One can not believe in Science and God at the same time. Science is defined as adhering to methodological naturalism. This is the belief that all phenomenon can be (or at least ought be) explained without recourse to anything outside of the material universe. Ungodly philosophers hold that this view can coexist with ontological supernaturalism, the belief in things outside of the natural realm. Their argument is a straw man; any belief in the supernatural that concurrently denies the necessity of incorporating those entities’ effects upon observable phenomenon does not genuinely believe in the ontological standing of the supernatural. Put more simply, if one’s conception of God does not co-mingle with one’s definition of the universe, then one’s God is meaningless, and not the God of the Bible. In the first linked-to article from Wikipedia, the authors vehemently argue that theirs is not an ontology, but it is in effect. The definition of science, however, could be put differently. It would be relatively easy to demonstrate that it was so for many renowned scientists in the past. They merely believed that they were describing patterns in nature, as best as they could understand them. It is not necessary to have a philosophical certainty that recourse to the supernatural will not be the only option to explain empirical data. Do not accept Wikipedia’s definition of science.
christian creation philosophy science wikipediaMay 20
June 6th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Better stated…
Do not accept (as unchallengeable) Wikipedia’s definition of anything.
Still it is fun to find such things that we tend to think of as universally understood such as the essence of “science” and turn it on its head.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I concur. One should not accept any dogmatic doctrine. No one I believe
posesses the “absolute truth” in that it exist’s what-so-ever. Collectivist
dogma’s of things like AA et al, and the Vatican, political organizations,
scientists ( especially the biggest whores in the medical-psychiatric profession )
and anyone else that has “ownership” of the truth, is indeed, a liar.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:48 am
I’m not sure I follow you Allen. Do you mean there is no absolute truth or that no one “ownes” it?
August 10th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“One should not accept any dogmatic doctrine.”
I’m afraid, Allen, that qualifies as your dogmatic doctrine. You can’t deny the existance of truth just because you don’t like what your are seeing.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:04 am
As Nietzche put it, there is perhaps a “universal truth”, but those that
profess they have the “truth” are flawed. The morals of “equality & servitude”
for instance. These morals, ( or “truths” ) in fact un-did two civilizations, Greece
( to a lesser extent ) and Rome ( to a greater extent, especially with the
founding of the Roman Catholic church ) And if one believe’s morals and
ethics and the “rule of law” are universally accepted as a form of “truth” just
take a look at the nightly news.
Everyone professes they have a “cure” for the ills of the world ( in this age
of the “global community” ) and can save the world from it’s ultimate annihilation. Considering that humankind basically do what they want, regardless of “morals” & “ethics” the “cure” ( or “cures” ) are ultimately
worse than the disease.
“Universal truths” versus the “truths” that we seemingly accept. Ownership
( or possession ) constitutes “we have the absolute truth”. Man is flawed, thus
his “truths”, whatever they may be, are equally flawed.
And being that ( at least here in America ) there is seemingly freedom, I am
free to “not like what I see” ( or read ).
August 28th, 2007 at 11:45 am
While I’m tempted to just reply that Nietzsche was disproved along time ago, let me nevertheless offer a reply. Any one who professes to have the “whole truth” is of course wrong. We have finite minds and there is an infinite amount of information we would have to contain. To go to the other extreme, however, and say that “truth” is merely a measure of power is to simply intellectually weigh in on the side of “might makes right”. There is a reason that Christ said of himself, “I am the truth…” Ultimately, truth is a Person, not a faceless set of facts holding sway over human life.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 am
“There is a reason that Christ said of himself, “I am the truth…” Ultimately, truth is a Person, not a faceless set of facts holding sway over human life.”
Christ was the truth only in that, by his admission, he was God incarnate.
That very well may have been. However the school of secular humanism
dictates that “man is God”, we are imperfect, and there is sufficient evidence
to this effect. The truth, if it come’s from flawed beings isn’t always the truth.
People lie. That is also a fact. Not all humans are “divine” ; if we look at
Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Napoleon I wouldn’t hedge my bets on the divinity of us
humans.
I won’t argue Nietzsche was discredited, so was Freud and much else we postmodern types ( myself excluded ) seem to “bank” on.
Jesus also said : “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away…”. Words are just that, words. It is what we choose to believe in that dictates how we conduct ourselves in this world.