Need help responding to the following

[Anton Bruckner]

"ought to know that despite protestations from religious folks, the criteria for spiritual theory selection and the criteria for rational theory selection are incompatible. Rational theory selection accepts induction is fallible hence science accepts the premise that falsification may nullify what was previously accepted as scientific fact. That is the status of any paradigm in science. Unfortunately, the criteria of spiritual theory selection is infallible! Its truths are eternal verities! Religion acts no other authority but that of its own supposed received wisdom enshrined in its holy texts. It is pure nonsense about "Evidences does not have to be constrained to a particular epistemological construct..." Every religion abides solely on evidence that can be harmonized with what holy writ say of reality and the conception of God"

 

[sotzo]

Hi Keon:

Can you post the whole citation? I get the gist of what is being said, but it appears some context or additional part of the cite is missing.

 

[Davidius]

 

[RamistThomist]

Logical positivism/verificationism. It died in the '20s. Even sceptic Anthony Flew ditched the theory. Respectable people now laugh at it.

Rational theory selection accepts induction is fallible hence science accepts the premise that falsification may nullify what was previously accepted as scientific fact. That is the status of any paradigm in science.

Is this statement falsifiable/verifiable? No. More importantly, he has to accept his own starting point "by faith."

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Hi Keon:

Can you post the whole citation? I get the gist of what is being said, but it appears some context or additional part of the cite is missing.

that was the whole citation. the essence of the discussion is that he believes that one cannot perform a scientific test for a creator, therefore a creator does not exist. Hence scientific induction is not compatible with religion.

Hi Jacob thanks for the help.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Hi Keon:

Can you post the whole citation? I get the gist of what is being said, but it appears some context or additional part of the cite is missing.

that was the whole citation. the essence of the discussion is that he believes that one cannot perform a scientific test for a creator, therefore a creator does not exist. Hence scientific induction is not compatible with religion.

Hi Jacob thanks for the help.

Evidentialism at its worst. Our axiom is God therefore we need not prove his existance to believe in him.

 

[sotzo]

the essence of the discussion is that he believes that one cannot perform a scientific test for a creator, therefore a creator does not exist. Hence scientific induction is not compatible with religion.

Hi Jacob thanks for the help.

My response would be as follows:

"Please show me the scientific test that will prove that only those things exist that can be proven with a scientific test."

If he/she says "I cannot show such a test" than his/her epistemological starting point is then destroyed.

If he/she says "I can show such a test" then tell them every peer-reviewed journal would love to publish the findings of such a study as it would be new territory for science to answer such a question. In fact, this would not be science at all, but the logical conclusion of an a priori position about reality. The sooner he/she admits that, the sooner you can get on with genuine discussion.

I've often wanted to write a satire on science in the vein of Pilgrim's Progress. Have characters like Observation, Hypothesis and Reproducible. Then have a character called Materialist who constantly keeps putting Observation, Hypothesis and Reproducible into situations where they do not fit. And have them getting annoyed and fed up with Materialist by saying things like, "Have we not made enough progress for your ends?? Why keep asking us to perform miracles we were never intended to do?? Loose us from your service so that we can be free to function as a tool and not a blueprint for the world!"

 

[hollandmin]

the essence of the discussion is that he believes that one cannot perform a scientific test for a creator, therefore a creator does not exist. Hence scientific induction is not compatible with religion.

Hi Jacob thanks for the help.

My response would be as follows:

"Please show me the scientific test that will prove that only those things exist that can be proven with a scientific test."

If he/she says "I cannot show such a test" than his/her epistemological starting point is then destroyed.

If he/she says "I can show such a test" then tell them every peer-reviewed journal would love to publish the findings of such a study as it would be new territory for science to answer such a question. In fact, this would not be science at all, but the logical conclusion of an a priori position about reality. The sooner he/she admits that, the sooner you can get on with genuine discussion.

I've often wanted to write a satire on science in the vein of Pilgrim's Progress. Have characters like Observation, Hypothesis and Reproducible. Then have a character called Materialist who constantly keeps putting Observation, Hypothesis and Reproducible into situations where they do not fit. And have them getting annoyed and fed up with Materialist by saying things like, "Have we not made enough progress for your ends?? Why keep asking us to perform miracles we were never intended to do?? Loose us from your service so that we can be free to function as a tool and not a blueprint for the world!"

I'd buy that book!!!

Let me know when it's published!!

 

[VictorBravo]

Logical positivism/verificationism. It died in the '20s. Even sceptic Anthony Flew ditched the theory. Respectable people now laugh at it.

Rational theory selection accepts induction is fallible hence science accepts the premise that falsification may nullify what was previously accepted as scientific fact. That is the status of any paradigm in science.

Is this statement falsifiable/verifiable? No. More importantly, he has to accept his own starting point "by faith."

Right, as far as philosophy goes. Unfortunately, this way of thinking is standard operating procedure for legal jurisprudence and social policy initiatives in politics.

It takes a while for bad philosophy to reach law and politics. And it takes even longer to get rid of it.