Regarding the Gift

[Zealot]

Stigmatas, cooled embers, grace- such gifts are given to those who prove themselves pure of heart, soul and spirit. The saints are recipients of these and other gifts, but those in league with the Devil also receive gifts- although in their case the gifts are a reward for corruption and not from God. With regard to the saint, divinity touches man and brings him closer to perfection. Meanwhile, he who breathes like the Devil approaches the end of his road to ruin- beyond which there is only misery.

[Goat]

And here you are assuming that the scientific method is 'atheistic'.. Which is wrong. There is a difference between 'atheistic' and 'non-theistic'.

The scientific method is atheistic like plumbing is atheistic, or building a car is atheistic, or going swimming is atheistic, or cooking a meal is atheistic.

Or like modern atheists are atheistic. They "don't believe" in the existence of God, rather than believing He doesn't exist. This places them in the same category as plumbing, cats, or rocks.

Which is why I think that definition of atheism is inadequate. It's something that nonthinking items do with regularity.

However, that's the commonly accepted use of the term, so that's the way in which I am using it.

Skyler

Well, I am very puzzled that you have to attempt to redefine words to try to make a point. Words are used for communication, and the term 'atheistic' is very precise, and is 'non-theistic'. Nontheistic doesn't care if God exists or not. Atheistic does not believe in Gods.

That being the case, isn't science atheistic rather than nontheistic? It attempts to explain things beginning with the assumption that that "thing" was caused naturally rather than by God. It's not that it doesn't care, rather that it specifically excludes that as a possibility.

Now, if you are so huff and puff critical of the scientific method because it is 'atheistic' (a false claim as far as I am concerned'), what method would YOU suggest be used? Describe your methodology that should be used .

I have no problem with the scientific method. It's methodologically atheistic, and that I have no problem with because as a rule God does not supernaturally intervene in his creation. However, it's not metaphysically atheistic, in that it has as a prerequisite God as the creator and maintainer of order.

If there is no God, there is no such maintainer, and no reason to think that the laws of nature apply in every instance.

Skyler

Well, let me tell, .. you are wrong. It is non-theistic, in that it does not assume there is no god, nor does it assume there is a god.

And, I see you did not have an answer about what you would replace it with.

So, until someone can come up with a good method that can compete with it when it comes to getting results, well,I guess I will just continue to accept the results it provides, and use those techniques in examining the world.

You can accept unsupported assertions in your life.. i don't find unsupported assertions convincing though.

[McCulloch]

I have no problem with the scientific method. It's methodologically atheistic, and that I have no problem with because as a rule God does not supernaturally intervene in his creation. However, it's not metaphysically atheistic, in that it has as a prerequisite God as the creator and maintainer of order.

If there is no God, there is no such maintainer, and no reason to think that the laws of nature apply in every instance.

So, the belief that the universe came about from natural impersonal uncaring forces leads one to think that the laws of nature may change unexpectedly for no discernible reason but the belief that there is a jealous personal deity in charge reassures the believer that the laws of nature will remain constant. What part of your argument am I not getting?

[Skyler]

*snip*

Well, let me tell, .. you are wrong. It is non-theistic, in that it does not assume there is no god, nor does it assume there is a god.

All right, call it "non-theistic". That's irrelevant.

And, I see you did not have an answer about what you would replace it with.

*I* have no reason to replace it. It has a foundation under my worldview. It's you that has no foundation for the scientific method and needs to come up with something.

So, until someone can come up with a good method that can compete with it when it comes to getting results, well,I guess I will just continue to accept the results it provides, and use those techniques in examining the world.

And implicitly assuming the Christian worldview at the same time. Feel free to go ahead.

You can accept unsupported assertions in your life.. i don't find unsupported assertions convincing though.

Then why on earth do you hold to the scientific method? You have, in this thread, used nothing but circular arguments and red herrings to support it. If you have something to support it with other than windmills and fish, by all means bring it out. Otherwise, be consistent and don't accept the unsupported assertion of the uniformity of nature.

Skyler

[Goat]

*snip*

Well, let me tell, .. you are wrong. It is non-theistic, in that it does not assume there is no god, nor does it assume there is a god.

All right, call it "non-theistic". That's irrelevant.

And, I see you did not have an answer about what you would replace it with.

*I* have no reason to replace it. It has a foundation under my worldview. It's you that has no foundation for the scientific method and needs to come up with something.

So, until someone can come up with a good method that can compete with it when it comes to getting results, well,I guess I will just continue to accept the results it provides, and use those techniques in examining the world.

And implicitly assuming the Christian worldview at the same time. Feel free to go ahead.

You can accept unsupported assertions in your life.. i don't find unsupported assertions convincing though.

Then why on earth do you hold to the scientific method? You have, in this thread, used nothing but circular arguments and red herrings to support it. If you have something to support it with other than windmills and fish, by all means bring it out. Otherwise, be consistent and don't accept the unsupported assertion of the uniformity of nature.

Skyler

Well, I have told you why it wasn't circular, yet you ignored that, then you repeated 'it's circular' without addressing my points.

At this point, since your arguement is repeated points that have been addressed repeatedly, and your not addressing my points, I guess this discussion is done.

[McCulloch]

Then why on earth do you hold to the scientific method? You have, in this thread, used nothing but circular arguments and red herrings to support it. If you have something to support it with other than windmills and fish, by all means bring it out. Otherwise, be consistent and don't accept the unsupported assertion of the uniformity of nature.

Why on earth do you hold to the scientific method? You believe that the observable laws of nature may be set aside at any time by the whim of a supernatural jealous God who created them and who sustains them. Hardly the basis for confidence in the uniformity of nature, is it?

We provisionally believe that the laws of nature are impersonal. Thus we expect that they will remain uniform.

[Skyler]

*snip*

Well, I have told you why it wasn't circular, yet you ignored that, then you repeated 'it's circular' without addressing my points.

You said "It just works". In other words, pragmatic verification. The problem with this is, as I have repeatedly pointed out, that you have no reason to believe that it will continue to work.

You also said that until we have reason to believe otherwise, we should assume that it will work. You gave no reason for this. If you're going to trust your life to something, it's irrational to do so just because you have no reason not to.

Is there an argument here that I'm missing?

At this point, since your arguement is repeated points that have been addressed repeatedly, and your not addressing my points, I guess this discussion is done.

It would be nice if you'd address the points I raised instead of ignoring them. If you're not going to, then all right, I guess you're right. We're done.

McCulloch, I'll respond to your post shortly, I don't have time right now. Sorry.

Skyler

[Skyler]

Then why on earth do you hold to the scientific method? You have, in this thread, used nothing but circular arguments and red herrings to support it. If you have something to support it with other than windmills and fish, by all means bring it out. Otherwise, be consistent and don't accept the unsupported assertion of the uniformity of nature.

Why on earth do you hold to the scientific method? You believe that the observable laws of nature may be set aside at any time by the whim of a supernatural jealous God who created them and who sustains them. Hardly the basis for confidence in the uniformity of nature, is it?

We provisionally believe that the laws of nature are impersonal. Thus we expect that they will remain uniform.

But how do you know they were uniform to begin with?

[Goat]

Then why on earth do you hold to the scientific method? You have, in this thread, used nothing but circular arguments and red herrings to support it. If you have something to support it with other than windmills and fish, by all means bring it out. Otherwise, be consistent and don't accept the unsupported assertion of the uniformity of nature.

Why on earth do you hold to the scientific method? You believe that the observable laws of nature may be set aside at any time by the whim of a supernatural jealous God who created them and who sustains them. Hardly the basis for confidence in the uniformity of nature, is it?

We provisionally believe that the laws of nature are impersonal. Thus we expect that they will remain uniform.

But how do you know they were uniform to begin with?

Have you ever heard of 'observation'?

[Skyler]

Then why on earth do you hold to the scientific method? You have, in this thread, used nothing but circular arguments and red herrings to support it. If you have something to support it with other than windmills and fish, by all means bring it out. Otherwise, be consistent and don't accept the unsupported assertion of the uniformity of nature.

Why on earth do you hold to the scientific method? You believe that the observable laws of nature may be set aside at any time by the whim of a supernatural jealous God who created them and who sustains them. Hardly the basis for confidence in the uniformity of nature, is it?

We provisionally believe that the laws of nature are impersonal. Thus we expect that they will remain uniform.

But how do you know they were uniform to begin with?

Have you ever heard of 'observation'?

Yes. It's one of the basises(basices?) of the scientific method.

Are you suggesting that the scientific method proves the uniformity of nature?

EDIT: McCulloch, another question. If restated as a syllogism, your argument is as follows:

P1: The laws of nature are impersonal.
T: Therefore, they will remain uniform.

It seems to me that some premises are missing here. The conclusion doesn't follow directly from the premise. Can you elaborate, please?

Skyler

[McCulloch]

We provisionally believe that the laws of nature are impersonal. Thus we expect that they will remain uniform.

But how do you know they were uniform to begin with?

What part of provisionally did you not understand? Based on everything we've been able to detect and to infer, the laws of nature are impersonal and constant. Our observations are necessarily incomplete and we could be some science experiment by an eighth grade deity that was begun last Thursday. But we have no reason to believe this. Similarly, there are no demonstrable reasons to believe that the laws of nature were created by an omniscient jealous god.

EDIT: McCulloch, another question. If restated as a syllogism, your argument is as follows:

P1: The laws of nature are impersonal.
T: Therefore, they will remain uniform.

It seems to me that some premises are missing here. The conclusion doesn't follow directly from the premise. Can you elaborate, please?

1. The laws of nature are impersonal. (premise)
2. All observed impersonal laws are unchanging.
3. Without personality, there is no theoretical reason to believe that the laws would arbitrarily change.
4. Therefore, it is probable that they will remain uniform.