You might be a dogmatic naturalist if.....

[Kalkidas]

1a) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
data, you blame the data rather than the method.

1b) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
data, you blame the person(s) who collected the data rather than the method.

1c) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
data, you blame the person(s) who points it out to you rather than the
method.

1d) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
data, you blame "religious fundamentalists" rather than the method.

That about covers it. Pointing out the defects in such a self-serving
dogmatic worldview isn't rocket science. If you think it is, you might
be a dogmatic naturalist.

[Kalkidas]

Oops, I forgot these gems:

1e) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
data, you say, "what data?"

1f) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
data, you say, "what failure?"

[J. J. Lodder]

Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

> 1a) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame the data rather than the method.

Indeed. "No experimental result should be believed
unless it has been confirmed by a reliabe theory" (Eddington)
In other words, only theories and experiments
that suppport each other in a coherent whole
are to be trusted.

> 1b) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame the person(s) who collected the data rather than the method.

Rightly so, in case of obvious nutters.

> 1c) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame the person(s) who points it out to you rather than the
> method.

Idem.

> 1d) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame "religious fundamentalists" rather than the method.

Religious fundamentalist are highly suspect as a data source
for everything that relates to their fundamentalism.
They are by definition prejudiced at least,
and may suffer from severe cognitive dissonance.

> That about covers it. Pointing out the defects in such a self-serving
> dogmatic worldview isn't rocket science. If you think it is, you might
> be a dogmatic naturalist.

Just a realist,

Jan

[Robert Camp]

Yep, that pretty much nails me. I must be a dogmatic naturalist.

Of course, I'm also dogmatic about the universe being intelligible, and
wanting air to breathe, water to drink, and food to eat.

Oh, one more thing I'm dogmatic about is that reason trumps
irrationality. Guess how we determine the difference?

[Kalkidas]

On 4/2/2016 7:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> 1a) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>> data, you blame the data rather than the method.
>
> Indeed. "No experimental result should be believed
> unless it has been confirmed by a reliabe theory" (Eddington)
> In other words, only theories and experiments
> that suppport each other in a coherent whole
> are to be trusted.

That's only wishful thinking masquerading as a principle. In other
words, dogmatism. A theory cannot "support" experiments, any more than
the sun's rays can "support" the sun, because theories are dependent on
experiments, as the sun's rays are dependent on the sun.

The truth is, no theory should be believed unless it fully accounts for
all data which appear to contradict it. And "full accounting" does not
mean rejecting anomalous data simply because it appears to contradict
the theory.

>
>> 1b) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>> data, you blame the person(s) who collected the data rather than the method.
>
> Rightly so, in case of obvious nutters.
>
>> 1c) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>> data, you blame the person(s) who points it out to you rather than the
>> method.
>
> Idem.
>
>> 1d) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>> data, you blame "religious fundamentalists" rather than the method.
>
> Religious fundamentalist are highly suspect as a data source
> for everything that relates to their fundamentalism.
> They are by definition prejudiced at least,
> and may suffer from severe cognitive dissonance.

Dogmatic naturalists are no less suspect, since as you pointed out
above, they believe that theory (i.e. fundamentalist scientific dogma)
"supports" data rather than the other way around.

>
>> That about covers it. Pointing out the defects in such a self-serving
>> dogmatic worldview isn't rocket science. If you think it is, you might
>> be a dogmatic naturalist.
>
> Just a realist,

mmm hmmm....

[Kalkidas]

Well, I don't know about "we", but you seem to determine it by invoking
linguistic nihilism whenever you wish to accuse reason of being irrational.

[jillery]

Question-begging isn't reason. Just sayin'.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Dana Tweedy]

You still seem to think that Methodological Naturalism is an explanation
that accounts for a set of data. It's not. Methodological Naturalism
is a tool used by scientists to evaluate explanations.

Methodological Naturalism is simply the recognition that appeals to
untestable causes cannot provide objective explanations. It does not
mean that one has to believe that nothing beyond the natural exists, and
it's not necessarily applicable to every human experience.

Methodological Naturalism does not "account for" data sets, that's
what hypotheses do. Methodological Naturalism is what allows one to
evaluate and choose which hypotheses are more likely to be correct.


DJT

[Kalkidas]

Methodological naturalism places a limitation on the kinds of hypotheses
that can be considered. Can you at least admit that?

Thus methodological naturalism is a limitation of the original
scientific method, which had no such a priori censorship of hypotheses.

Methodological naturalism is indeed a "tool". But it is a tool of a
particular philosophical bias which has crept into science since, oh
let's say, the Vienna Circle's attack on metaphysics in the 1920s or
thereabouts.

[J. J. Lodder]

Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

> On 4/2/2016 7:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >
> >> 1a) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> >> data, you blame the data rather than the method.
> >
> > Indeed. "No experimental result should be believed
> > unless it has been confirmed by a reliabe theory" (Eddington)
> > In other words, only theories and experiments
> > that suppport each other in a coherent whole
> > are to be trusted.
>
> That's only wishful thinking masquerading as a principle. In other
> words, dogmatism. A theory cannot "support" experiments, any more than
> the sun's rays can "support" the sun, because theories are dependent on
> experiments, as the sun's rays are dependent on the sun.

Your complete ignorance of what science is,
and how it should be done, is showing again.
Theory formation depends esssentially on weeding out incorrect data.

> The truth is, no theory should be believed unless it fully accounts for
> all data which appear to contradict it.

Nonsense. No theory can account for all data,
including all incorrect ones.

> And "full accounting" does not
> mean rejecting anomalous data simply because it appears to contradict
> the theory.

Incorrect data are rejected because they are just that, incorrect.

> >> 1b) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> >> data, you blame the person(s) who collected the data rather than the
> >> method.
> >
> > Rightly so, in case of obvious nutters.
> >
> >> 1c) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> >> data, you blame the person(s) who points it out to you rather than the
> >> method.
> >
> > Idem.
> >
> >> 1d) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> >> data, you blame "religious fundamentalists" rather than the method.
> >
> > Religious fundamentalist are highly suspect as a data source
> > for everything that relates to their fundamentalism.
> > They are by definition prejudiced at least,
> > and may suffer from severe cognitive dissonance.
>
> Dogmatic naturalists are no less suspect, since as you pointed out
> above, they believe that theory (i.e. fundamentalist scientific dogma)
> "supports" data rather than the other way around.

It works both ways.
Correct data weeds out incorrect theories,
succesful theories weed out incorrect data.
After several rounds of corrections upon corrections
you may begin to have some confidence in both.
Maybe you should read some history of science.

> >> That about covers it. Pointing out the defects in such a self-serving
> >> dogmatic worldview isn't rocket science. If you think it is, you might
> >> be a dogmatic naturalist.
> >
> > Just a realist,
>
> mmm hmmm....

Hmmmm, mmmmmm!

Jan

[Kalkidas]

On 4/2/2016 11:03 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On 4/2/2016 7:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1a) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>>> data, you blame the data rather than the method.
>>>
>>> Indeed. "No experimental result should be believed
>>> unless it has been confirmed by a reliabe theory" (Eddington)
>>> In other words, only theories and experiments
>>> that suppport each other in a coherent whole
>>> are to be trusted.
>>
>> That's only wishful thinking masquerading as a principle. In other
>> words, dogmatism. A theory cannot "support" experiments, any more than
>> the sun's rays can "support" the sun, because theories are dependent on
>> experiments, as the sun's rays are dependent on the sun.
>
> Your complete ignorance of what science is,
> and how it should be done, is showing again.
> Theory formation depends esssentially on weeding out incorrect data.

OK. I'll add this one:

1g) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
data, the person who points that out is "completely ignorant of what
science is".

>
>> The truth is, no theory should be believed unless it fully accounts for
>> all data which appear to contradict it.
>
> Nonsense. No theory can account for all data,
> including all incorrect ones.

"including incorrect ones" falls under "1a) Whenever methodological

naturalism fails to account for a set of data, you blame the data rather
than the method."

The conclusion is that no theory should be believed. Period.

>> And "full accounting" does not
>> mean rejecting anomalous data simply because it appears to contradict
>> the theory.
>
> Incorrect data are rejected because they are just that, incorrect.

And the demonstration that they are "incorrect" is that they contradict
the theory. It happens all the time. It's called "fudging the data to
fit the theory". Stop pretending it doesn't happen.

>
>>>> 1b) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>>> data, you blame the person(s) who collected the data rather than the
>>>> method.
>>>
>>> Rightly so, in case of obvious nutters.
>>>
>>>> 1c) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>>> data, you blame the person(s) who points it out to you rather than the
>>>> method.
>>>
>>> Idem.
>>>
>>>> 1d) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>>> data, you blame "religious fundamentalists" rather than the method.
>>>
>>> Religious fundamentalist are highly suspect as a data source
>>> for everything that relates to their fundamentalism.
>>> They are by definition prejudiced at least,
>>> and may suffer from severe cognitive dissonance.
>>
>> Dogmatic naturalists are no less suspect, since as you pointed out
>> above, they believe that theory (i.e. fundamentalist scientific dogma)
>> "supports" data rather than the other way around.
>
> It works both ways.
> Correct data weeds out incorrect theories,
> succesful theories weed out incorrect data.
> After several rounds of corrections upon corrections
> you may begin to have some confidence in both.

No. It only works one way. Again, "correct data" means data that doesn't
contradict the theory. This is backwards. It should always be that a
correct theory is one that doesn't contradict the data.

> Maybe you should read some history of science.

Again with the (1g).

[Jonathan]

But the contradiction within naturalism is that
a completely natural explanation would be that
emergence is a key part of nature.

And emergence is essentially a mysterious force
from above that guides the whole towards the
better solution, more order, good or to...heaven.

If you look carefully enough, God can be found
everywhere in nature, and in everything.
God and emergence are both..."irreducible
yet supervenient forces".

Or in other words, can't be defined, yet
in a mysterious way guides and creates.

You just have to accept one minor change
and it's a frame of reference error that
needs to be fixed to give the concept of
God a rational definition.

God, or emergence, is a property of the
interaction of the parts, a collective
property, not some magical person, but
a magical wisdom generated by evolving
processes. God is produced by nature.

Not the other way around, but in a cyclic
universe such a distinction between
input and output is more a matter of
semantics than anything else.


Emergence
From Wiki


Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is
uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but
supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition
it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level
potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike
anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates
how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism.
Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional
worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting
something from nothing.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[Oxyaena]

Kalkidas wrote:

>
I've already gave examples of methodological naturalism working, it
works *every time*, the reason why we use it is because it WORKS, one
wouldn't have antibiotics if it weren't for methodological naturalism.

There's such a thing as "paradigm shifts", the first paradigm shift
appeared in the Scientific Revolution of the 16th-17th centuries, the
first thing that occurred is when Copernicus proposed his heliocentric
theory of the universe, because by the time Copernicus the general
excepted theory was so entangled in problems, contradictions, and the
like that Copernicus decided to get rid of it entirely, however, there
were problems with Copernicus' theory, such as it went against all
classical physics up to that point, however, it would be more almost a
century 'till science vindicated him.

Tycho was the second man to start slicing away at the traditional
models, when he observed a supernova (which at the time he thought it
was a new star), it thus disproved the Aristotelian notion that space is
immutable, and Kepler, after observing Tycho's data after his death,
came to the realization that the orbits of the planets are elliptical,
and not circular as previously said under the Copernican model. Galileo,
however, is the guy who hammered the final nail into the coffin that is
of geocentrism, when he observed the moons of Jupiter, he at first
thought that the moons of Jupiter were "fixed stars", but then he
observed them moving around Jupiter, and sometimes even disappearing
behind it, he then realized they weren't stars at all! But they were
"planets" that orbited Jupiter, he immediately published his results.
Not only that, he observed the phases of Venus, which under the
Ptolemaic system Venus should only have crescent and waning gibbous
phases, but there were more than that, there were the new "Venus", as in
new moon, which indicated that Venus was actually going behind theSun,
there were waxing gibbous, half-venus, full-venus, these went directly
against the traditional notions of Aristotelian and Ptolemaic theory.

This is an example of the scientists going after the "data", not the
"people" involved. Once again, you present a fallacious argument, if I
can even call it that.

--
"We are all atheists about most gods humanity has ever believed in, some
of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

http://oxyaena.org/

[Bill Rogers]

Methodological naturalism, and "the original scientific method" BOTH limit hypotheses to those that can be empirically tested. Neither claims that non-testable hypotheses are false, only that they are nothing science can say anything about.

Methodological naturalism does not even exclude God making things happen, as long as he makes them happen in a sufficiently regular, repeatable way that the hypothesis of His making them happen can be tested.

[Steady Eddie]

+1

[Steady Eddie]

How do you tell which person is a religious fundamentalist?

[Bill]

All that should matter is how things are, the raw data. It should be
recognized that how things came to be as they are will always be inherently
speculative. Science is not ontological nor can it be; it can only examine a
snapshot of nature as it is at the moment.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 10:52:20 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

Of course; it limits hypotheses to those which can be
evaluated. That seems to me to be a Good Thing (TM), but
YMMV.

>Thus methodological naturalism is a limitation of the original
>scientific method, which had no such a priori censorship of hypotheses.

Sorry, but that's wrong. Science became science when
methodological naturalism was invented, because it provided
the only way to *objectively* evaluate competing hypotheses.
Prior to that it consisted basically of competing subjective
philosophies, with no way to objectively evaluate any of
them.

>Methodological naturalism is indeed a "tool". But it is a tool of a
>particular philosophical bias which has crept into science since, oh
>let's say, the Vienna Circle's attack on metaphysics in the 1920s or
>thereabouts.

Nope; long before that. Galileo practiced it, for instance.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Jonathan]

On 4/2/2016 2:42 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>
>>
> I've already gave examples of methodological naturalism working, it
> works *every time*, the reason why we use it is because it WORKS, one
> wouldn't have antibiotics if it weren't for methodological naturalism.
>

Every time? Using methodological naturalism explain how
the following works.

Why is there war?
What was the first life?
How was the first life created?
What is an emotion?
What is the equation for a panic?
What is right and what is wrong?
What is the best society?
What is the best government?
What is gravity?
What is the universe made of?
What is light?
What is the meaning of life?
How can we build a better future?
What will happen tomorrow?

Granted, your...faith in science is immense
and it can build all kinds of shiny toys
and big tall buildings, but tell us how
it's going to solve even one of the above
questions, or any question of...meaning?

If you even know what that term means.

The world is burning as we speak, yet you
seem to think your science has all the
answers, but the entire last century
was one long running crime against humanity
mainly because of the arrogance you show
that humans know how nature works, can boil it
down to an equation and control everything.

I await your jr high school response
chock full of four letter words.

[Kalkidas]

That's not correct. You will not find a single hypothesis that "God
makes such and such happen" in any mainstream scientific journal. It is
absolutely forbidden by the philosophical bias of methodological
naturalism. Natural phenomena are permitted only natural hypotheses.
This is proof that methodological naturalism is equivalent to
philosophical naturalism, which is the opinion that nature is a closed,
self-sufficient system, implying (but rarely admitted) that nature is God.

[Kalkidas]

"Religious fundamentalists" irritatingly point out anomalous data that
defy mechanistic explanations, and they suggest that maybe there is some
intelligent entity transcendental to nature making things happen in
nature. ;-)

[Kalkidas]

Science was ontological, seeking to know what the world *really* is,
until about 1920. Non-representational theories then became the norm,
resulting in the positivistic idea that science can be nothing more than
finding patterns in sets of numbers which in no way represent any *real
world* as directly experienced by us.

[Kalkidas]

On 4/2/2016 11:42 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>
>>
> I've already gave examples of methodological naturalism working, it
> works *every time*, the reason why we use it is because it WORKS, one
> wouldn't have antibiotics if it weren't for methodological naturalism.

We wouldn't have diseases if it weren't for methodological naturalism.
All the "problems" it appears to (partially and temporarily) solve are
problems created by the very mindset that it produces, namely, the
illusion of the closed self-sufficiency of nature.

[Oxyaena]

Jonathan wrote:
> On 4/2/2016 2:42 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>>>
>> I've already gave examples of methodological naturalism working, it
>> works *every time*, the reason why we use it is because it WORKS, one
>> wouldn't have antibiotics if it weren't for methodological naturalism.
>>
>
>
>
> Every time? Using methodological naturalism explain how
> the following works.
>
> Why is there war?

Competition for scarce resources. As Aristotle said, "War can be broken
down into three things, economics, religion, and power." But I add a
corollary, ultimately power derives from the control of certain
resources, as in the time of the origin of war, fertile lands and
watering holes.

> What was the first life?

Self-replicating molecules.

> How was the first life created?

That's abiogenesis, and it's perfectly alright to say, "I don't know".
No one knows, twat.

> What is an emotion?

An emotion is a state of mind that affects the mind and the body.

> What is the equation for a panic?

There is no equation for "panic", panic is an emotional response
triggered in times of high anxiety, there's no equation for it, idiot.

> What is right and what is wrong?

You're confusing science with ethics, my lad. Go back to high school and
find out.

> What is the best society?

You're confusing science with philosophy, my lad. Go back to school and
find out.

> What is the best government?

You're confusing science with philosophy, my lad. Go back to school and
find out.


> What is gravity?

One of the four forces of the universe, albeit the weakest one.

> What is the universe made of?

Matter and energy. The ether developed by Newton was shown to be false
with the advent of general relativity.

> What is light?

Light is electro-magnetic radiation, that's all it is. Read up on your
physics, my lad. You were supposed to learn this in the seventh grade.

> What is the meaning of life?
> How can we build a better future?
> What will happen tomorrow?
>
> Granted, your...faith in science is immense
> and it can build all kinds of shiny toys
> and big tall buildings, but tell us how
> it's going to solve even one of the above
> questions, or any question of...meaning?
>
> If you even know what that term means.

I do, but do you? Science can't answer *some* of those questions, such
as the meaning of life, that's left up to the person to decide, my lad.
I bet you don't even have a high school diploma, do you?

>
> The world is burning as we speak, yet you
> seem to think your science has all the
> answers, but the entire last century
> was one long running crime against humanity
> mainly because of the arrogance you show
> that humans know how nature works, can boil it
> down to an equation and control everything.

Ah, but science has done both good and bad, the invention of the atom
bomb was definitely not one of the good things science has produced, but
the advances in medicine is. So tell me, how is everything developed by
science a huge crime against humanity? The long-running crimes against
humanity dates back to Antiquity, my dear boy. The American Indian
Holocaust, wiped out 100 MILLION PEOPLE and counting, was way before the
invention of fancy war machines like tanks, planes, chemical weapons and
the like. The whites even used biological warfare, such as distributing
blankets infected with smallpox to Indians in the French and Indian Wars.

> I await your jr high school response
> chock full of four letter words.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Another ad hominem, stop resorting to logical fallacies and try
answering the damn question.

[Oxyaena]

Nope, disease has been around even before the concept of methodological
naturalism, as Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence." See the Black Death to find out more, that was before science
as we now know it was even around, centuries before modern medicine. So
bacteria and viruses are a result of "methodological naturalism", how
interesting, last thing I heard is that they were living organisms, not
scientific creations.

[Bill Rogers]

Actually, you will find studies on the efficacy of prayer (meaning cures that God makes happen). As a whole, those studies find no effect of prayer. Some religious people come back and say that God grants prayers in ways that we humans cannot understand. That produces an untestable hypothesis. But what makes it untestable is not that God is involved, but that it makes no empirically testable predictions.

Methodological naturalism does not exclude hypotheses involving God, unless the hypotheses are untestable. If religious believers have had trouble coming up with empirical tests for the action of God, that's not the fault of science. But when they do, science will be able to test such hypotheses.

[Kalkidas]

On 4/2/2016 1:10 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 4/2/2016 11:42 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>> I've already gave examples of methodological naturalism working, it
>>> works *every time*, the reason why we use it is because it WORKS, one
>>> wouldn't have antibiotics if it weren't for methodological naturalism.
>>
>> We wouldn't have diseases if it weren't for methodological naturalism.
>> All the "problems" it appears to (partially and temporarily) solve are
>> problems created by the very mindset that it produces, namely, the
>> illusion of the closed self-sufficiency of nature.
>>
> Nope, disease has been around even before the concept of methodological
> naturalism, as Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence." See the Black Death to find out more, that was before science
> as we now know it was even around, centuries before modern medicine. So
> bacteria and viruses are a result of "methodological naturalism", how
> interesting, last thing I heard is that they were living organisms, not
> scientific creations.

Bacteria and viruses are not "diseases". Nor are they the real causes of
diseases. The real cause is the error of thinking that nature is a
self-sufficient, closed system, i.e. the hypothesis (embarrassingly
unconfirmed) underlying methodological naturalism.

Parity of reasoning: If you claim that "disease has been around even
before the concept of methodological naturalism" you must also admit
that antibiotics (leukocytes, for example) have also been around even
before the concept of methodological naturalism. Thus your claim about
methodological naturalism being the reason why we have antibiotics is false.

And, "extraordinary claims" do not require "extraordinary evidence".
They require only the same kind of evidence necessary to substantiate
any other claim.

[Oxyaena]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless you can back
your claims that disease is caused by "methodological naturalism" and
not the real causes of disease, pathogens and viruses, I must have to
ignore you.

[eridanus]

El sábado, 2 de abril de 2016, 13:47:42 (UTC+1), Kalkidas escribió:
> 1a) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame the data rather than the method.
>
> 1b) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame the person(s) who collected the data rather than the method.
>
> 1c) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame the person(s) who points it out to you rather than the
> method.
>
> 1d) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame "religious fundamentalists" rather than the method.
>
> That about covers it. Pointing out the defects in such a self-serving
> dogmatic worldview isn't rocket science. If you think it is, you might
> be a dogmatic naturalist.

your argument suggests that to know something only it is needed some will.
But a will is not enough to solve a problem or a riddle. The natural method
in science of avoiding supernatural causes is not the reason for failing
to solve a problem, or to understand a riddle. It is our incapacity to solve
it for the problem is very difficult for our limited intelligence. Sometimes
someone present some arguments as a theory to explain a riddle, or something
difficult. Many of us can be very happy with this theory, but there is not
any guaranty that this theory would succeed. It can be accepted for a time
for after some decades it would be rejected for other reasons. It can occur
the opposite, a theory is rejected during 5 or 8 decades, and then it ends
being accepted.
The question is that it does not exist any concrete method to prove or to
reject a theory as false. The most common approach is to see if the theory
can permit us to make predictions. A theory that serve us not to make
predictions has not any merit, until it comes a time in which someone can
make predictions with the theory. Then, you only need to see if the
predictions come true or not. Even for a theory X a prediction can come
true but the theory is wrong, even if everybody thought the prediction had prove right the theory. But the prediction could had been caused by other
variable not considered in the theory. Then, the science is a lot more
difficult that many naive persons think.

To make science advance with a materialist universe is very difficult. But
it would not become easier if you introduce as valid variables the will of
god.
Look at the theory of global warming. The warming could be caused for
reasons different to the CO2, even if 20,000 scientists are swearing the CO2
is the cause. It can be for any other unknown cause or... because god is willing to keep the planet a little warm. Then, after some 5 or 10 years,
the temperatures can be going down, and there is not any way to disguise the
drop of temperatures with adjustments and corrections. Well, why the temperature is dropping? We have not any damn idea. Perhaps is the will of god, or perhaps it is that a new ice age had started. I can ask you, the new ice age is caused by the will of god? But if you are honest would reply,
"I do not damn know it." But many scientist are working with their computer
simulations to find out what are the cues of the climate variations.
It is not any easy, even using computer simulations.
eridanus

[Kalkidas]

But in those studies, prayer is not treated as having any relationship
to God. At best, it is treated only as a self-contained physiological
mechanism. At worst, it is treated as a psychological mechanism
(psychology being not the most rigorous of sciences, and brimming with
undefined terms). Those studies really have nothing to do with God.

If those studies had God as a real factor, or hypothesis, then to test
the efficacy of prayer, you would have to conduct them both when God was
present and when He was absent. This amounts to creating two complete
realities, one in which God exists, and the other in which God doesn't
exist! And good luck with that.

[jillery]

How would you go about testing that God makes such and such happen?

[J. J. Lodder]

Of course. If they are wrong they are wrong. Period.

> The conclusion is that no theory should be believed. Period.

So do jump off the Eiffel tower, or some other suitable high building.
The theory that you can't fly should not be believed,
for it is well established that levitation is possible.

> >> And "full accounting" does not
> >> mean rejecting anomalous data simply because it appears to contradict
> >> the theory.
> >
> > Incorrect data are rejected because they are just that, incorrect.
>
> And the demonstration that they are "incorrect" is that they contradict
> the theory.

Of course.

> It happens all the time.

Yes, of course again. That's what science is about.
It allows us to sift the sense from the nonsense.

> It's called "fudging the data to fit the theory".

So you don't know what 'fudging' means.

> Stop pretending it doesn't happen.

Huh????
If you don't read anything I write there is no point in continuing,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

They say so themselves, usually,

Jan

[Bill Rogers]

That's exactly the point. The hypothesis cannot be experimentally tested. That's just the scientific method. The scientific method and methodological naturalism do not disagree on this. They don't reject hypotheses including God *because they include God;* they reject them because they are untestable. And they are untestable for the reasons you demonstrated above - religious believers, like yourself, do not think that a hypothesis is *really* about God unless it is intrinsically untestable.

[Kalkidas]

On 4/2/2016 1:46 PM, eridanus wrote:
> El sábado, 2 de abril de 2016, 13:47:42 (UTC+1), Kalkidas escribió:
>> 1a) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>> data, you blame the data rather than the method.
>>
>> 1b) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>> data, you blame the person(s) who collected the data rather than the method.
>>
>> 1c) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>> data, you blame the person(s) who points it out to you rather than the
>> method.
>>
>> 1d) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>> data, you blame "religious fundamentalists" rather than the method.
>>
>> That about covers it. Pointing out the defects in such a self-serving
>> dogmatic worldview isn't rocket science. If you think it is, you might
>> be a dogmatic naturalist.
>
> your argument suggests that to know something only it is needed some will.
> But a will is not enough to solve a problem or a riddle.

Actually, it is enough. Every problem of life can be solved if one is
determined to inquire of the One who is over all, and to accept the
answer, whatever that answer might be.

But if one doesn't honor the Lord, he will be nothing but a problem, for
the world and for himself.

[Kalkidas]

I don't mind. You could have saved us a lot of trouble and ignored me
from the start.

[Kalkidas]

It is well established that flying is possible. Birds do it. So if one
takes the body of a bird, one can jump off the Eiffel Tower and have a
roaring good time of it.

It is well established that levitation is possible. The gods do it. So
if one takes the body of a god, one can jump off the Eiffel Tower and
have a roaring good time of it.

Or, if one can develop a latent potency of flying or levitation that may
be present in his current body due to karma, one may also jump off the
Eiffel Tower and live to tell the tale.

>
>>>> And "full accounting" does not
>>>> mean rejecting anomalous data simply because it appears to contradict
>>>> the theory.
>>>
>>> Incorrect data are rejected because they are just that, incorrect.
>>
>> And the demonstration that they are "incorrect" is that they contradict
>> the theory.
>
> Of course.
>
>> It happens all the time.
>
> Yes, of course again. That's what science is about.
> It allows us to sift the sense from the nonsense.
>
>> It's called "fudging the data to fit the theory".
>
> So you don't know what 'fudging' means.
>
>> Stop pretending it doesn't happen.
>
> Huh????
> If you don't read anything I write there is no point in continuing,

I read what you wrote. You seem to think that because something is a
"theory" it cannot be wrong, therefore whatever data appears to
contradict it must be wrong. That's crazy!

[J. J. Lodder]

So you can't read,

Jan

[Kalkidas]

No. The hypothesis that God answers prayer can be tested. But not by
restricting the experimental data to only what is acceptable to
naturalistic methods, namely, physiological changes of state in a
material body which is treated as an object and not a subject. And the
testing should not assume that the other half of the equation, namely
God, is irrelevant and that it is sufficient only to study the human
being who is praying.

Those conducting these studies never ask God whether or not He has
answered a given prayer, or why. Why is that? Because the experimenters
have excluded Him from the experiment a priori! A bit disingenuous,
don't you think?

[RAM]

So do theories and methods independent of your specious conception of MN.

MN is orthogonal to empirical strategies and inductive logic. Your belabored diatribes against MN is otiose. You don't understand that science qua science is not based on deductive logic which you only understand. Science, its theories, methods and successes are informed by a vast array of inductive logic techniques of which you show no understanding.

MN as conceived but the philosophers whom I read are as myopic as you in not understanding that the two logics that fundamentally define science "inductive and deductive logic" are separated realities and the twain shall never meet.

Your dogmatism about MN is not a limitation for science nor again is science not harmed by ignoring MN.

>
> Thus methodological naturalism is a limitation of the original
> scientific method, which had no such a priori censorship of hypotheses.
>

> Methodological naturalism is indeed a "tool". But it is a tool of a
> particular philosophical bias which has crept into science since, oh
> let's say, the Vienna Circle's attack on metaphysics in the 1920s or
> thereabouts.

Like Wittgenstein and his Vienna Circle colleagues the critique of the logical philosophical schools and approaches were mostly correct about the logical philosophies (whether positivist or not) inability to provide substantive answers to substantive issues and that they were almost of no assistance to employing science. (As an aside Logical Positivism received much support initially from philosophy and the sciences. But it had a short-lived experience in the sciences and was heavily criticized in the sixties for a variety of good and bad reasons [but most for the failure to understand the complexities and subtleties of the inductive/deductive relationship].)

[Steven Carlip]

On 4/2/16 9:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:
[...]

> Every time? Using methodological naturalism explain how
> the following works.

I'll take the physics ones...

> What is gravity?

A manifestation of the geometry of spacetime.

> What is the universe made of?

For the most part, we don't know yet.

> What is light?

Propagating modes of a U(1) gauge theory.

> What will happen tomorrow?

You will fail to make a reasonable response to this post.

Steve Carlip

[RAM]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 4:22:40 PM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:

big snip

> Those conducting these studies never ask God whether or not He has
> answered a given prayer, or why.

What replicable procedures would you use to "ask God whether or not He has answered a given prayer" and what replicable procedures would you use to "ask ... why?" Surely you do not trust the investigator to get them directly from God. If you do how do we know He is not a Loki.

> Why is that? Because the experimenters
> have excluded Him from the experiment a priori! A bit disingenuous,
> don't you think?

No. No one but you knows how to get God to answer. I'll do it if you get Him in contact with me and we can work out the details; but only if it can be seen as empirical data that can be replicated. Surely He can handle that.

Can you do your own experiment and document it as reliable science?

An inductive logician wants to know.

small snip

[Dana Tweedy]

I never denied it in the first place. You seem to be responding to
things I never said, and opinions I never held.

>
> Thus methodological naturalism is a limitation of the original
> scientific method, which had no such a priori censorship of hypotheses.

The scientific method has always made use of methodological naturalism,
just like it does today. When one cannot rule out untestable
hypotheses, one cannot evaluate which one is more likely correct. There
can't be a scientific method without methodological naturalism.

Where did you get the idea that the "original scientific method"
permitted untestable hypotheses?

>
> Methodological naturalism is indeed a "tool". But it is a tool of a
> particular philosophical bias which has crept into science since, oh
> let's say, the Vienna Circle's attack on metaphysics in the 1920s or
> thereabouts.
>

Sorry, no. Methodological naturalism is another way of saying
empiricism. That's been the standard of science since there has been
science.


DJT

[Robert Camp]

On 4/2/16 8:25 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/2/2016 8:01 AM, Robert Camp wrote:

>> On 4/2/16 5:43 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> 1a) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>> data, you blame the data rather than the method.
>>>
>>> 1b) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>> data, you blame the person(s) who collected the data rather than the
>>> method.
>>>
>>> 1c) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>> data, you blame the person(s) who points it out to you rather than the
>>> method.
>>>
>>> 1d) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>> data, you blame "religious fundamentalists" rather than the method.
>>>
>>> That about covers it. Pointing out the defects in such a self-serving
>>> dogmatic worldview isn't rocket science. If you think it is, you might
>>> be a dogmatic naturalist.
>>

>> Yep, that pretty much nails me. I must be a dogmatic naturalist.
>>
>> Of course, I'm also dogmatic about the universe being intelligible, and
>> wanting air to breathe, water to drink, and food to eat.
>>
>> Oh, one more thing I'm dogmatic about is that reason trumps
>> irrationality. Guess how we determine the difference?
>
> Well, I don't know about "we", but you seem to determine it by invoking
> linguistic nihilism whenever you wish to accuse reason of being irrational.

I never have, and never would "accuse reason of being irrational." But
I'm not surprised you are confused about that. As your conflation of
reason with ideological presumption shows, you are the only person using
linguistic nihilism here.

[Kalkidas]

"em·pir·i·cal
əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: empirical

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or
experience rather than theory or pure logic."

So empiricism is simply experience or observation. So millions of people
throughout history have experienced God. So apparently the empiricism of
methodological naturalism does not extend to certain empirical facts.
It's a restricted empiricism.

[Bill]

Science is based on an assumption: nature fully explains itself. There is no
way to verify the assumption of course but it remains a starting place for
all that the sciences claim to explain. Every explanation serves as the
basis for subsequent explanations; it's an explanatory hierarchy where every
explanation depends on other explanations. It isn't the facts being
explained but rather the explanations themselves. Obviously, direct,
objective experience is much less important than the interpretation of it.

Bill

[Jonathan]

On 4/2/2016 5:29 PM, Steven Carlip wrote:
> On 4/2/16 9:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Every time? Using methodological naturalism explain how
> > the following works.
>
> I'll take the physics ones...
>
> > What is gravity?
>
> A manifestation of the geometry of spacetime.

And the mind is a manifestation of the body, such
an explanation is as vaporous as gravity itself.

What is it, a particle, a wave or a field?

Hint: I don't know is the correct answer.

>
> > What is the universe made of?
>
> For the most part, we don't know yet.
>

My point exactly.

> > What is light?
>
> Propagating modes of a U(1) gauge theory.
>

That what it does, what is it, a wave or
a particle?

> > What will happen tomorrow?
>
> You will fail to make a reasonable response to this post.
>

You lose, it's not tomorrow yet


> Steve Carlip
>

[Dana Tweedy]

Empiricism is, as per your definition, verifiable observation and
experience. Things that aren't testable, aren't verifiable.

> So millions of people
> throughout history have experienced God.

So they say, but that can't be objectively verified. It doesn't mean
it's not real, but it's still not verifiable. As the Metatron said:
"Metatron acts as the voice of God. Any documented occasion when some
yahoo claims God has spoken to them, they're speaking to me. Or they're
talking to themselves. "

Can you provide some way to objectively tell the difference?

> So apparently the empiricism of
> methodological naturalism does not extend to certain empirical facts.

What "empirical facts" are those? If you can show how to verify a
person's experience with God, the world would be thrilled to know. I'd
certainly be interested in that.

> It's a restricted empiricism.

No, just empiricism. Science deals only with what can be tested. That's
the rules, and that's always been the rules of science. I didn't make
the rules, so whining at me that the rules are unfair to your beliefs is
pointless.

Once you find a way to verify the observation of people having
experienced God, then you can complain about it being "restricted".

DJT

[jillery]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:29:33 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/2/2016 5:29 PM, Steven Carlip wrote:
>> On 4/2/16 9:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > Every time? Using methodological naturalism explain how
>> > the following works.
>>
>> I'll take the physics ones...
>>
>> > What is gravity?
>>
>> A manifestation of the geometry of spacetime.
>
>
>And the mind is a manifestation of the body, such
>an explanation is as vaporous as gravity itself.

Do you think all bodies manifest minds? Or just human bodies? Even
single-celled bodies?

>> > What is the universe made of?
>>
>> For the most part, we don't know yet.
>>
>
>
>My point exactly.

So your point is that we don't know everything. That's a truism not
in dispute, and so your point is irrelevant.

>> > What is light?
>>
>> Propagating modes of a U(1) gauge theory.
>>
>
>
>
>That what it does, what is it, a wave or
>a particle?

Yes. Reality isn't limited by the limitations of our language to
describe it, or of our ability to understand it.

>> > What will happen tomorrow?
>>
>> You will fail to make a reasonable response to this post.
>>
>
>
>
>You lose, it's not tomorrow yet

At least you admit your response isn't reasonable. Perhaps you will
try it sometime, if only for the novelty of the experience.

[RAM]

Where in that definition does it say "simple" experience or observation. You made that up.
Most importantly the empirical definition above emphasized "verifiable" observation and experience. Further all sciences requires "valid and verifiable" observations. Science excludes personal experience due to the failure of numerous test which empirically demonstrate people can not provide "valid and verifiable" information and the is particularly true about never systematically observed phenomena- these include imaginary friends, ghost, Gods, and flying yogies. Self-reports have tremendous "validity" concerns due to variability of descriptions and lack of confirmation by others and most importantly "verifiability" is almost impossible. You can not provide for a group of scientists the observations that confirm the "flying yogies" but one could the Flying Wallendas." More important yet is that instruments should be developed to facilitate verifiable and valid measures of observations. Poor measurement instruments are the nemesis of good science.

In short your statement above is not worthy of the notions of obesrvation and experience as defined by science.

> So millions of people
> throughout history have experienced God.

And their observations are all over the place. They also have seen ghosts, saints, haints, and satan. But observations of ghosts, haints, and satan are on the wane. You see the sociology and anthropology of religion provide some documentation of these latter phenomena and they also have to accept the observations people given them but there is little consistency about the substantive reality of any of them. Just that cultures and societies have social and cultural behaviors and beliefs that allow them to report their personal experiences with these entities.

>So apparently the empiricism of
> methodological naturalism does not extend to certain empirical facts.

Your empirical facts are culturally and socially bound. Thus the notion of a valid and reliable experience with various religions Gods produces no measurable empirical facts that allows them to say exactly who, how, what, when or why a particular God is more valid and reliable actor and personal experience definer than another. Plus numerous previously religious people don't help either by saying openly they never really experienced religion as they were taught to. Also most non believers know many non-believing ministers and ex-ministers to give them pause about the empirical facts report by religious people about who, how, what, when and why a particular deity or spirit affected them. So skepticism is inherent in religious communities and we do know in general the more conservative the religion the less open reporting of skepticism and the more liberal the more skepticism. Most importantly there is the perennial problem of religious beliefs, values and attitudes not being consistently acted upon by strong and weak believers. So empirical analysis of religions gives pause to the notion that religious people are special and more moral than the non-religious.

> It's a restricted empiricism.

Only because your flying yogies avoid allowing scientists systematic observation time to measure the frequency, duration, amount and elevation of yogie flying.

[jillery]

You have identified two things that experimenters should not do. It
would be more useful if you identified what experimenters should do.

>Those conducting these studies never ask God whether or not He has
>answered a given prayer, or why. Why is that? Because the experimenters
>have excluded Him from the experiment a priori! A bit disingenuous,
>don't you think?

How would you know if God even answered you? And even if He answered
you, how would you prove to anybody else?

[jillery]

>"em搆ir搏搾al
>?m?pirik(?)l/

>adjective
>adjective: empirical
>
> based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or
>experience rather than theory or pure logic."
>
>So empiricism is simply experience or observation. So millions of people
>throughout history have experienced God. So apparently the empiricism of
>methodological naturalism does not extend to certain empirical facts.
>It's a restricted empiricism.

Actually, millions of people have *said* they have experienced God.
Whether they *actually* have, and/or whether each person's experience
is consistent with all others, is strictly an assumption. Just
sayin'.

[Jonathan]

On 4/2/2016 4:44 PM, Oxyaena wrote:

>>
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless you can back
> your claims that disease is caused by "methodological naturalism" and
> not the real causes of disease, pathogens and viruses, I must have to
> ignore you.
>

And in another post you claimed God is impossible.
So, back up that extraordinary claim, or become
a first class hypocrite.

[Jonathan]

On 4/3/2016 1:21 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:29:33 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/2/2016 5:29 PM, Steven Carlip wrote:
>>> On 4/2/16 9:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> > Every time? Using methodological naturalism explain how
>>> > the following works.
>>>
>>> I'll take the physics ones...
>>>
>>> > What is gravity?
>>>
>>> A manifestation of the geometry of spacetime.
>>
>>
>> And the mind is a manifestation of the body, such
>> an explanation is as vaporous as gravity itself.
>
>
> Do you think all bodies manifest minds? Or just human bodies? Even
> single-celled bodies?
>
>
>>> > What is the universe made of?
>>>
>>> For the most part, we don't know yet.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My point exactly.
>
>
> So your point is that we don't know everything. That's a truism not
> in dispute, and so your point is irrelevant.

The point is we don't know much at all about
the basics of reality, the universe or life.

The point is that this means we are still
in the Dark Ages of science, contrary to
the wild faith-based claims that the science
practiced over the last century is the cure-all
and answer to (almost-nearly) everything.

Or will be soon enough.

The point is that our science is still blind
deaf and dumb when it comes to almost ALL OF
THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS.

I understand that most people, like yourself,
believe quite faithfully that since science
has built so many shiny toys that it must be
able to answer everything eventually.

But such blind faith is NOT born out by the facts.

In characterizing science today the typical science
minded utterly fails to follow their own advice
and let the facts speak for themselves, instead of
....their unbridled and unquestioning faith...
in reductionist science.

The facts are things like light, gravity,
space-time, the universe, source of life and
how to predict the future are all still
(almost-nearly) complete mysteries.

Please tell, when it comes to the basics of
reality and meaning, what do we know for
....certain?

Anything of importance?




s

[Kalkidas]

Experience means experience. The experience of God and the experience of
a physics lecture are both experiences. If people say they experienced
God, not Metatron, then why not take their word for it, just as you take
the word of someone who says they experienced a physics lecture and not
a sociology class?

You might say that you can know that the people who experienced the
physics lecture are telling the truth by quizzing them about physics.
But then you can also know that the people who say they experienced God
are telling the truth by quizzing them about God.

But in both cases you have to yourself be familiar with the subject
matter. So you may know something about physics, but nothing about God.
Then you're not really qualified to interrogate someone who claims they
experienced God, are you?

It would be ridiculous to disbelieve someone's claim that they attended
a physics class just because you don't know enough about physics to quiz
them on it, wouldn't it?

Similarly, it's ridiculous to disbelieve someone's claim that they
experienced God just because you don't know enough about God to quiz
them on it.

>
>> So apparently the empiricism of
>> methodological naturalism does not extend to certain empirical facts.
>
> What "empirical facts" are those? If you can show how to verify a
> person's experience with God, the world would be thrilled to know. I'd
> certainly be interested in that.
>
>> It's a restricted empiricism.
>
> No, just empiricism. Science deals only with what can be tested. That's
> the rules, and that's always been the rules of science. I didn't make
> the rules, so whining at me that the rules are unfair to your beliefs is
> pointless.
>
> Once you find a way to verify the observation of people having
> experienced God, then you can complain about it being "restricted".

I just did. The key is that the inquirer must know the subject matter.
That knowledge unfortunately is quite lacking in those who dismiss the
idea that people are experiencing God.

[jillery]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 08:24:58 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 4/3/2016 1:21 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:29:33 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/2/2016 5:29 PM, Steven Carlip wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/16 9:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> > Every time? Using methodological naturalism explain how
>>>> > the following works.
>>>>
>>>> I'll take the physics ones...
>>>>
>>>> > What is gravity?
>>>>
>>>> A manifestation of the geometry of spacetime.
>>>
>>>
>>> And the mind is a manifestation of the body, such
>>> an explanation is as vaporous as gravity itself.
>>
>>
>> Do you think all bodies manifest minds? Or just human bodies? Even
>> single-celled bodies?
>>
>>
>>>> > What is the universe made of?
>>>>
>>>> For the most part, we don't know yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My point exactly.
>>
>>
>> So your point is that we don't know everything. That's a truism not
>> in dispute, and so your point is irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
>The point is we don't know much at all about
>the basics of reality, the universe or life.

As I said, an irrelevant truism.

>The point is that this means we are still
>in the Dark Ages of science, contrary to
>the wild faith-based claims that the science
>practiced over the last century is the cure-all
>and answer to (almost-nearly) everything.

Right here would have been a good place for you to say what wild
faith-based claims you're thinking of. Just sayin'.

>Or will be soon enough.
>
>The point is that our science is still blind
>deaf and dumb when it comes to almost ALL OF
>THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS.
>
>I understand that most people, like yourself,
>believe quite faithfully that since science
>has built so many shiny toys that it must be
>able to answer everything eventually.

Once again, you prove that your ability to read minds is even worse
than your ability to read text, and that's a really low bar.

>But such blind faith is NOT born out by the facts.
>
>In characterizing science today the typical science
>minded utterly fails to follow their own advice
>and let the facts speak for themselves, instead of
>....their unbridled and unquestioning faith...
>in reductionist science.
>
>The facts are things like light, gravity,
>space-time, the universe, source of life and
>how to predict the future are all still
>(almost-nearly) complete mysteries.
>
>Please tell, when it comes to the basics of
>reality and meaning, what do we know for
>....certain?
>
>Anything of importance?

What's more important, how to go to heaven, or how the heavens go? IMO
people can disagree in good faith about that. Apparently your mileage
varies.

[jillery]

>>> "em搆ir搏搾al
>>> ?m?pirik(?)l/

Based on your expressed method, only those who agree with your
definition of God can affirm His existence. This is yet another
example of your trademark question-begging.

As a practical matter, as a first step, the inquirer need establish
that people's claimed experiences of God are similar enough to be
considered the same phenomenon. The inquirer's knowledge of God isn't
relevant to doing that.

Until then, there's no point in thinking about if that similar
phenomenon is in fact experiencing some external deity, or some effect
of their common biology. For example, some people might think a
burning sensation near their heart after eating certain foods is
experiencing God, as a sign of His disapproval of that habit. But a
more reasonable explanation is it's just excess stomach acid.

[Jonathan]

Ignorance is irrelevant? An 'interesting'
statement from someone that holds science
in esteem.

>
>> The point is that this means we are still
>> in the Dark Ages of science, contrary to
>> the wild faith-based claims that the science
>> practiced over the last century is the cure-all
>> and answer to (almost-nearly) everything.
>
>
> Right here would have been a good place for you to say what wild
> faith-based claims you're thinking of. Just sayin'.
>

I have at length over and over in this ng, have
you been asleep the last several years?

>
>> Or will be soon enough.
>>
>> The point is that our science is still blind
>> deaf and dumb when it comes to almost ALL OF
>> THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS.
>>
>> I understand that most people, like yourself,
>> believe quite faithfully that since science
>> has built so many shiny toys that it must be
>> able to answer everything eventually.
>
>
> Once again, you prove that your ability to read minds is even worse
> than your ability to read text, and that's a really low bar.
>

So I take it you deny you have a deep faith
in reductionist science then? If you deny
my assumption, then the reverse
must be true.

Or maybe you don't take any position at all to
make it easy to win debates, or at least
win them in your own mind.

Take a stand, if I'm incorrect then
correct me, where do you see the
limits of science if any, and where does
(religious) philosophy take over?

>
>> But such blind faith is NOT born out by the facts.
>>
>> In characterizing science today the typical science
>> minded utterly fails to follow their own advice
>> and let the facts speak for themselves, instead of
>> ....their unbridled and unquestioning faith...
>> in reductionist science.
>>
>> The facts are things like light, gravity,
>> space-time, the universe, source of life and
>> how to predict the future are all still
>> (almost-nearly) complete mysteries.
>>
>> Please tell, when it comes to the basics of
>> reality and meaning, what do we know for
>> ....certain?
>>
>> Anything of importance?
>
>
> What's more important, how to go to heaven, or how the heavens go? IMO
> people can disagree in good faith about that. Apparently your mileage
> varies.

So then you can't answer the question over what basics
of reality science knows for certain? Or what should be
the relationship between science and philosiohy?

Or are you dodging the question?

[Oxyaena]

It's easy, a, is there any evidence of the Abrahamic god that can't be
explained by science? No? Then God is impossible.

--
"We are all atheists about most gods humanity has ever believed in, some
of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

http://oxyaena.org/

[Oxyaena]

All those "examples" are just examples in the infallible mind of Jonathan.

>
>>
>>> Or will be soon enough.
>>>
>>> The point is that our science is still blind
>>> deaf and dumb when it comes to almost ALL OF
>>> THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS.
>>>
>>> I understand that most people, like yourself,
>>> believe quite faithfully that since science
>>> has built so many shiny toys that it must be
>>> able to answer everything eventually.
>>
>>
>> Once again, you prove that your ability to read minds is even worse
>> than your ability to read text, and that's a really low bar.
>>
>
>
> So I take it you deny you have a deep faith
> in reductionist science then? If you deny
> my assumption, then the reverse
> must be true.

You read minds now?

>
> Or maybe you don't take any position at all to
> make it easy to win debates, or at least
> win them in your own mind.
>
> Take a stand, if I'm incorrect then
> correct me, where do you see the
> limits of science if any, and where does
> (religious) philosophy take over?
>

Anywhere that isn't testable. A la, pseudoscience.

>
>
>>
>>> But such blind faith is NOT born out by the facts.
>>>
>>> In characterizing science today the typical science
>>> minded utterly fails to follow their own advice
>>> and let the facts speak for themselves, instead of
>>> ....their unbridled and unquestioning faith...
>>> in reductionist science.
>>>
>>> The facts are things like light, gravity,
>>> space-time, the universe, source of life and
>>> how to predict the future are all still
>>> (almost-nearly) complete mysteries.
>>>
>>> Please tell, when it comes to the basics of
>>> reality and meaning, what do we know for
>>> ....certain?
>>>
>>> Anything of importance?
>>
>>
>> What's more important, how to go to heaven, or how the heavens go? IMO
>> people can disagree in good faith about that. Apparently your mileage
>> varies.
>
>
>
>
> So then you can't answer the question over what basics
> of reality science knows for certain? Or what should be
> the relationship between science and philosiohy?
>
> Or are you dodging the question?

You spelled philosophy wrong. Wrong, science DOES NOT AND CAN NOT say
ANYTHING 'bout the afterlife for one simple reason, IT'S NOT TESTABLE.
Just like most of your assertions are untestable, perhaps you should get
your mind uplifted from the intelligence levels of a cockroach, just saying.

>
>
>
>
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>>
>

You dodged the question, you twit. I`m still waiting for a sound reply
that isn't chock full of ad hominems, and other fallacies.

[Bill Rogers]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 10:42:38 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
> > On 4/2/2016 4:44 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless you can back
> >> your claims that disease is caused by "methodological naturalism" and
> >> not the real causes of disease, pathogens and viruses, I must have to
> >> ignore you.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > And in another post you claimed God is impossible.
> > So, back up that extraordinary claim, or become
> > a first class hypocrite.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> It's easy, a, is there any evidence of the Abrahamic god that can't be
> explained by science? No? Then God is impossible.

That's a pretty unsatisfactory argument.

First, if there is no evidence of the Abrahamic God that cannot be explained by science, then the only conclusion you can draw is that the Abrahamic God is not necessary to explain the evidence. You can conclude that God is unnecessary, but not that He is impossible.

Second, such an argument cuts both ways. For example, a theist could argue "It's easy, a, is there any evidence explained by science that cannot also be explained by God? No? Then science is impossible."

[RAM]

That is not true. There is a long and highly problematic history of various sociologies of religion (Christian, Catholic and Jewish) who bring their beliefs, knowledge and experiences into their research and writings. They have a history trying to do what you clam is necessary.

The results are not as you claim to be possible. And their observations are all over the place. Religious people also have seen ghosts, saints, haints, and satan. But observations of ghosts, haints, and satan are on the wane. You see the sociology and anthropology of religion provide some documentation of these latter phenomena and they also have to accept the observations people give them but there is little consistency about the substantive reality of any of them. Most cultures and societies have social and cultural behaviors and beliefs that allow them to report their personal experiences with these entities. They do not regardless of the profound religious experiences of the researcher provide any empirical support for your claims.

[jillery]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 09:16:21 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

Ignorance is irrelevant to the topic. It is your trademark to not
care about relevance or sticking to the actual topic, features of a
village idiot.

>>> The point is that this means we are still
>>> in the Dark Ages of science, contrary to
>>> the wild faith-based claims that the science
>>> practiced over the last century is the cure-all
>>> and answer to (almost-nearly) everything.
>>
>>
>> Right here would have been a good place for you to say what wild
>> faith-based claims you're thinking of. Just sayin'.
>>
>
>
>I have at length over and over in this ng, have
>you been asleep the last several years?

I have better things to do than remember your asinine assertions. Nor
do I require or expect a comprehensive list, as my impression is such
a list might be too large for Usenet to handle. A single
representative example identified in this thread would be sufficient,
assuming you were actually interested in backing up your claims.

>>> Or will be soon enough.
>>>
>>> The point is that our science is still blind
>>> deaf and dumb when it comes to almost ALL OF
>>> THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS.
>>>
>>> I understand that most people, like yourself,
>>> believe quite faithfully that since science
>>> has built so many shiny toys that it must be
>>> able to answer everything eventually.
>>
>>
>> Once again, you prove that your ability to read minds is even worse
>> than your ability to read text, and that's a really low bar.
>>
>
>
>So I take it you deny you have a deep faith
>in reductionist science then? If you deny
>my assumption, then the reverse
>must be true.

You assert a false dichotomy, which is another trademark tactic of a
village idiot. Recognition of "reductionist science" requires no
faith, deep or otherwise. Assuming that the Universe is rational is
not the same category as accepting Revealed Truth.

>Or maybe you don't take any position at all to
>make it easy to win debates, or at least
>win them in your own mind.

Or maybe you enjoy being the village idiot.

>Take a stand, if I'm incorrect then
>correct me, where do you see the
>limits of science if any, and where does
>(religious) philosophy take over?

Sorry, that's not the topic to which I replied. Changing topics to
avoid backing up claims is another trademark tactic of a village
idiot.

>>> But such blind faith is NOT born out by the facts.
>>>
>>> In characterizing science today the typical science
>>> minded utterly fails to follow their own advice
>>> and let the facts speak for themselves, instead of
>>> ....their unbridled and unquestioning faith...
>>> in reductionist science.
>>>
>>> The facts are things like light, gravity,
>>> space-time, the universe, source of life and
>>> how to predict the future are all still
>>> (almost-nearly) complete mysteries.
>>>
>>> Please tell, when it comes to the basics of
>>> reality and meaning, what do we know for
>>> ....certain?
>>>
>>> Anything of importance?
>>
>>
>> What's more important, how to go to heaven, or how the heavens go? IMO
>> people can disagree in good faith about that. Apparently your mileage
>> varies.
>
>
>
>So then you can't answer the question over what basics
>of reality science knows for certain? Or what should be
>the relationship between science and philosiohy?

Those aren't the questions you asked me.

>Or are you dodging the question?

Nope. Asking questions using ambiguous terms is another trademark
tactic of a village idiot, as is refusing to define those ambiguous
terms, as is blaming others for not answering questions which use
ambiguous terms.

If you were really interested in an answer from me, you would have
said what you mean by "anything of importance", and how certainty is
relevant to your point, and actually stating explicitly your point,
and backing it up. Failing that, you're just blowing smoke.

[Steven Carlip]

On 4/3/16 1:29 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 4/2/2016 5:29 PM, Steven Carlip wrote:
>> On 4/2/16 9:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>> [...]

>> > Every time? Using methodological naturalism explain how
>> > the following works.

>> I'll take the physics ones...

>> > What is gravity?

>> A manifestation of the geometry of spacetime.

> And the mind is a manifestation of the body, such
> an explanation is as vaporous as gravity itself.

You misunderstand. The geometry of spacetime has a number
of measurable effects ("manifestations"), for instance
through its effect on the relative speeds of clocks and
the relative distances of masses like the LIGO mirrors.
One particular such effect is what we call gravity.

If you want me to be more specific, gravity is geodesic
deviation caused by nonvanishing spacetime curvature.

> What is it, a particle, a wave or a field?

It's certainly not a particle or a wave. The term "field"
is general enough that you can call spacetime curvature a
field if you want to, but that doesn't really add much
information.

> Hint: I don't know is the correct answer.

Yes, we do. What you mean is that *you* don't know the

correct answer.

>> > What is the universe made of?

>> For the most part, we don't know yet.

> My point exactly.

One of the strengths of science is that we tend to be aware
of when we don't know the answer to a question, and we don't
try to fudge with vacuous words. Thee are a bunch of very
interesting, very clever experiments in operation to try to
answer this question, and a bunch more in preparation. I'm
confident that we'll know much better in the future.

>> > What is light?

>> Propagating modes of a U(1) gauge theory.

> That what it does,

No, that's what it is. The noun here is "modes," not
"propagating." Again, a U(1) gauge theory has various
manifestations; one of these is light.

> what is it, a wave or a particle?

No, it's not a wave or a particle. It's a quantum state, which
is neither. There are some descriptions of such a state that
have particle-like properties, and others that have wave-like
properties, but they are completely interchangeable.

Photons, for instance, are particle-like in the sense that they
have definite energies and momenta, but they are also completely
nonlocalized. Coherent states are more localized, but do not
have definite momenta. Any state of the electromagnetic field
can be described either in terms of photons or in terms of
coherent states -- a single photon, for instance, is a
superposition of coherent states, and a single coherent state
is a superposition of photons.

You probably don't understand this, because it doesn't fit into
a nice, easily visualizable metaphor. That doesn't mean it's
wrong -- Nature has no responsibility to be understandable to
someone who isn't willing to do the work to learn.

>> > What will happen tomorrow?

>> You will fail to make a reasonable response to this post.

> You lose, it's not tomorrow yet

Yes, it is. You're just in the wrong time zone.

Steve Carlip

[Dana Tweedy]

And verifiable means verifiable. Care to answer my question?

> The experience of God and the experience of
> a physics lecture are both experiences. If people say they experienced
> God, not Metatron, then why not take their word for it, just as you take
> the word of someone who says they experienced a physics lecture and not
> a sociology class?

Because there are many purely physical mental conditions that can make
someone think they experienced God. I can verify that a physics lecture
took place.

>
> You might say that you can know that the people who experienced the
> physics lecture are telling the truth by quizzing them about physics.
> But then you can also know that the people who say they experienced God
> are telling the truth by quizzing them about God.

Again, how do I, or anyone else, tell the difference between a true
experience with God, and a psychotic episode caused by a chemical
imbalance in the brain?

>
> But in both cases you have to yourself be familiar with the subject
> matter. So you may know something about physics, but nothing about God.
> Then you're not really qualified to interrogate someone who claims they
> experienced God, are you?

Which is why a claim someone has experienced God is not verifiable.

>
> It would be ridiculous to disbelieve someone's claim that they attended
> a physics class just because you don't know enough about physics to quiz
> them on it, wouldn't it?

Again, there is a way to verify that someone attended a physics lecture.
There's no way to verify that someone has experienced a true
interaction with God.

>
> Similarly, it's ridiculous to disbelieve someone's claim that they
> experienced God just because you don't know enough about God to quiz
> them on it.

It would be just as ridiculous to accept that someone experienced God
just because I don't know enough about God to quiz them on it. That's
why it's not verifiable, and why science leaves out appeals to the
supernatural.

>
>
>
>>
>>> So apparently the empiricism of
>>> methodological naturalism does not extend to certain empirical facts.
>>
>> What "empirical facts" are those? If you can show how to verify a
>> person's experience with God, the world would be thrilled to know. I'd
>> certainly be interested in that.
>>
>>> It's a restricted empiricism.
>>
>> No, just empiricism. Science deals only with what can be tested. That's
>> the rules, and that's always been the rules of science. I didn't make
>> the rules, so whining at me that the rules are unfair to your beliefs is
>> pointless.
>>
>> Once you find a way to verify the observation of people having
>> experienced God, then you can complain about it being "restricted".
>
> I just did.

No, you just made some empty claims. There's no way to verify someone's
experience with a supernatural being. Certainly asking them questions
can only verify that the person imagines the experience to be real. It
may be real, or may not be real. There's no way to test.

> The key is that the inquirer must know the subject matter.

and how does one know that one knows the subject matter, and isn't just
engaging in self deception?

> That knowledge unfortunately is quite lacking in those who dismiss the
> idea that people are experiencing God.

I don't dismiss the idea that that people are experiencing God. I am
asking you how does one tell the difference between experiencing God,
and having a delusion? Your methodology does not allow for any way of
making that distinction.


DJT



>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 13:47:13 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 4/2/2016 1:26 PM, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 3:42:41 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2016 11:58 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:

>>>>> Thus methodological naturalism is a limitation of the original
>>>>> scientific method, which had no such a priori censorship of hypotheses.
>>>>

>>>> Methodological naturalism, and "the original scientific method" BOTH limit hypotheses to those that can be empirically tested. Neither claims that non-testable hypotheses are false, only that they are nothing science can say anything about.
>>>
>>>> Methodological naturalism does not even exclude God making things happen, as long as he makes them happen in a sufficiently regular, repeatable way that the hypothesis of His making them happen can be tested.
>>>
>>> That's not correct. You will not find a single hypothesis that "God
>>> makes such and such happen" in any mainstream scientific journal. It is
>>> absolutely forbidden by the philosophical bias of methodological
>>> naturalism. Natural phenomena are permitted only natural hypotheses.
>>> This is proof that methodological naturalism is equivalent to
>>> philosophical naturalism, which is the opinion that nature is a closed,
>>> self-sufficient system, implying (but rarely admitted) that nature is God.
>>
>> Actually, you will find studies on the efficacy of prayer (meaning cures that God makes happen). As a whole, those studies find no effect of prayer. Some religious people come back and say that God grants prayers in ways that we humans cannot understand. That produces an untestable hypothesis. But what makes it untestable is not that God is involved, but that it makes no empirically testable predictions.
>
>But in those studies, prayer is not treated as having any relationship
>to God. At best, it is treated only as a self-contained physiological
>mechanism. At worst, it is treated as a psychological mechanism
>(psychology being not the most rigorous of sciences, and brimming with
>undefined terms). Those studies really have nothing to do with God.

To get to that point it is first necessary to demonstrate
that it works, as in "there is a measurable difference in
outcome if prayer is used". Since no study has shown such a
measurable difference (feel free to cite such studies if I'm
incorrect on that point) there is nothing to investigate.

>If those studies had God as a real factor, or hypothesis, then to test
>the efficacy of prayer, you would have to conduct them both when God was
>present and when He was absent. This amounts to creating two complete
>realities, one in which God exists, and the other in which God doesn't
>exist! And good luck with that.

You're getting ahead of yourself; that would only be
necessary if an effect were shown. With no effect shown
(meaning, I guess, that to you God has never been present)
no further investigation is possible.

Bottom line: *First* demonstrate an effect exists. *Second*
investigate the potential causes of that effect. We have yet
to get past the first point.

>> Methodological naturalism does not exclude hypotheses involving God, unless the hypotheses are untestable. If religious believers have had trouble coming up with empirical tests for the action of God, that's not the fault of science. But when they do, science will be able to test such hypotheses.

Exactly.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Kalkidas]

Why should distinguishing an experience of God from delusion be any
different from distinguishing an experience of a headache from delusion?

You're like someone who has never had a headache, so you think other
people are in illusion when they say they have headaches. You demand
that they "show you" their pain, and when they try to explain that pain
is not something that can be shown, but must be experienced, you protest
"well then, there is no 'evidence' that they are really in pain."

The evidence is the experience. If you don't know how to evaluate the
experience, then learn. If you want to evaluate claims by
God-experiencers, then learn something about the science of theology.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 15:26:12 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>"em搆ir搏搾al
>?m?pirik(?)l/

>adjective
>adjective: empirical
>
> based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or
>experience rather than theory or pure logic."
>
>So empiricism is simply experience or observation. So millions of people
>throughout history have experienced God. So apparently the empiricism of
>methodological naturalism does not extend to certain empirical facts.
>It's a restricted empiricism.

No scientist would deny that "millions of people throughout
history have experienced God" (actually, thousands of gods,
all different). Is it your contention that all of those
experiences reflect reality, and that there are thousands of
gods? Or is one somehow "special", and all the others merely
imaginary?

What science needs, and has not been given, is evidence that
any of these "experiences" are reality-based.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/3/16 12:09 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/3/2016 10:51 AM, Dana Tweedy wrote:

snipping a great deal that was ignored, and/or avoided

>>> That knowledge unfortunately is quite lacking in those who dismiss the
>>> idea that people are experiencing God.
>>
>> I don't dismiss the idea that that people are experiencing God. I am
>> asking you how does one tell the difference between experiencing God,
>> and having a delusion? Your methodology does not allow for any way of
>> making that distinction.
>
> Why should distinguishing an experience of God from delusion be any
> different from distinguishing an experience of a headache from delusion?

Psychosomatic headaches are a thing. Headaches can be delusions, just
as they can be caused by physical effects.

You still are avoiding my question.

>
> You're like someone who has never had a headache, so you think other
> people are in illusion when they say they have headaches. You demand
> that they "show you" their pain, and when they try to explain that pain
> is not something that can be shown, but must be experienced, you protest
> "well then, there is no 'evidence' that they are really in pain."

I can devise tests to measure pain levels in the brain, and I can
examine the person for physical signs such as tense neck muscles,
swelling in the meninges, or sinus infections that cause head pain.
That way I can determine which pain is more likely caused by physical
mechanisms, and which is psychosomatic.

You still are avoiding my question. How can I determine if one's
experience with God is real, or imagined?

>
> The evidence is the experience. If you don't know how to evaluate the
> experience, then learn.

That is what I'm asking you. How does one "learn" the experience of
others? What methodology does one use to determine the difference
between a real supernatural experience, and one the person's mind
produced due to mis-perception, delusion, or wishful thinking?

> If you want to evaluate claims by
> God-experiencers, then learn something about the science of theology.

There is no such thing as "science of theology" precisely because
theology does not (and cannot) make use of methodological naturalism.
Without that limit to what can be testable, science isn't possible.

DJT

[Kalkidas]

On 4/3/2016 11:40 AM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 4/3/16 12:09 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 4/3/2016 10:51 AM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>
> snipping a great deal that was ignored, and/or avoided
>
>
>>>> That knowledge unfortunately is quite lacking in those who dismiss the
>>>> idea that people are experiencing God.
>>>
>>> I don't dismiss the idea that that people are experiencing God. I am
>>> asking you how does one tell the difference between experiencing God,
>>> and having a delusion? Your methodology does not allow for any way of
>>> making that distinction.
>>
>> Why should distinguishing an experience of God from delusion be any
>> different from distinguishing an experience of a headache from delusion?
>
> Psychosomatic headaches are a thing. Headaches can be delusions, just
> as they can be caused by physical effects.

The experience of pain is not a delusion. If you feel pain, you are
really feeling pain. Psychosomatic headaches are still experienced as
headaches. You cannot say to someone that he is only "imagining" a
headache. That's absurd. Merely imagining having a headache is different
from having a headache.

> You still are avoiding my question.

No. I am not. You are simply not willing to exert any effort to put my
answer into practice. You apparently want to justify your unwillingness.
My conclusion is that you are not very sincere, and neither is your
alleged "question".

>> You're like someone who has never had a headache, so you think other
>> people are in illusion when they say they have headaches. You demand
>> that they "show you" their pain, and when they try to explain that pain
>> is not something that can be shown, but must be experienced, you protest
>> "well then, there is no 'evidence' that they are really in pain."
>
> I can devise tests to measure pain levels in the brain, and I can
> examine the person for physical signs such as tense neck muscles,
> swelling in the meninges, or sinus infections that cause head pain. That
> way I can determine which pain is more likely caused by physical
> mechanisms, and which is psychosomatic.

You cannot measure the experience of pain. You can get sets of numbers
from the brain, but that is not the experience of pain. You cannot
translate those numbers into an experience that you can have yourself
just by knowing the numbers.

> You still are avoiding my question. How can I determine if one's
> experience with God is real, or imagined?
>
>
>>
>> The evidence is the experience. If you don't know how to evaluate the
>> experience, then learn.
>
> That is what I'm asking you. How does one "learn" the experience of
> others? What methodology does one use to determine the difference
> between a real supernatural experience, and one the person's mind
> produced due to mis-perception, delusion, or wishful thinking?

One "learns" an experience by having the experience oneself. For
example, one learns the experience of Einstein's General Relativity by
replicating Einstein's thinking in his own thinking. One does that by
getting hold of everything Einstein is recorded to have said or wrote
and absorbing oneself in it as much as possible, until one sees the
world as Einstein saw it. This is, in a way, more difficult than
experiencing God, since Einstein is gone and is not talking or writing
any more. But God is not gone, and He is still talking and writing. In
fact, you'll never catch up. Better start soon.

>> If you want to evaluate claims by
>> God-experiencers, then learn something about the science of theology.
>
> There is no such thing as "science of theology" precisely because
> theology does not (and cannot) make use of methodological naturalism.
> Without that limit to what can be testable, science isn't possible.

See, I told you your question was not sincere.

[jillery]

>>>>> "em搆ir搏搾al
>>>>> ?m?pirik(?)l/

Unless you're claiming that the presence of God is internal, your
analogy is meaningless. If that's what you're claiming here, then
your previous line of reasoning is meaningless.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/3/16 1:03 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/3/2016 11:40 AM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 4/3/16 12:09 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2016 10:51 AM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>>
>> snipping a great deal that was ignored, and/or avoided
>>
>>
>>>>> That knowledge unfortunately is quite lacking in those who dismiss the
>>>>> idea that people are experiencing God.
>>>>
>>>> I don't dismiss the idea that that people are experiencing God. I am
>>>> asking you how does one tell the difference between experiencing God,
>>>> and having a delusion? Your methodology does not allow for any way of
>>>> making that distinction.
>>>
>>> Why should distinguishing an experience of God from delusion be any
>>> different from distinguishing an experience of a headache from delusion?
>>
>> Psychosomatic headaches are a thing. Headaches can be delusions, just
>> as they can be caused by physical effects.
>
> The experience of pain is not a delusion. If you feel pain, you are
> really feeling pain. Psychosomatic headaches are still experienced as
> headaches. You cannot say to someone that he is only "imagining" a
> headache. That's absurd. Merely imagining having a headache is different
> from having a headache.
>
>> You still are avoiding my question.
>
> No. I am not.

Yes, you are, otherwise you'd be answering the question, not trying to
run an end run around it.

> You are simply not willing to exert any effort to put my
> answer into practice.

You have neither provided an answer, or a way of putting any answer into

practice.

> You apparently want to justify your unwillingness.

and once again, you are trying to react to things I never said. You
are assuming I'm unwilling, while not providing any useful actions that
I could take.

> My conclusion is that you are not very sincere, and neither is your
> alleged "question".

Apparently this was your assumption before I even asked the question.
Again, you are avoiding the question, and trying to shift the blame to
me for not answering that question.

>
>>> You're like someone who has never had a headache, so you think other
>>> people are in illusion when they say they have headaches. You demand
>>> that they "show you" their pain, and when they try to explain that pain
>>> is not something that can be shown, but must be experienced, you protest
>>> "well then, there is no 'evidence' that they are really in pain."
>>
>> I can devise tests to measure pain levels in the brain, and I can
>> examine the person for physical signs such as tense neck muscles,
>> swelling in the meninges, or sinus infections that cause head pain. That
>> way I can determine which pain is more likely caused by physical
>> mechanisms, and which is psychosomatic.
>
> You cannot measure the experience of pain.

So you say, but you know nothing about the brain, or how it's wired.

> You can get sets of numbers
> from the brain, but that is not the experience of pain. You cannot
> translate those numbers into an experience that you can have yourself
> just by knowing the numbers.

But I can measure the body's reaction to particular conditions, and
measure the brain's reaction to stimuli. Methodological naturalism makes
this possible. Assuming one's conclusion does not.

>
>> You still are avoiding my question. How can I determine if one's
>> experience with God is real, or imagined?
>>

and my question remains unanswered.

>>
>>>
>>> The evidence is the experience. If you don't know how to evaluate the
>>> experience, then learn.
>>
>> That is what I'm asking you. How does one "learn" the experience of
>> others? What methodology does one use to determine the difference
>> between a real supernatural experience, and one the person's mind
>> produced due to mis-perception, delusion, or wishful thinking?
>
> One "learns" an experience by having the experience oneself.

I've never had cancer, but I don't need to have it to learn about it.
Doctors who don't have cancer are able to treat those who do, without
having to experience it for themselves.

> For
> example, one learns the experience of Einstein's General Relativity by
> replicating Einstein's thinking in his own thinking. One does that by
> getting hold of everything Einstein is recorded to have said or wrote
> and absorbing oneself in it as much as possible, until one sees the
> world as Einstein saw it.

Or, more practically, one can perform tests to see if Einstein's
observations match reality. One can learn the theory of Relativity
without becoming Einstein. Again, that's one of the practical
applications of methodological naturalism.

> This is, in a way, more difficult than
> experiencing God, since Einstein is gone and is not talking or writing
> any more. But God is not gone, and He is still talking and writing. In
> fact, you'll never catch up. Better start soon.

And once more, you prove unable to answer the question.

People's experience with God is unique to that person. Doing the same
things that one person has done will not bring the same results to
everyone. Pharmacological substances may produce an altered level of
consciousness, which some people interpret as experiencing God, but
that's merely mistaking brain chemical imbalance for the supernatural.

So, we are left with the original question yet again. How does one
determine what is a true experience with God, and what is a delusion?

>
>>> If you want to evaluate claims by
>>> God-experiencers, then learn something about the science of theology.
>>
>> There is no such thing as "science of theology" precisely because
>> theology does not (and cannot) make use of methodological naturalism.
>> Without that limit to what can be testable, science isn't possible.
>
> See, I told you your question was not sincere.

See, you are avoiding the question by trying change the topic. Theology
is not a science, and never was.

My sincerity is not affected by your inability to face reality.


DJT



>

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-04-02 21:01:03 +0000, Kalkidas said:

> On 4/2/2016 1:46 PM, eridanus wrote:

>> El sábado, 2 de abril de 2016, 13:47:42 (UTC+1), Kalkidas escribió:
>>> 1a) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>> data, you blame the data rather than the method.
>>>
>>> 1b) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>> data, you blame the person(s) who collected the data rather than the method.
>>>
>>> 1c) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>> data, you blame the person(s) who points it out to you rather than the
>>> method.
>>>
>>> 1d) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
>>> data, you blame "religious fundamentalists" rather than the method.
>>>
>>> That about covers it. Pointing out the defects in such a self-serving
>>> dogmatic worldview isn't rocket science. If you think it is, you might
>>> be a dogmatic naturalist.
>>

>> your argument suggests that to know something only it is needed some will.
>> But a will is not enough to solve a problem or a riddle.
>
> Actually, it is enough. Every problem of life can be solved if one is
> determined to inquire of the One who is over all, and to accept the
> answer, whatever that answer might be.
>
> But if one doesn't honor the Lord, he will be nothing but a problem,
> for the world and for himself.

*
Kalk:

Where's the data that fits that theory?

Some book written by humans a couple of thousand years ago?

earle
*

[Kalkidas]

LOL. What a loser....

[Jonathan]

On 4/3/2016 12:01 PM, jillery wrote:

>
> If you were really interested in an answer from me, you would have
> said what you mean by "anything of importance",

The post started out with a list of examples, did
you miss that?

> and how certainty is
> relevant to your point,

Certainty as in scientific certainty, do you
need a dictionary, or are you just doing
your usual song and dance whenever you
can't answer a question?

> and actually stating explicitly your point,
> and backing it up.

I was clear to even a child my point was
the lack of understanding about life, the
universe and everything else our current
science has achieved. Why do you refuse
to discuss such a topic?

> Failing that, you're just blowing smoke.
> --

Your replies are so empty they don't
even qualify as smoke.



s

[Dana Tweedy]

I'll take that as your concession speech.

DJT

[jillery]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 18:53:44 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/3/2016 12:01 PM, jillery wrote:
>
>>
>> If you were really interested in an answer from me, you would have
>> said what you mean by "anything of importance",
>
>
>The post started out with a list of examples, did
>you miss that?

You mean that list of questions you conveniently deleted? No, I
didn't miss that. Did you miss that I didn't reply to your list, but
to your reply to Steve Carlip?

So you posted a list of questions that aren't known with certainty,
and you only now identify as important to you. So how was I supposed
to answer your question to me? Or did you intend it to be rhetorical,
as if by merely posting your questions necessarily makes them
important to everybody?

>> and how certainty is
>> relevant to your point,
>
>
>Certainty as in scientific certainty, do you
>need a dictionary, or are you just doing
>your usual song and dance whenever you
>can't answer a question?

The only song and dance here is your trademark inability to ask a
coherent question. Science doesn't use the word certainty the way you
do. And no dictionary is going to tell me how either definition is
relevant to your point, even if you had one.

>> and actually stating explicitly your point,
>> and backing it up.
>
>
>I was clear to even a child my point was
>the lack of understanding about life, the
>universe and everything else our current
>science has achieved. Why do you refuse
>to discuss such a topic?

Right, you're so clear even you can't say what your point is. Don't
be insulted that I don't wait for you to do so.

>> Failing that, you're just blowing smoke.
>
>

>Your replies are so empty they don't
>even qualify as smoke.

Did you miss the part where you admitted that your reply wasn't
reasonable? You conveniently deleted that, too.

And the village idiots projects again. Is anybody surprised?
--

[Sean Dillon]

One need not accept methodological naturalism a priori to conduct science. Methodological naturalism is, however, an inevitable outcome of science of following the scientific method. The scientific method demands that a hypothesis must be testable (falsifiable), and predictive, and that the conclusions must be repeatable. These are not optional... without these requirements, science would have no rigor, no power.

No hypothesis that invokes the agency of a mysterious, capricious, potentially all-powerful intelligent entity CAN be any of those things. Therefore, no explanation of data that invokes God as a cause can be examined within the framework of science.

And yes, that IS a limitation. Yes, it means that there MAY be truths that science can intrinsically never confirm. It is important that we recognize this about science. It is not an infinitely powerful tool. But without those limitations it would be a limp noodle, useless for explaining anything, because it could "explain" anything.

[Kalkidas]

On 4/4/2016 5:58 AM, Sean Dillon wrote:
> One need not accept methodological naturalism a priori to conduct science. Methodological naturalism is, however, an inevitable outcome of science of following the scientific method. The scientific method demands that a hypothesis must be testable (falsifiable), and predictive, and that the conclusions must be repeatable. These are not optional... without these requirements, science would have no rigor, no power.
>
> No hypothesis that invokes the agency of a mysterious, capricious, potentially all-powerful intelligent entity CAN be any of those things. Therefore, no explanation of data that invokes God as a cause can be examined within the framework of science.

Only atheists think God is "capricious". So I wonder why you put that in
there....

[Bill Rogers]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:27:35 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/4/2016 5:58 AM, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > One need not accept methodological naturalism a priori to conduct science. Methodological naturalism is, however, an inevitable outcome of science of following the scientific method. The scientific method demands that a hypothesis must be testable (falsifiable), and predictive, and that the conclusions must be repeatable. These are not optional... without these requirements, science would have no rigor, no power.
> >
> > No hypothesis that invokes the agency of a mysterious, capricious, potentially all-powerful intelligent entity CAN be any of those things. Therefore, no explanation of data that invokes God as a cause can be examined within the framework of science.
>
> Only atheists think God is "capricious". So I wonder why you put that in
> there....

You think God is capricious, too. You say that methodological naturalism cannot study God's behavior. But if God is NOT capricious, then His behavior follows reproducible regular patterns. If his behavior does that, then He can be studied by methodological naturalism. If his behavior does not follow reproducible, regular patterns, then He is capricious, and cannot be studied by methodological naturalism. So when you say that He cannot be studied by methodological naturalism, you are agreeing that God is capricious.

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:27:35 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:

> Only atheists think God is "capricious". So I wonder why you put that in
> there....

You know, I agree, that comes across as a loaded term, in a way I didn't intend. Perhaps "inscrutable" would be better? What I meant to say is that -- if there is a God -- God does not perform on command. And that is problematic for science, since science demands that results of a test must be consistently repeatable.

This is just part of the bigger problem with including God in science. Basically, the problem with using God as an explanation is that God (generically defined), being all-powerful or close to it, *could* enact absolutely any plausible reality whatsoever. So there is literally NO reality, no test result, etc. that COULD not be the outcome of the Will of a God.

And that's a problem, because the rigor of science requires that a scientific hypothesis must have the potential for falsification. In order to be scientifically examinable, there must exist SOME test of the hypothesis for which one of the plausible outcomes is disproof of the hypothesis. And there is literally no POSSIBLE disproof of a hypothesis that invokes the actions of an Entity that is compatible with every and any possible outcome.

For related reasons, God isn't great as an explanation. God cannot explain why something is one particular way and *not any other way,* because God fits ALL ways. God is basically explanatory silly putty. No matter the size or shape of the hole in our knowledge, we can stuff God in there to plug it up. But silly putty is a weak sealant. Much better to find an explanatory plug that fits that hole and ONLY that hole. (In other words, an explanation that demonstrates why something is one particular way, to the exclusion of any other way.)

And because God's Will is inscrutable, explanations invoking God have no predictive power. We cannot make meaningful predictions about other and/or future situations from a God-based hypothesis, because God may behave differently, according to God's Will.

For all three of these reasons (falsifiability, explanatory ability, and predictive ability -- all of which are essential to the rigor and usefulness of science), science has NO CHOICE but to pursue explanatory avenues that do not invoke God. Science doesn't DISPROVE God, or claim that God doesn't exist. Science simply has limitations that intrinsically require it to ask "How far can we get on these questions, without invoking a silly putty explanation?"

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:07:36 AM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:

> For all three of these reasons (falsifiability, explanatory ability, and predictive ability -- all of which are essential to the rigor and usefulness of science), science has NO CHOICE but to pursue explanatory avenues that do not invoke God. Science doesn't DISPROVE God, or claim that God doesn't exist. Science simply has limitations that intrinsically require it to ask "How far can we get on these questions, without invoking a silly putty explanation?"

And I should say: while "silly putty explanation" may sound derisive, I don't actually mean it that way. It is conceivable that the silly putty explanation ("Goddidit") is in fact the most accurate, truthful explanation in some instances. However, if this is true, those instances are simply outside the bounds of science to examine.

Science is not the only way of learning, or knowing. It is simply a particularly useful and rigorous one.

[Kalkidas]

On 4/4/2016 7:58 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:27:35 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 4/4/2016 5:58 AM, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>> One need not accept methodological naturalism a priori to conduct science. Methodological naturalism is, however, an inevitable outcome of science of following the scientific method. The scientific method demands that a hypothesis must be testable (falsifiable), and predictive, and that the conclusions must be repeatable. These are not optional... without these requirements, science would have no rigor, no power.
>>>
>>> No hypothesis that invokes the agency of a mysterious, capricious, potentially all-powerful intelligent entity CAN be any of those things. Therefore, no explanation of data that invokes God as a cause can be examined within the framework of science.
>>
>> Only atheists think God is "capricious". So I wonder why you put that in
>> there....
>
> You think God is capricious, too. You say that methodological naturalism cannot study God's behavior. But if God is NOT capricious, then His behavior follows reproducible regular patterns. If his behavior does that, then He can be studied by methodological naturalism. If his behavior does not follow reproducible, regular patterns, then He is capricious, and cannot be studied by methodological naturalism. So when you say that He cannot be studied by methodological naturalism, you are agreeing that God is capricious.

You think "capricious" means not following "reproducible regular
patterns"? You think that "capricious" means "not mechanical"?

That is not what is meant by "capricious". Capriciousness is a generally
negative *personality trait*, meaning unreliable, likely to change one's
mind for no reason. God doesn't change His mind for no reason, and He
isn't unreliable. God's detractors accuse Him of that, but since they
are His detractors, their accusation is self-serving.

[Kalkidas]

On 4/4/2016 8:05 AM, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:27:35 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>
>> Only atheists think God is "capricious". So I wonder why you put that in
>> there....
>
> You know, I agree, that comes across as a loaded term, in a way I didn't intend. Perhaps "inscrutable" would be better? What I meant to say is that -- if there is a God -- God does not perform on command. And that is problematic for science, since science demands that results of a test must be consistently repeatable.

Actually, God does sometimes perform on command, if the command comes
from someone whose love for God is completely pure and without
self-serving motives. Jesus Christ, for example: God did whatever he
asked. That, of course, is not "capriciousness" at all. It's an exchange
of loving service, a thing of which cold, hard "science" is totally
unaware but which actually rules all of existence.

But you're right, God is a problem for the rather narrow spectrum of
methodologies that is taken to be "science" these days. The desire for
"repeatability" is really a desire for control, and God will certainly
have none of that from people who not only don't love Him, but are
outright hostile to Him and wish He would go away.

[Bill Rogers]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:22:35 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/4/2016 7:58 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:27:35 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 4/4/2016 5:58 AM, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >>> One need not accept methodological naturalism a priori to conduct science. Methodological naturalism is, however, an inevitable outcome of science of following the scientific method. The scientific method demands that a hypothesis must be testable (falsifiable), and predictive, and that the conclusions must be repeatable. These are not optional... without these requirements, science would have no rigor, no power.
> >>>
> >>> No hypothesis that invokes the agency of a mysterious, capricious, potentially all-powerful intelligent entity CAN be any of those things. Therefore, no explanation of data that invokes God as a cause can be examined within the framework of science.
> >>
> >> Only atheists think God is "capricious". So I wonder why you put that in
> >> there....
> >
> > You think God is capricious, too. You say that methodological naturalism cannot study God's behavior. But if God is NOT capricious, then His behavior follows reproducible regular patterns. If his behavior does that, then He can be studied by methodological naturalism. If his behavior does not follow reproducible, regular patterns, then He is capricious, and cannot be studied by methodological naturalism. So when you say that He cannot be studied by methodological naturalism, you are agreeing that God is capricious.
>
> You think "capricious" means not following "reproducible regular
> patterns"? You think that "capricious" means "not mechanical"?

That is the sense in which God is capricious, according to religious people.

>
> That is not what is meant by "capricious". Capriciousness is a generally
> negative *personality trait*, meaning unreliable, likely to change one's
> mind for no reason. God doesn't change His mind for no reason, and He
> isn't unreliable. God's detractors accuse Him of that, but since they
> are His detractors, their accusation is self-serving.

You say that God does not change his mind for no reason. If that is the case, then his behavior is regular and reproducible and can be studied by science. On the other hand, if God changes his mind for reasons, but the reasons are, in principle, inaccessible to investigation, then He is, for all practical purposes, just as capricious as if he changed his mind for no reason at all.

Your argument about reproducibility and the desire for control, comes down to saying that it is inappropriate to try to control God by subjecting Him to controlled studies. That's fine. In that case you are agreeing that God is outside the purview of science. Methodological naturalism cannot study something which does not behave reproducibly. That's just the way it is. And Methodological naturalism cannot study God, not because it rules God out, but because religious people, like yourself, insist that God cannot be constrained to behave reproducibly.

[Robert Camp]

I would suggest here that while we cannot say science is the only way of
knowing, we *can* note the objective impossibility of determining that
there actually is another way of knowing - since some sort of scientific
methodology would be required to do so.

Not definitive, not enough to support metaphysical naturalism (in my
opinion), but pretty damn close.

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:

> Actually, God does sometimes perform on command, if the command comes
> from someone whose love for God is completely pure and without
> self-serving motives. Jesus Christ, for example: God did whatever he
> asked. That, of course, is not "capriciousness" at all. It's an exchange
> of loving service, a thing of which cold, hard "science" is totally
> unaware but which actually rules all of existence.

Well if you can get Jesus to come by the lab, I'm sure they'd be thrilled as His assistance.

> But you're right, God is a problem for the rather narrow spectrum of
> methodologies that is taken to be "science" these days. The desire for
> "repeatability" is really a desire for control, and God will certainly
> have none of that from people who not only don't love Him, but are
> outright hostile to Him and wish He would go away.

"Science" has the veneer of respectability it does, BECAUSE of those restrictive methodologies. Science, using those restrictive methodologies, has proven to be a highly effective tool in the generation of useful, specific, explanatory, predictive models of how the universe operates. An idea has to get over a high wall of rigorous skepticism to survive in science.

And you now want to broaden the definition of science, and make lax those restrictive methodologies. Why? So you can call your thinking science, thus gaining the veneer the term provides, but without any of the rigor that earned the veneer in the first place.

God isn't a problem for science. God it a moot point for science. You're welcome to study God by other means... science just isn't the right tool for that.

[Kalkidas]

On 4/4/2016 8:45 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:22:35 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 4/4/2016 7:58 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:27:35 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2016 5:58 AM, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>>> One need not accept methodological naturalism a priori to conduct science. Methodological naturalism is, however, an inevitable outcome of science of following the scientific method. The scientific method demands that a hypothesis must be testable (falsifiable), and predictive, and that the conclusions must be repeatable. These are not optional... without these requirements, science would have no rigor, no power.
>>>>>
>>>>> No hypothesis that invokes the agency of a mysterious, capricious, potentially all-powerful intelligent entity CAN be any of those things. Therefore, no explanation of data that invokes God as a cause can be examined within the framework of science.
>>>>
>>>> Only atheists think God is "capricious". So I wonder why you put that in
>>>> there....
>>>
>>> You think God is capricious, too. You say that methodological naturalism cannot study God's behavior. But if God is NOT capricious, then His behavior follows reproducible regular patterns. If his behavior does that, then He can be studied by methodological naturalism. If his behavior does not follow reproducible, regular patterns, then He is capricious, and cannot be studied by methodological naturalism. So when you say that He cannot be studied by methodological naturalism, you are agreeing that God is capricious.
>>
>> You think "capricious" means not following "reproducible regular
>> patterns"? You think that "capricious" means "not mechanical"?
>
> That is the sense in which God is capricious, according to religious people.
>
>>
>> That is not what is meant by "capricious". Capriciousness is a generally
>> negative *personality trait*, meaning unreliable, likely to change one's
>> mind for no reason. God doesn't change His mind for no reason, and He
>> isn't unreliable. God's detractors accuse Him of that, but since they
>> are His detractors, their accusation is self-serving.
>
> You say that God does not change his mind for no reason. If that is the case, then his behavior is regular and reproducible and can be studied by science. On the other hand, if God changes his mind for reasons, but the reasons are, in principle, inaccessible to investigation, then He is, for all practical purposes, just as capricious as if he changed his mind for no reason at all.
> Your argument about reproducibility and the desire for control, comes down to saying that it is inappropriate to try to control God by subjecting Him to controlled studies. That's fine. In that case you are agreeing that God is outside the purview of science. Methodological naturalism cannot study something which does not behave reproducibly. That's just the way it is. And Methodological naturalism cannot study God, not because it rules God out, but because religious people, like yourself, insist that God cannot be constrained to behave reproducibly.

As you should know by now, I don't consider "methodological naturalism"
to be equivalent to "science". Science just means reliable knowledge of
reality, and reliability is not guaranteed by methodological naturalism,
or by any kind of inductive or speculative methods. In the case of God,
we can know what He reveals to us about Himself, and that knowledge is
reliable because He is God! We cannot force a revelation out of Him, but
that doesn't mean that His voluntary self-revelation is not "science".
It is.

Furthermore, if God reveals not only particular details about Himself,
but a process for us to follow in order to understand Him, that process
is a reliable scientific method, which if followed according to His
instructions, cannot fail to achieve results.

[John Stockwell]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 6:47:42 AM UTC-6, Kalkidas wrote:
> 1a) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame the data rather than the method.
>
> 1b) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame the person(s) who collected the data rather than the method.
>
> 1c) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame the person(s) who points it out to you rather than the
> method.
>
> 1d) Whenever methodological naturalism fails to account for a set of
> data, you blame "religious fundamentalists" rather than the method.
>
> That about covers it. Pointing out the defects in such a self-serving
> dogmatic worldview isn't rocket science. If you think it is, you might
> be a dogmatic naturalist.

Science hater extrordinaire at it again.

It is only through failure that science has advanced. We don't give up
when something we thought was true fails, then we retrench and try something
else. It's the only method that works. We embrace scientific criticism, and
ignore unscientific criticism. You always learn something through failure.

The only true failure would be to abandon the scientific method.

-John

[RAM]

You have identified Kalki's conceptual weaknesses around science. These all have been pointed out to him before (often without the clarity you provided), however he fails to learn. When he starts accusing you of being an atheist, then you know his defense mechanism are defining reality.

He either suffers from the Dunning-Kruger syndrome and/or fails almost completely in understanding the scientific nature and consequences of highly varied psychological, social, and cultural conceptions of deities.

I'm not trying to imply you shouldn't respond to his conceptual errors. However, he does have an almost quarter century posting history that reveals he has gained no insights into the actual empirical practices of science.

RAM

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 19:31:06 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com>:

He may now put you in his "ignore" list. When I persisted in
asking questions he couldn't answer that's apparently where
I wound up after the same sort of idiotic comment from him.
Oh, the horror! ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 11:18:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 11:08:51 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 13:47:13 -0700, the following appeared in

>talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>

>>On 4/2/2016 1:26 PM, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 3:42:41 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/2016 11:58 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:

>>>>>> Thus methodological naturalism is a limitation of the original
>>>>>> scientific method, which had no such a priori censorship of hypotheses.
>>>>>

>>>>> Methodological naturalism, and "the original scientific method" BOTH limit hypotheses to those that can be empirically tested. Neither claims that non-testable hypotheses are false, only that they are nothing science can say anything about.
>>>>
>>>>> Methodological naturalism does not even exclude God making things happen, as long as he makes them happen in a sufficiently regular, repeatable way that the hypothesis of His making them happen can be tested.
>>>>
>>>> That's not correct. You will not find a single hypothesis that "God
>>>> makes such and such happen" in any mainstream scientific journal. It is
>>>> absolutely forbidden by the philosophical bias of methodological
>>>> naturalism. Natural phenomena are permitted only natural hypotheses.
>>>> This is proof that methodological naturalism is equivalent to
>>>> philosophical naturalism, which is the opinion that nature is a closed,
>>>> self-sufficient system, implying (but rarely admitted) that nature is God.
>>>
>>> Actually, you will find studies on the efficacy of prayer (meaning cures that God makes happen). As a whole, those studies find no effect of prayer. Some religious people come back and say that God grants prayers in ways that we humans cannot understand. That produces an untestable hypothesis. But what makes it untestable is not that God is involved, but that it makes no empirically testable predictions.
>>
>>But in those studies, prayer is not treated as having any relationship
>>to God. At best, it is treated only as a self-contained physiological
>>mechanism. At worst, it is treated as a psychological mechanism
>>(psychology being not the most rigorous of sciences, and brimming with
>>undefined terms). Those studies really have nothing to do with God.
>
>To get to that point it is first necessary to demonstrate
>that it works, as in "there is a measurable difference in
>outcome if prayer is used". Since no study has shown such a
>measurable difference (feel free to cite such studies if I'm
>incorrect on that point) there is nothing to investigate.
>
>>If those studies had God as a real factor, or hypothesis, then to test
>>the efficacy of prayer, you would have to conduct them both when God was
>>present and when He was absent. This amounts to creating two complete
>>realities, one in which God exists, and the other in which God doesn't
>>exist! And good luck with that.
>
>You're getting ahead of yourself; that would only be
>necessary if an effect were shown. With no effect shown
>(meaning, I guess, that to you God has never been present)
>no further investigation is possible.
>
>Bottom line: *First* demonstrate an effect exists. *Second*
>investigate the potential causes of that effect. We have yet
>to get past the first point.

[Crickets...]

>>> Methodological naturalism does not exclude hypotheses involving God, unless the hypotheses are untestable. If religious believers have had trouble coming up with empirical tests for the action of God, that's not the fault of science. But when they do, science will be able to test such hypotheses.
>
>Exactly.

[RAM]

This is patently ridiculous and God revealed to me he does not approve.

He also revealed that it clearly is just you attempting to scientize, as well as sacralize your anti-science religious beliefs. He exists on faith alone.

RAM

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:37:35 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>

> As you should know by now, I don't consider "methodological naturalism"
> to be equivalent to "science". Science just means reliable knowledge of

> reality.

That is simply not how the word science is generally used in modern vernacular English. But, again, it is obvious why you want to define it that way: because "science" has a veneer of respectability that you want a piece of. The trouble is, the respectability COMES FROM THE RIGOROUS METHODOLOGY.

Methodological science has a legitimacy that your broader, fluffier definition just doesn't have. Methodological science has legitimacy because it sets a very high bar for entry, and has mechanisms of skeptical re-evaluation built right in.

[Dana Tweedy]

You mean I could potentially be ignored by both Ray, and Kalky? How can
one man get so lucky?


DJT

[eridanus]

oh, Dana if these guys ignore you, your must go to seek a therapeutic
treatment with some psychologist or other. Perhaps to use Prozac
against depression.
eri

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 19:11:12 -0600, the following appeared in

Persistence and valid logic; they can't stand either.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/5/16 11:47 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 19:11:12 -0600, the following appeared in

snip

>>>
>>> He may now put you in his "ignore" list. When I persisted in
>>> asking questions he couldn't answer that's apparently where
>>> I wound up after the same sort of idiotic comment from him.
>>> Oh, the horror! ;-)
>>>
>>
>> You mean I could potentially be ignored by both Ray, and Kalky? How can
>> one man get so lucky?
>
> Persistence and valid logic; they can't stand either.

I've found with Ray that valid logic to him is like garlic to a vampire.


DJT


>

[August Rode]

Nunh unh... vampires and garlic exist in the same universe(s).