Yes… buts thats not about God, it about the age of the earth.
And if the guy claims God created the earth 6000 years ago with an appearance of age, science can’t do anything about it. Though you may use tools like logic to question such a claim.
I don’t think it’s ethical to discriminate against anyone.
As to choice/ innate tendencies. All of us have innate tendencies to do wrong things. Having an inborn orientation doesn’t necessarily make it good or bad.
I will, once you confirm how science shows us what is ethically right, or proves God existence or lack thereof.
If you are not willing to acknowledge the limitations of the scientific method, what’s the point of continuing?
#1 isn’t necessary; one could do science in the Matrix, but one would be discovering the nature of the program, not reality. But I suppose the assumption is helpful in getting us to care about the results.
#2 isn’t necessary; it’s something to be discovered a posteriori, and if it isn’t true science won’t work.
#3 is just a repeat of #1.
#4 is necessary, but it’s necessary for any sort of knowledge whatsoever, not just science. It also doesn’t have to be absolute; we might be capable of grasping some truth but not all truth.
[quote=“Ashwin_s, post:21, topic:5667”]
I will, once you confirm how science shows us what is ethically right, or proves God existence or lack thereof.[/quote]
Since I have never claimed that science can do those things, I fail to see why I must answer those questions.
If results are the criteria. One excellent basis for ethics among human beings is the second law proposed by Jesus. Love your neighbor as yourself … can also be stated as the golden rule-making Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
This is an example of a truth which transcends th scientific method.
As I see it, the only presuppositions needed to perform science (or, for that matter, to exist as human beings in our universe are:
Math works.
Logic works
Independent observers exist and can report their observations.
I think @John_Harshman has summarized why not all of Moreland’s presuppositions to hold.
The more pertinent point is that, even if Moreland’s claims were true, they would not just be things that cannot be demonstrated to be true thru science. They would be claims that cannot be demonstrated to be true by any method. So he is not making an effective argument against “scientism.”
Was just showing how a “rational order” to.the universe cannot always be found posteriori.
A better statement of two would be - "The (evolved?) Human concept of rationality would have some kind of bearing on how the universe functions/be a proper tool to examine the universe.
This is an interesting comment to me. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to imply that you are in agreement with me that there is an element of scientism in the PS community. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any need for distinctions.
About distinctions, when there are discussions about contentious subjects, I try to carefully separate out claims about matters of truth or falsehood, from claims about individual people. As you should know, that excerpted quote from me was part of a response to a question asked in a message. There were no claims about individual people either in the message or in the excerpt that launched the post. Any suggestion about any individual within the PS community did not come from anything that I wrote.
About distinctions: @dga471 spoke for himself. I take him at his word. It seems to me the best way for distinctions to be made is for people to do likewise and speak for themselves. From there, as the discussion ensues, participants in the thread can evaluate the various things said and draw their own conclusions about the topic.
Certainly this is an interesting and important question worthy of discussion. It’s a related topic, but a different one from the OP and the question at the head of it.
Their is neither a scientific nor non scientific argument against last Thursdayism. It’s something you take or reject based on faith.
Atleast I have a rational faith based reason for rejecting last Thursdayism.
You don’t have anything.
Totally agree with you here. These are the kinds of questions philosophers talk about, some well, others not so much.
No. In philosophy, there are different ideas about truth. To be more specific, in epistemology, the correspondence theory of truth basically says that “Truth is that which corresponds to objective reality.”
The attachment of “meaning” to something is subjective, not objective. Whether or not a person attaches meaning to something has nothing to do with the nature of reality external to the person.
Agree with you here. In the article referenced in the OP, I summarize Moreland’s analysis of why scientism completely breaks down as a reliable way of knowing anything.
You’re playing a bit fast and loose with the word “truths” there. Something you really, really, strongly believe cannot justifiably be called a “truth” just on that basis, IMHO.
BTW, if Jesus had really been resurrected, there is no reason this could not have been demonstrated thru science.
The issue, as I see it, is whether “scientism” of the sort Moreland demonizes has any existence other than as a strawman created by religious apologists with an anti-science agenda.
Is there really anyone who denies math and logic because they believe only science is able to determine whether something is truth? Not that I am aware.