|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
"Whether or not an atheist needs to agree that they are religious or not is utterly irrelevant to the central question of this thread - is evolution metaphysics or science?
Please attempt to address the actual topic. Thanks." The question you pose "is evolution metaphysics or science?" was puzzling to me (I thought I'd been perfectly clear earlier). Anyhow, here's my take on this again : There is a 'science of evolution' (SE) and there is also a 'metaphysic of evolution' (ME) and the two are definitely not the same. Repeatedly one sees the SE being used as 'bait' when it's the ME that is actually being promoted. [BTW, I am not insinuating a conspiracy here - it only sounds that way.] I have asked this question several times now and have yet to get an answer so let me try it again this time directed at you : when you promote evolution, do you promote the SE or the ME? If you promote the SE then we have no conflict at all. If you promote the ME then we have a metaphysical conflict and/or a theological conflict and/or a scientific conflict. Without specifics I can't say any more than this. I can't be any clearer than this. Before I leave this post, I can't let this one go by : you ask why I thought part of my bio was relevant. I very clearly stated that it was solely to facilitate communications (reread my earlier post if you wish to confirm this). Your response made it sound as if there was a "sinister / ulterior" motive in my posting part of my bio - there wasn't. In Christ,Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7607 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
It seems to me that if you can't say more without specifics, and you also cannot be clearer then you need to go away and come up with some specifics. Personally, I can't follow your reasoning at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Butting into Quetzal's subthread...
Hi Joralex! First you say:
Joralex writes: There is a 'science of evolution' (SE) and there is also a 'metaphysic of evolution' (ME)... It's the latter part of that statement that probably few evolutionists accept. Without first establishing the existence of an ME it might be premature for you to ask your next question:
when you promote evolution, do you promote the SE or the ME? Since we're not yet convinced that there's any such thing as an ME, it might make sense to spend more time discussing it. It seems that what you call a metaphysic is merely that which you think insufficiently supported by evidence, and which happens to contradict your religious views. I see several problems with your position as I understand it at present:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
He won't discuss it because he can't back it up. He tried in the previous thread and failed.
"'evolution' as 'the sole causing agent for the entireflora and fauna in the earth's biota' is a metaphysic - a religion - in the sense that this 'evolution' represents the operational mechanism by which naturalism may have some rational justification (however weak that justification may be)"(post 41 on this page: http://EvC Forum: The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al. -->EvC Forum: The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al.) If he has the qualifications he claims he must know that this argument is rubbish. He must also know that attempts to support his argument by claims of superior knowledge and education and assertions that others are ignorant or confused does not address the issue. In short it seems that he has no case and knows that he has no case. [This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-29-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zephan Inactive Member |
[This post is off topic. --Admin] Hey PaulK, What's good for the goose is good for the gander! What precisely are your qualifications? Let me guess... You must be an atheist, non? (that was too easy!) [This message has been edited by Admin, 03-29-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Why exactly would my qualifications be relevant ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: An interesting assertion. Do you have evidence to back this up? Perhaps and example?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
PaulK writes: If he has the qualifications he claims he must know that this argument is rubbish. The history of science is full of people who held strange beliefs. Fred Hoyle, who very nearly won a Nobel, comes to mind. I recently read an article, I forget which magazine, which reported studies showing that gifted and brilliant people usually possess a talent for defending and preserving their beliefs out of all proportion to available evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
I'm bumping my Post #2
Joralex? Are you still out there? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
The problem is that the argument contradicts itself. He asserts that evolution in the form he describes it is a metaphysic but in a "sense" which is not a sense of "metaphysic" at all.
If he cannot see that such an argument is false through the obvious self-contradiction then he clearly does not understand what he is saying at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I understand. What's interesting is that brilliance is no protection against acquiring misconceptions, and the more brilliant a person is, the more difficult it is to disabuse that person of any misconceptions they may have, no matter how simple, basic or fundamental.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
"It seems to me that if you can't say more without specifics, and you also cannot be clearer then you need to go away and come up with some specifics. Personally, I can't follow your reasoning at all."
To this point I've been mostly presenting our view without attempting to 'convince' anyone (via reasoning). Maybe that's why you haven't been able to 'follow'. If you have a specific question that would clear things up for you, try asking. In Christ,Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
"Since we're not yet convinced that there's any such thing as an ME, it might make sense to spend more time discussing it. It seems that what you call a metaphysic is merely that which you think insufficiently supported by evidence, and which happens to contradict your religious views. I see several problems with your position as I understand it at present:"
Yes, as you've defined it I would certainly have many problems... thing is, your definition isn't valid. In concise, layman's terms a "metaphysic", a.k.a. a "worldview", is a fundamental foundation in whatever activities people conduct - science, math, any of the arts, politics, war, economics... anything! I'd posted this earlier to help out (from the World Book 2001 Encyclopedia) : "Metaphysics is concerned with the basic nature of reality. Its aim is to give a systematic account of the world and the principles that govern it. In contrast to the natural sciences, which study specific features of the world, metaphysics is a more general investigation into the fundamental features of what exists." That there is a metaphysics of evolution (ME) as well as a science of evolution (SE) is known to anyone that has studied this matter with any seriousness and especially to those that have been active in the creation-evolution debate. I am forced to ask (and with all due respect), where have you been that this common fact appears to be a major revelation? "You haven't yet established that evolution is insufficiently supported by evidence." Again, are you talking about SE or ME? Se is very amply supported by evidence - observable, testable, falsifiable, etc. But the ME is a whole 'nother matter. "A scientific hypothesis which does not have sufficient evidence to be called a theory is not a metaphysic." I never said it was - that is not what a metaphysic is. See above. "A scientific theory that opposes one religious view or another is not a metaphysic."" Agreed again. But, my learned friend, science serves a metaphysic (NOT the other way around). Here's an example that I'll present but not elaborate (it would be a dissertation onto itself): Communism (a social-political paradigm) is, by its very foundation, atheistic. Now, it should be quite apparent that a 'science' defined in such a way that it excludes at the outset anything but a materialistic view of nature wholly supports this social-political paradigm. A 'science' as, say, Isaac Newton would have defined it would not have been "acceptable" to the Communist Party. Science is but a pawn, a supporting cast, to the metaphysic that founds it. The difficulty is that there is a feedback loop in this relationship. I'll not go there. "I don't think we can be certain how you mean the term metaphysic in this discussion, and I wonder if you can't find a more common term whose meaning isn't so ambiguous to non-philosophers." Hopefully my brief words above have clarified things a little. I suspect that you et al. won't but I have to ask anyway : take my word for it, there is a ME. If you happen to live close to a university just wander on over to the philosophy department, find a science philosopher and pose the question. If you get anything but a resounding "Of course!", feel free to have them contact me via email. In Christ,Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joralex Inactive Member |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a 'science of evolution' (SE) and there is also a 'metaphysic of evolution' (ME) and the two are definitely not the same. Repeatedly one sees the SE being used as 'bait' when it's the ME that is actually being promoted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "An interesting assertion. Do you have evidence to back this up? Perhaps an example?" See Message # 28. Also, I'd like to give you more but I'm out of time for today. Please prompt me and I'll be happy to provide you with further "evidence to back it up". Thanks. In Christ,Joralex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7607 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
It seems to me very telling indeed that while you repeatedly pronounce that there is a metaphysic of evolution you equally seem at a loss to delineate its "systematic account" or the "general principles" colligated thereunder. Could you do so, your affected authority may be more persuasive.
For my part, I will not take your word for it - I will however take your explanation, as I would take that of anyone, if and only if it is sound and persuasive. Will there be one forthcoming? If the metaphysic you claim is anything more than an artifact of your interpretation, it will be a "systematic account" - it should therefore be relatively simple to expound.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024