the last hundred years, when philosophy was essential to adding to our scientific understanding of the world.

Substitue the word philosophy for the word reason and see how silly your statement sounds.

[Kurieuo]

As Bippy pointed out, science itself is built upon a philosophy about how we go about knowing things. So the irony of such a statement, well... I suppose that's why many pop scientists are oblivious to their philosophy being mixed in with their science.

I, along with innumerable scientists, don't consider the basic tools of scientific inquiry as "philosophy", because of the very issue that you mention. People mix in and mix up those useful basic tools with the vast expanse of scientifically vacuous philosophy, like philosophical naturalism.

The scientific inquiry toolbox comprises logic/math, the scientific method, methodological naturalism, Bayesian analysis, abductive reasoning, hypothetico-deduction, ..., and oh, morning coffee, which I obviously need to cut back on.

This has nothing to do with the original argument, so it doesn't need much response.
I'm really not sure what it is you're trying to argue for or against.

[Kurieuo]

Then name an instance within the last hundred years, when philosophy was essential to adding to our scientific understanding of the world.

Substitue the word philosophy for the word reason and see how silly your statement sounds.

Seems that "science" provides Morny and "innumerable scientists" all the reasoning needed.
Never mind how or why it does. Or even whether such mixed with his own thinking leads to true knowledge.

[abelcainsbrother]

First off we need to know life evolves according to science before we can include God into it.Pointing out God directed evolution does you no good if life does not evolve.It might be easy to just avoid all of the debating about it and claim God directed it but I'm not convinced life evolves and so there is no reason for me to reject what I believe in order to believe God directed evolution.I'd rather be in the minority and be right than be in the majority and be wrong.I will say this if life does evolve then yes it would be foolish to reject a God that directed it,that got it started.

[Morny]

Then name an instance within the last hundred years, when philosophy was essential to adding to our scientific understanding of the world.

Substitue the word philosophy for the word reason and see how silly your statement sounds.

The word "reason" doesn't appear in my statement.

[Jac3510]

Don't be petty. You know what he meant.

[Morny]

Then name an instance within the last hundred years, when philosophy was essential to adding to our scientific understanding of the world.

Substitue the word philosophy for the word reason and see how silly your statement sounds.

Seems that "science" provides Morny and "innumerable scientists" all the reasoning needed.
Never mind how or why it does. Or even whether such mixed with his own thinking leads to true knowledge.

You're not reading carefully. I'm making a specific statement about what works and what doesn't work with testing and refining science. I even specified areas of what I mean by non-philosophy. I gave an example of philosophy (PN) that isn't useful for science. And someone just gave another useless piece of evidence, viz., someone on YouTube babbling about seeing Jesus while being dead. He might be correct, but the he hasn't given science any way to evaluate the evidence.

And still no one has given an example for which I originally asked.

[Morny]

Don't be petty. You know what he meant.

I know exactly what he meant. If someone calls me silly, don't I have the right to let the irony of his reply sink in?

[Jac3510]

Not while being petty, you don't. The irony of your attempt is that it makes you look silly, as you are wrong on the substance of your remark regardless. Add to that the fact that you're admitting that your response is little more than a personal attack, and my point is underlined.

Again, don't be petty. It's bad enough to be wrong. It's worse to be a jerk in the process.

[Byblos]

Then name an instance within the last hundred years, when philosophy was essential to adding to our scientific understanding of the world.

Substitue the word philosophy for the word reason and see how silly your statement sounds.

The word "reason" doesn't appear in my statement.

You're right. Did you use your power of reason to arrive at that correct observation? If so you've affirmed the importance of philosophy. But as Jac said, you know exactly what I meant.

[Kurieuo]

Morny why did you even bother responding?
It is clearly a rational formal argument (philosophy). So you keep to your scientism and just don't bother here.
This is obviously a philosophical argument, and while I initially thought you had a serious rational response, I feel my original posts have been disrespected.
I kind of feel like I was trying to setup a game (topic) to be discussed, and then you another kid came over and stomped all over it because you wanted to play your own game. Well, I don't want to play your scientism game. So please take that somewhere else. I'd appreciate if the red herrings stopped now.

Science vs Philosophy is becoming a more and more common thing it seems, but is so stupid and unnecessary. Please open up another thread to discuss this.

And, if there is anyone reading on the other side who doesn't hate philosophical reasoning, then I'd appreciate your response. I really wish we have some charitable Atheistic reasoners on this forum rather than those of scientism.

[bippy123]

Then name an instance within the last hundred years, when philosophy was essential to adding to our scientific understanding of the world.

Substitue the word philosophy for the word reason and see how silly your statement sounds.

Seems that "science" provides Morny and "innumerable scientists" all the reasoning needed.
Never mind how or why it does. Or even whether such mixed with his own thinking leads to true knowledge.

Correct , the problem is he is using philosophy and he doesn't even know it .