I’ll see your meme and raise you useful results.
I’ve never heard anyone say that the scientific method has no limits. In fact, that it has limits is one of its chief features. Maybe that’s why Luke is so offended. It’s upsetting when your father lies.
So, ID = The Dark Side. I knew it!
Sorry, no interest in logging into Facebook. Perhaps there is something else you could try for an introduction?
When I taught at a Christian college, this was a criticism my apologetics colleague frequently lobbed at science, “Science can’t explain the meaning of life …science can’t explain why murder is wrong…”, as if those were things science was supposed to do. I never understood why he thought that was a good argument for Christianity.
That’s a very good observation. Considering that apologetics doesn’t have comparable explanatory power, too might think the apologist would be more careful about throwing stones.
Well Darth Eddie is going to have to look very hard to find a Luke here.
He ain’t my daddy, that’s for sure.
It isn’t, which is why Darth Vader, surely no Christian at that point in the epic, is the right guy to make the point about scientism without apologetic intent. Scientism is a bad philosophy of life not because it’s anti-Christian, but because it’s bad epistemology.
One doesn’t have to endorse scientism in its crudest and most overt form in order to display scientistic leanings. “Say no more, say no more, know what I mean, know what I mean?”
Here’s wishing everyone here a horrific Halloween. Get in the spirit! Dress up! Scare the daylights out of the kids who come to your door! Then give them generous helpings of treats…
Despite the fact that we disagree on the existence of God, Majesty of Reason is one of my favorite Youtubers. His criticisms of design arguments in that video are spot on. In my opinion, teleological arguments are always doomed to fail, because there are always possible naturalistic explanations that we simply haven’t thought of yet.
If it’s so bad, why do IDcreationists try so hard to look scientific to credulous laypeople by using vapid terms like “ID theory,” when they can’t even articulate and test a single ID hypothesis between them?
This is a science of the gaps argument. It is essentially a burden shift fallacy. It’s science’s job to successfully test a hypothesis. Until this happens a teleological argument is a perfectly acceptable alternative.
I’ll see your burden shift and raise you begging the question. If ID is science, then the first job is to provide a testable hypothesis for consideration. It’s hardly a surprise that ID proponents have been unable to provide this, but thank you for confirming that ID is a a teleological argument.
I find the whole idea of “Science of the gaps” arguments to be somewhat dishonest.
First to deal with your assertion.
Obviously there is no exact parallel - nobody points to gaps in our knowledge to argue that science exists. Indeed, there is no argument from the gaps at all. Simply pointing out that a gap in our knowledge might be filled by a natural explanation only criticises an argument for supernaturalism. There is no argument that the gap means that there IS a natural explanation. So that is your assertion dealt with.
The article itself is a little better, in that it does not say that at all. But what it calls “Science of the Gaps” arguments aren’t arguing from the gaps at all, but from science’s success in filling gaps. At best the label seems misapplied.
But it should be obvious (I hope) that Science is not going to kill God, just as God cannot kill science. On the contrary, God must be evaluated on philosophical and theological grounds.
Hey, cool. So could you show us one single, solitary thing that we now know about God thru philosophy and theology? Just one thing, any one will do.
LMAO, so intelligent design is a method for detecting intelligent design.
On what basis do you think we know something?