The trouble with modern philosophy
D Maitre
not exist. The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
of God's existence through the "scientific" principle that a theory is
not scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved.
Since the idea that God exists in heaven cannot be disproved (because
no scientist can go to heaven and prove that He is not there, or even
find heaven, for that matter), scientists conclude that the statement
"God exists in heaven" is unscientific and, therefore, laughable;
However, this philosophy was designed to omit God and the supernatural
from everyday thought.
That is, to a scientist, the statement "there is no God" (the
religious humanist evolutionist's mantra) is "scientific" proof that
there is no God. This foolishness occurs because the two
possibilities related to the question of God's existence are "there is
no god" and "God exists", and since, as previously noted, the
statement "God exists" is "unscientific", the only possible scientific
answer to the question is the theory "God does not exist". This
because, according to scientists, a Christian can disprove the theory
by presenting God to the scientific community. In this way the
supernatural and God are shut out of modern scientific philosophy, and
scientists, as a community, adopt humanism as their religion. To put
it another way, a minority group, the population of scientists, is
misleading the nations and is driving them to believe that faith in
God is unscientific with no more proof of their claim than that
scientists have made it. "There is no God", goes their mantra,
"because there is no God." They tickle the ears of the corrupt and
immoral political world leaders and business community by making an
assumption and calling the assumption "science", a Latin word for
"knowledge".
To further incriminate themselves, some scientists call the body of
knowledge which supports creationism "pseudo-science", or
philosophically unacceptable and untenable. Actually, the problem
lies not with the science of creation, but with modern philosophy.
Here's why:
If I were to disprove the "scientific" theory "there is no God" by
presenting a god, Jesus Christ, to scientists, they could say, "I've
seen his power, but I don't believe that he is a supernatural spirit
god. I believe that he is an alien with powers that we don't yet
understand. He's not supernatural. He is a part of this material
universe, sprang from this material universe and we will
scientifically study him." To scientists such an attitude would be
scientifically valid, philosophically acceptable, since Jesus could
disprove it to them by allowing them to see the spirit realm and by
allowing them to study the angels, but scientists could hold that the
theory "Jesus is a supernatural spirit god" would be unscientific
since scientists could not in anyway disprove it. How could they
disprove Jesus' spirit nature? There is no conceivable scientific
method for doing so. (What's more, how could they disprove a
"truth"?) Such a path could continue for eons if not forever with
scientists stubbornly refusing to accept as scientific truth the
existence of the supernatural even as they become liable to the lake
of fire.
It follows that no matter what a powerful being might do to a
scientist, a modern, politically correct, philosophically acceptable
scientist could explain the activities of the powerful being as being
something other than supernatural. Therefore, religious humanism must
be the de facto religion of the accepted scientist. The gap between
scientists and Christians is not one of knowledge, but one of
religion.
The problem with modern philosophy is, for one thing, that it makes a
religious statement and uses the statement for the basis of its body
of knowledge without admitting that it's "science" is based on a
religious assumption, but, instead, calls it's science indisputable
fact. More than one intellectual has called universities temples and
professors the priests of the modern religion. To become a Christian,
the modern scientist has to abandon the philosophy of modern
"science". Further, because of the required "disputability" of
"scientific" theories, if the supernatural does exist, it, in theory,
could never be accepted as fact by a modern scientist. (However, I
believe that, in reality, God has a way to prove His supremacy to each
person, and this apart from artificial, man-made philosophies.)
Why are scientists so close-minded? Why can they not change their
philosophy so that, if the supernatural proves on its own terms its
own existence, they can accept as fact God's existence? The
philosophy of the modern age is "there is no Jehovah", and it has no
more foundation for its structure than the idolaters of old had for
their beliefs. We need a change in philosophy if we are to be more
reasonable and open to all the possibilities that are a part of
existence.
Dizum Accountability Advocate
D Maitre wrote:
>Modern philosophy cannot exist without the assumption that God does
>not exist.
What a load of manure. Modern philosophy exists without your God.
>The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
>of God's existence
Wrongo. It neither prohibits nor requires your invisible friend in the sky to
be real.
>through the "scientific" principle that a theory is
>not scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved.
>Since the idea that God exists in heaven cannot be disproved (because
>no scientist can go to heaven and prove that He is not there, or even
>find heaven, for that matter), scientists conclude that the statement
>"God exists in heaven" is unscientific
Righteeo! the statement "God exists in heaven" IS unscientific!
>and, therefore, laughable;
Nobody is laughing. You God mongers have killed too many for that.
>However, this philosophy was designed to omit God and the supernatural
>from everyday thought.
Keeping God and the supernatural in everyday thought is clinical insanity.
>That is, to a scientist, the statement "there is no God"
No scientist would make such a statement. Like all religionists, you make up
lies about what other people say about your religion.
>(the religious humanist evolutionist's mantra)
Are you talking about scientists or religious humanists?
(SNIP several paragraphs of wild ranting)
>To further incriminate themselves, some scientists call the body of
>knowledge which supports creationism "pseudo-science",
That's what it is, toots. Pseudo-science. Evolution happened, and that's a fact, jack.
Lynn
house of worship attended by every member of his department. UNless you are
claiming that Catholics, Jews, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans,
Episcapalens, etc. are all athiests, you are sadly mistaken here.
I am aware that some religious groups continue to promote the false claim
that scientists are all athiests. However, what they really mean is that
those scientists fail to accept THEIR vision of what God is. Shame on them
for making false statements.
lynn
Rudy
You clearly read a post that was only on soc.religion.quaker, yet you
crossposted your response to several unrelated groups. I don't know what
motivated you to do that, or why you want to disrupt
soc.religion.quaker, but please, please stop doing it.
Rudy
Dennis White
"Lynn" <pri...@noname.com> wrote in message
news:8oVmc.25941$TT.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Nonesense. My husband is a scientist at a university and I could name the
> house of worship attended by every member of his department. UNless you
are
> claiming that Catholics, Jews, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans,
> Episcapalens, etc. are all athiests, you are sadly mistaken here.
>
> I am aware that some religious groups continue to promote the false claim
> that scientists are all athiests. However, what they really mean is that
> those scientists fail to accept THEIR vision of what God is. Shame on
them
> for making false statements.
>
> lynn
Thanks for pointing this out Lynn. I too am tired of hearing that all
scientists, as well as those like me who try to see the world in an
empirical scientific way are atheists or worse. Perhaps these claims are
made mostly by those who insist that God is "supernatural". As near as I
can gather from my listening to the Lord, God is as natural as everything
else in the universe! Perhaps the accusations are made by those who
actually believe they fully understand the nature and the significance of
God as well as "his instructions". Poor me....I'm too frail and human to
understand all of it.
Cmgreenlnd
botanists, ecologists, physicists, geologists, chemists, zoologists, etc.,
each with a slightly different skill set.
One of my great delights was doing botany with a colleague who had also studied
theology. While we were looking for rare plants, we had long discussions about
aspects of faith that were both deep and edifying.
Science and religious faith are not mutually exclusive, in my experience of
both. There is a lot of science that one takes on faith, for certain. The
difference is that science is based on what one can generally observe, but
there are areas in which those things unseen can only be detected through their
effects.
Christine M. Greenland
"Give over thine own willing, give over thy own running, give over thine own
desiring to know or be anything and sink down to the seed which God sows in the
heart." Isaac Penington
S McFarlane
"D Maitre" <DanielM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:761f886f.04050...@posting.google.com...
snip
> To further incriminate themselves, some scientists call the body of
> knowledge which supports creationism "pseudo-science", or
> philosophically unacceptable and untenable. Actually, the problem
> lies not with the science of creation, but with modern philosophy.
Creationism is what it is. If you are unhappy with "pseudo-science", then
perhaps "very bad science" would work better for you. There's always
problems when science and religion enchroach on one another's sphere of
influence, and they can only benefit on very limited grounds from one
another. As soon as the question "Is there a God?" is viewed through
scientific lenses, difficulties arise almost immediately.
> Why are scientists so close-minded? Why can they not change their
> philosophy so that, if the supernatural proves on its own terms its
> own existence, they can accept as fact God's existence? The
> philosophy of the modern age is "there is no Jehovah", and it has no
> more foundation for its structure than the idolaters of old had for
> their beliefs. We need a change in philosophy if we are to be more
> reasonable and open to all the possibilities that are a part of
> existence.
Perhaps scientists in general simply don't regard God's existence as a
question for science. Religious scientists in the mainstream don't see a
problem with this at all. They realize that science has nothing much to say
on the question of God, if anything. Their belief in God has no more to do
with their scientific discipline than tiddly-winks. No one expects
accountants to view the entire world through the lenses of accounting
systems, so why is it assumed that scientists look at everything from the
viewpoint of science? It seems that only creationists and certain
scientist's with an agenda fail to recognize the schism between religion and
science. The rest will view scientific matters with the tools of science
and leave religion for the tools of the heart.
Respectfully,
Scott
futureworlds
<dizum....@dizum.spams.invalid> is a crossposting troll.
Anonymous Sender
"I Am"<i...@who.iam>=troll/moron/asshole/loser/fukkhead
"me qsuser"<qsu...@hotmail.com>=troll/moron/asshole/loser/fukkhead
"Bluejay"=troll/moron/asshole/loser/fukkhead
"Eelbash"=troll/moron/asshole/loser/fukkhead
"Dizum Accountability Advocate"=troll/moron/asshole/loser/fukkhead
age...@nsa.gov (Agent Zero)=troll/moron/asshole/loser/fukkhead
Italy Anonymous Remailer
David Samuel Myers
> Perhaps scientists in general simply don't regard God's existence as a
> question for science. Religious scientists in the mainstream don't see a
> problem with this at all. They realize that science has nothing much to say
> on the question of God, if anything. Their belief in God has no more to do
Your response to the original post is mostly on target.
I wish it were truer that scientists in general, religious and
non-religious, stood in better recognition that science is a method
for answering questions about certain things, and that God is not one of
the things science is well equipped to answer questions about. That
sounds like something that scientists, religious and not, would agree
on. But the reality is that a lot of scientists *don't* have open
minds and believe that the order predicted in nature by science obviates
a need for God. That said, the assumption of the original poster that
scientists monolithically reject God is very unfortunate (and wrong).
To extend this and try to say that modern (scientific) philosophy
requires God be eliminated is very sloppy indeed.
David Samuel Myers
> Modern philosophy cannot exist without the assumption that God does
> not exist.
This is sloppy thinking. Just because a lot of modern science and
philosophy has failed to find a place for God does not mean that those
branches of modern philosophy require an absence of God.
>The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
> of God's existence through the "scientific" principle that a theory is
> not scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved.
That's if God is a theory. What if God is an axiom?
Besides, science can only prove things to a certain degree of statistical
confidence if you follow your own line of attack...... so there's a
loophole.
> Since the idea that God exists in heaven cannot be disproved (because
> no scientist can go to heaven and prove that He is not there, or even
> find heaven, for that matter), scientists conclude that the statement
> "God exists in heaven" is unscientific and, therefore, laughable;
> However, this philosophy was designed to omit God and the supernatural
> from everyday thought.
Perhaps it was designed as such (and also maybe it was not). No matter.
What you're really after is the fact that most who've signed on to
modernist thinking also find supernatural laughable (and equate God with
UFOs, etc). Just because of the high degree of correlation between
modernists and those rejecting supernatural does not mean that some
people haven't found a way to have both allowable. Your idea of what
is the modernist party line is very limited to what those people actually
believe, and not what they have actually said and written. What they've
written doesn't obviate God. Although I agree they think they it does.
I also grant sheepishly that maybe they designed it that way or at the
minimum the God-obviation aspects are very obvious side effects of
modernism/postmodernism/etc.
> That is, to a scientist, the statement "there is no God" (the
> religious humanist evolutionist's mantra) is "scientific" proof that
> there is no God. This foolishness occurs because the two
A real philosopher knows that "there is no God" is sloppy. It is the
reverse of the ontological proof by emphatic assertion of God's
existence. That went down the tubes ages and ages ago (although
it is like terrible heartburn and keeps coming back, as does the reverse
ontology of God's nonexistence).
> possibilities related to the question of God's existence are "there is
> no god" and "God exists", and since, as previously noted, the
> statement "God exists" is "unscientific", the only possible scientific
> answer to the question is the theory "God does not exist". This
This is not the whole story. There's a rich body of thought which explores
why the lack of scientificness of the proposition "God exists" is not
sufficient grounds for rejection the asking of the question (or questions
of this type).
> because, according to scientists, a Christian can disprove the theory
> by presenting God to the scientific community. In this way the
> supernatural and God are shut out of modern scientific philosophy, and
> scientists, as a community, adopt humanism as their religion. To put
In practice. But frankly science as an establishment does not
in theory have to do this. And it has gaping loopholes that
allow for God to seep into places that science knows it cannot
completely plumb. Don't go thinking that science requires
this as a principle. It's just that many scientists happen to
have put such a humanism into their own practice that it has
this appearance.
> it another way, a minority group, the population of scientists, is
> misleading the nations and is driving them to believe that faith in
> God is unscientific with no more proof of their claim than that
> scientists have made it. "There is no God", goes their mantra,
That's accurate, except for the implication that the scientists are
succeeding.
> "because there is no God." They tickle the ears of the corrupt and
> immoral political world leaders and business community by making an
> assumption and calling the assumption "science", a Latin word for
> "knowledge".
This part is a little unfair and casts the picture differently than
what I think is really going on. It's so much more complicated.
<<snip whole ramble>>
The thing about scientists and humanists that go after creationism is that
they have actually turne science into a religion and aren't very accepting
of the fact that science is limited and can't answer certain questions,
and is an inappropriate tool for dealing with a lot of things about God.
They are right to criticize creationists that would pass off their work as
being good science, for most just passes no muster in that way. But many
anti-creationists see their charge to go one further.
As a side note, you may or may not find it may be worth reading old posts
on science and God from this group. There's plenty. And there's also a
recent thread on 'reason vs. spirit' that is tangential but related. I
have a post in that midst concerning Bayesian scientific knowledge
processing that is relevant to the discussion above (if only glancingly
so)... Also, some posts concerning the anthropic principle are somewhere
in the archives too, which are relevant.
And there's more to say than what's been said here recently. What's above
is the tip of the iceberg in these matters.
-d
Bromo
Myers" <dmy...@ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>> The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
>> of God's existence through the "scientific" principle that a theory is
>> not scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved.
>
> That's if God is a theory. What if God is an axiom?
Or if god exists and is omnipotent. He could be standing right in front of
us and we will tell him (very sternly) since he cannpt be disproved, he must
not exist.
> Besides, science can only prove things to a certain degree of statistical
> confidence if you follow your own line of attack...... so there's a
> loophole.
Reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - Where mankind disproved the
existence of God - then for an encore proved that black was white and
managed to get killed at the next zebra crossing .......
themantaking...@yahoo.com.au
wrong with modern philosophy, however I much prefer ancient philosophy.
Philosophy is about solving problems, not making trouble! I can safely
say we have a thing with universals, and that means it's a thing, that
means it's in your mind. Philosophies aren't religious things, and as
concerns Jehovah, all I can say is that there are souls, it's possible
and improbable that there's heaven, and rituals, silly and irrational
as they are, involve some evil things, they really do, well some rituals
really do. The churches of Christians have been distressing the world
for centuries. Problems as I said are solved with philosophy, they re-
place religions and cults, in that they promote logical discipline, they
make you think. And thinking is important. Everything in our world is
in the thinking mind. Traffic goes the way my eyes can see it, these are
images created by the mind, avoiding harm is imperative in this modern
philosophy because pain hurts me more than it hurts you, so I'd hurt no
one. Those things that exist are existing in a pseudo-reality, consisting
of movements, colours, light, textures, reactions, malfunctions,
even substances. All these are composed of structures, and are functions
universally of everything- this is substances, textures, shapes, light,
consistencies etc etc. All things possess these qualities, and they induce certain emotional feelings. The electrical signals in the brain activate stimuli, and these induce taste, hearing, mental feelings, touch, smell, and sight. So the problems of modern philosophy are more peaceable and more rational systems that replace religions and cults. There's your reason!