"not only have materialistic presuppositions consistently failed to prove true or useful "
Cough - look around you. Medicine and technology have come a little way since goat-herders in the stone-age middle east.
"but a significant proportion of science has been, and continues to be, done by people within a theistic framework."
No it doesn't - you just made that up - science can not and does not deal with or allow for the existence of god.
You can't do science if you think He might choose to interfere in your experiment - how could you possibly control for Him? -you have to assume he won't and you also work to remove any other material factors other than those you are trying to study.
This is science 101.
The fact that some people do believe in god makes no difference - they still must work the same way as a secular scientist otherwise what they are doing isn't science.
Deary me.
High school stuff.
Regards,
Psi
Psi,
There is a difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. It is what enabled so many theists to be outstanding scientists, despite your (quite wrong) statements to the contrary.
Perhaps you should read up on the distinction, perhaps even read James Hannam's book.
Best wishes,
unkleE
Hi unkie,
Yes I know.
Noting I said says there isn't.
The post however, confuses the two when it comes to how science works - which is the substance of my comment.
Thanks,
Psi
Thanks Psi for the general agreement, but surely that makes the original statements you criticised non-objectionable.
Scientists are (obviously) human beings, and think about things other than science, including ethics and metaphysics. Thus Richard Dawkins can believe science supports his atheistic worldview while Francis Collins can believe science supports his theistic worldview. Neither are making scientific statements when they draw those conclusions, but those metaphysical views are surely part of each one's thinking.
So how can it be wrong to say: "a significant proportion of science has been, and continues to be, done by people within a theistic framework"? It is clearly true, from Newton to Collins, just as it would be equally true to say that these days "a significant proportion of science has been, and continues to be, done by people within an atheistic framework".
And surely it is true that naturalistic science does not have all the answer to scientific, let alone metaphysical, questions? Thus it is surely a legitimate statement to say: "not only have materialistic presuppositions consistently failed to prove true or useful", though one might wish to add "in some cases". Your comment about stone-age goat herders seems apropos nothing at all.
So I don't believe the post confuses the two forms of naturalism, but links the two, just as Dawkins, Collins, and almost every other scientist must do at times. Thus the post's main point (IMO) is this: "one of the specious arguments levelled against Christianity is that it is anti-science", and I don't see how you have shown that such allegedly specious arguments have any validity.
thanks.
How is doing science - using methodological naturalism - doing it within a theistic framework?
This makes no sense at all. You might as well claim that science and progress have been carried out in a beardy framework. The wearing or otherwise of beards has nothing to do with how we do science - just as religion has nothing to do with how we do science.
In fact you can argue that beardiness is merely irrelevant to science but belief that a god can an will influence your results stops science for the reasons we seems to agree on given above.
The materialist framework that science "is" - has produced a doubling in life-span and loads more benefits to humanity.
I think the post attempts to deliberately mislead those who do not understand science and thereby claim credit for religion for the progress that science has brought us.
At best I think you can argue that religion is orthogonal to scientific progress.
I think most observers recognise that sometimes religion has and does hold science and progress back.
Regards,
Psi
"How is doing science - using methodological naturalism - doing it within a theistic framework?"
A perfectly rational scientist would do science the same whether he/she was an atheist or a theist, but we are not perfectly rational. We are human, with emotions, imperfections, aspirations, etc, which can effect our rationality and our actions. Our worldview may affect where we begin to investigate a question or which topic we'll investigate. We may make mistakes because we slept badly, we are in love or have a problem. There are many known cases of scientific fraud, unacknowledged copying, data falsification, etc. Our worldview, our preconceived opinions or pride may affect how we interpret data, particularly the metaphysical conclusions we draw.
A theistic framework may predispose someone to do science better or worse. Historically, a theistic framework in the christian west helped the development of science because (1) christians have a reason to believe in an orderly world which warrants orderly investigation, and (2) christianity helped break the unscientific hold Aristotle had on western thinking.
Worldview also affects our philosophy (as Paul pointed out in his post). Epistemology (how we know things) is a very important matter for science, and different worldviews tend to lead to different approaches. And different views on dualism, determinism, consciousness and ethics may also affect how science is done, especially how data is interpreted.
"The materialist framework that science "is" - has produced a doubling in life-span and loads more benefits to humanity."
I suggest this is a false statement. Science has achieved that, or more accurately, the efforts of scientists and others, but how has materialist science done that? (BTW, notice how you have criticised the idea of theistic or beardy science, and then introduced materialist science.) Many of the scientists who contributed, and the majority in the past, were theists.
"I think the post attempts to deliberately mislead those who do not understand science and thereby claim credit for religion for the progress that science has brought us."
Where did he claim this? I don't see it. I see the more modest claim: "one of the specious arguments levelled against Christianity is that it is anti-science, and only under the influence of naturalism - at least methodological - can science make progress". But claiming someone is wrong to criticise theism as a barrier to science is not at all the same as claiming christianity gives an advantage.
But historically, the view that you object to appears to be correct, and Hannam's book lends support to it. There unfortunately seems to be a lot of historical revisionism going on these days as militant atheists try to find every possible objection to theism and deny every possible positive, even to the extent of re-writing history. Many atheists just "know" the "facts" about Galileo, or the su
Oops! I seem to have been carried away in answering some interesting points, that I must have exceeded the word limit. The last few paragraphs are missing, but briefly, were something like ....
...... Many atheists just "know" the "facts" about Galileo, or the suppression of science by the church, when in fact these are not facts but misrepresentations repeated around the internet until they become dogma. Hannam's book is a helpful and factual corrective.
"I think most observers recognise that sometimes religion has and does hold science and progress back."
Indeed, and sometimes not. In the past, it was more helpful than not. In the present perhaps the other way round.
Unfortunately, those supposedly committed to evidence-based reason seem prone in their enthusiasm to ignore the facts and seek to find as many means as possible to criticise theism and minimise any positives.
I suggest it is more honest to give credit where credit is due, and draw one's conclusions accordingly.
(I think I said it better before, but that will have to do!) Best wishes.
OK lets get down to brass tacks.
I recently did an experiment to measure the wavelength of light in order to try to identify an element.
How would a christian or a muslim or an atheist experiment differ?
I suggest that you can't give me a difference. I will be delighted if you can show that I am wrong in this.
- - -
Perhaps you can tell us which rumour about Gallileo you are talking about?
- - -
How about the pope's representatives who refused to look through his telescope to view the craters on the moon because they didn't need to - they knew they were not there?
- - -
SJ Gould has an interesting book; "The Hedgehog, the fox and the magisters pox", which has some terrific plates of the universal censorship of books that the church carried out throughout europe.
How did this theistic framework help science along.
- - -
Science, in practice, takes no notice of god at all.
Wave your arms around as much as you like saying that nearly everyone used to be theists. That is not the point at issue.
Dismissing the fact that to do science you must check your religion at the lab door is simply disingenuous.
Ignoring an historical record of opposition to free enquiry, experimentation and uncensored communication simply shows your own dislocation from the history books.
Once again, at best you can say that religion has nothing to do with science, at worst we can list many, many examples of religion hindering science both today and in history.
Instead of this you actually claim that science has benefited from a vaguely theistic framework.
On the one hand we are told that materialistic framework has repeatedly failed and now you seem to be saying that there never was a materialistic framework anyway.
The only materialistic framework is the scientific method itself.
I refer you to my question at the beginning of this comment and await your response.
Regards,
Psi
Psi
"How about the pope's representatives who refused to look through his telescope to view the craters on the moon because they didn't need to - they knew they were not there?"
It was Cesare Cremonini, the ranking professor of philosophy at Padua who refused to look at the sky through the telescope. The reason being he was part of the Aristotelian scientific establishment and could not let a mere mathematician prove an actual change in the heavens, even though Galileo was a long time personal friend of his. This was because, although the Aristotelian tradition favoured observations, it concerns were qualitative, not quantitative.
As for the rest, I suggest you read up on some history of science. For example:
"Ignoring an historical record of opposition to free enquiry, experimentation and uncensored communication simply shows your own dislocation from the history books"
...simply shows your dislocation from the history books.
"How would a christian or a muslim or an atheist experiment differ?"
Of course they would be the same, just as 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of one's metaphysics. That's methodological naturalism. And you are now agreeing with Paul that "one of the specious arguments levelled against Christianity is that it is anti-science", because we both agree that the christian would do the same science as the atheist.
But one example doesn't prove that there is never any difference. For example, an atheist and materialist neuroscientist will probably not believe in dualism, and so may interpret neurological experiments differently to another neuroscientist who believes dualism is possible. Richard Dawkins can look at the universe and see only "blind pitiless indifference" whereas Francis Collins can look at DNA and see "the language of God".
So like I have said all along, the science may be the same because of methodological naturalism, but the conclusions will be different because of different metaphysics.
I'm not sure what we are arguing about here, because it seems we are both saying the same thing.
"Perhaps you can tell us which rumour about Gallileo you are talking about?"
I think Lord Kitchener has outlined enough to show that your "received wisdom" on history is not in fact historical. Perhaps you should read the book under discussion, for it apparently (according to reviews) outlines where much "received wisdom" is in fact unhistorical on Galileo.
"Dismissing the fact that to do science you must check your religion at the lab door is simply disingenuous."
What does"check in" mean? Is Francis Collins supposed to forget he is a christian while in the lab? Why isn't methodological naturalism enough? Is Richard Dawkins a bad scientist because he draws atheistic conclusions from his science? If not then why is Francis Collins a bad scientist because he draws theistic conclusions?
"at worst we can list many, many examples of religion hindering science both today and in history. Instead of this you actually claim that science has benefited from a vaguely theistic framework."
I don't think you are reading my posts, nor reading any history, for I have already mentioned this. Yes, religion has opposed science as you say, but throughout history, it has apparently supported it a lot more. You seem to want to believe unsubstantiated as well as substantiated claims on the bad effects of religion and not recognise even well substantiated claims in its favour.
"On the one hand we are told that materialistic framework has repeatedly failed and now you seem to be saying that there never was a materialistic framework anyway."
I'm not sure where you got this from, for I didn't say this. Paul pointed out that drawing materialist conclusions from good science has not been very successful, and gave some examples. My own conclusion would be more modest: th
Rats, it's done it again! Is this my fault or a size limitation??? Sorry, but the end of my post should have read:
My own conclusion would be more modest: that when I look at the discoveries of science, I find that they seem to point away from materialistic conclusions rather than towards them.
I wonder whether we have any need for further discussion. We are both agreed that if scientists follow methodological naturalism, it doesn't matter what their metaphysical beliefs are. I think we agree that we all may draw various metaphysical conclusions from good science. We disagree about the historical impact of religion on science, but at least one of your assertions turns out to be historically inaccurate, and Hannam's book apparently shows that others may be as well.
Is there anything more? Best wishes.
As regards methodological naturalism, if we look at the middle ages we find that no medieval natural philosophers believed that God meddled frequently or arbitrarily with the created universe. Rather the perceived consistency of God meant he could be expected to abide by the order established at the point of creation. Thus God's absolute power was limited, for practical purposes, to the point of creation and was no impediment to natural philosophy.
We also see that the pre-occupations of theologians and natural philosophers with the theme of divine omnipotence led to the idea that the behaviour of a contingent world cannot be inferred with certainty from a known set of first principles, an essential view for the overthrow of Aristotle's common sense natural philosophy and the development of empirical methodologies.
unkle,
Your characterisation of the whole methodology of science as "one example" is puzzling me. Schoolboy error?
- - -
Yes all scientists are supposed to check their religion in the lab. Otherwise they aren't doing science. You appeared to agree with this earlier. Not sure why you would change your mind now.
Again we are back to science 101.
- - -
Just to remind you here is what paul said;
"not only have materialistic presuppositions consistently failed to prove true or useful (life at its lowest level turned out not to be simple, the earth turned out to be finely tuned for life, the universe turned out not to be infinitely old ... I could go on) but a significant proportion of science has been, and continues to be, done by people within a theistic framework."
This what I objected to.
Yet you accuse me of not reading posts or any history 
Paul claimed that materialist outlooks have repeatedly failed - he did not differentiate philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism.
Despite various changes of topic and your originally chiding of me for not making the differentiation in a comment making precisely that point about Paul's post. You have yet to address this point.
You have however implied dishonesty and naivety on my part. Charming.
- - -
Just to cover off some of your other distractions from the main point;
Please can we have the names of some neuroscientists that believe in dualism and some experiments about this?
I am aware of attempts to weigh the soul but that was a long time ago.
- - -
You ought to go and edit wikipedia with your new claims about galileo;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal.../
Galileo_affair
Cheers,
Psi
Hi Lord Kitchener,
Yes that's all very true.
Thing is though that people have thought the world was comprehensible way before the theologians of the middle ages, and they had no monopoly on it then either.
So it seems a bit odd to claim this as a step forward for religion.
Regards,
Psi
Hi Psi
Regarding nature as having a deep intelligibility goes back to Thales. We do, however have to distinguish between this concept and the idea that that nature is governed by mathematical laws. This is firmly grounded in theological conceptions, ones that are common to both Catholic and Protestant versions of Christianity (although one finds traces of it in Ancient and Islamic thought). These theological notions, which in the seventeenth century were explicitly set in opposition to Aristotelian ideas, played a crucial role in establishing the foundations of modern science.
Despite their achievements, Greek natural philosophers were observers, not experimenters and their ideas are based too much on common sense and ratiocination. The ‘scientific method did not exist and the Greek alternative of ‘demonstration' was incapable of generating natural knowledge. All science was at the service of philosophy and all theories about nature were intended to provide justification for ethics. The doctrine of the lawfulness of nature was believed by several Greek schools but almost always obscured by a stronger belief in fate. Christians replaced fate with divide providence that meant both nature and the future were governed by the same good power(not fickle like fate)
Hi LK,
Can you give me some details of these claims.
The history of science books I have read simply point out, perhaps not just coincidentally, that after centuries of the inquisition and divine censorship, everyone was a christian at the time these ideas were put forward in the middle ages. But the crucial idea is a step away from god interfering in the world and that maths can be used to explain/predict things.
The fact that practically everyone had to be religious or face major issues of discrimination, really does mean that you could claim christian invention of anything in Europe in the middle ages.
But as I said most histories of science also point out the resistance to this idea came from the upper reaches of the church itself.
So anyway, please give me some details of which powers of the church introduced this change and how it was brought in using the Church's organisation.
Always happy to learn.
Regards,
Psi
Psi
"You have however implied dishonesty and naivety on my part. Charming."
First of all, I should clear this up. I'm sorry you have seen things this way. I certainly didn't ever intend to infer dishonesty on your part. I'm not even sure which thing you are referring to - was it my suggestion that you had presented unsubstantiated history? If that was it, my comment suggested you were believing sources which were unreliable, not dishonesty. I'm sorry if I inadvertently suggested anything else.
"you accuse me of not reading posts or any history"
I'm sorry you were offended by this as well, but I do not apologise for it because I believe my statement was warranted. Let's look at it ....
(1) History. You made several statements, one of which Lord Kitchener has shown was mistaken. You also said "we can list many, many examples of religion hindering science both today and in history". Your only support for your statements is Wikipedia on Galileo.
My understanding is that much of the commonly held ideas about the supposed science-religion conflict are inaccurate. In support of this, I offered the book under discussion, as this review and this review and this article by Hannam himself make quite clear. As Hannam did his peer-reviewed PhD on this subject, one assumes he has a fair grasp of the facts.I have further read quotes from other historians saying the same thing.
So I still think you need to read more historians to get a fairer grasp of this matter, rather than make broad and apparently inaccurate generalisations.
I'll do another comment on you're not reading my posts so I don't run into truncation problems again (I hope). : )
(Part 2)
My previous posts
Much of this discussion is about methodological naturalism vs metaphysical naturalism. But when I have tried to draw out your understanding of these, I have been unable to. You objected to the idea of a "theistic framework" and you talked about "checking in one's religion at the lab door". But when I asked you what this meant, whether Dawkins or Collins were "wrong" to draw (ir)religious conclusions from science, you didn't answer, and when I outlined how almost all scientists bring more than just the scientific method to their work, you neither agreed not disagreed.
You outline your major objection to Paul's post. Let's look at one of Paul's examples ("the earth turned out to be finely tuned for life") to illustrate. Here are the steps in the matter to which Paul refers ...
1. Astronomers gather data about the universe. This is pure scientific method and methodological naturalism.
2. Cosmologists develop mathematical models and other understandings to draw conclusions from this data - e.g. they now believe they know the history of the universe from Planck time to now. This again is scientific method, because the models can be tested against evidence and verified or falsified.
3. Cosmologists further learn from their models that if many of the parameters were even minutely different, the universe wouldn't exist, or stars wouldn't form, or life as we know it wouldn't be possible. This probably goes a little beyond the scientific method.
4. Cosmologists then look for explanations. Many believe the multiverse can explain the apparent fine-tuning, some believe that hypothesis is not scientific. Some (e.g. Weinberg) are atheists, and believe naturalism is sufficient explanation for the multiverse/fine tuning, others (e.g. Rees, Susskind) are agnostics and unsure of deeper explanations, others (e.g. Davies) seem to believe some sort of non-physical explanation is required, while others (e.g. Barr, Sandage) believe that a supernatural explanation is the best explanation. These are all metaphysical matters.
Now you accuse Paul of not being sufficiently scientific, but note that his suggestion was that the fine tuning example shows a failure of materialism. He is clearly talking about matters in step 4 of the process I have just outlined. So he was not confusing the two forms of naturalism, but making a statement about those who, like you appear to be, use scientific method/methodological naturalism to object to obviously metaphysical statements.
So let me ask you a question again. Do you think it is "wrong" for these cosmologists to draw such conclusions, or wrong of Dawkins and Collins to draw their conclusions?
I will stop with that question, but will answer a few of your questions in my next.
Part 3, in which unkleE answers some of Psi's questions and executes a double somersault with pike:
"Your characterisation of the whole methodology of science as "one example" is puzzling me. Schoolboy error?"
No. We are not only talking about the scientific method, but about the relationship between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. This was one of several examples illustrating my point.
"Yes all scientists are supposed to check their religion in the lab. Otherwise they aren't doing science. You appeared to agree with this earlier. Not sure why you would change your mind now. "
There are two different things. (1) Methodological naturalism. (2) "Checking in one's religion" (a phrase I have asked you to explain, but which I infer to mean forgetting one's religion). The two phrases don't mean the same to me, but you appear to think they do. Thus I agree with (1) but not with (2).
"You have yet to address this point."
I'm not sure what you are expecting. Most of my comments address this point.
"Please can we have the names of some neuroscientists that believe in dualism and some experiments about this?"
Nobel prize winner John Eccles. Wilder Penfield did experiments that seemed to demonstrate dualism. Philosopher David Chalmers is a dualist. Appendix C in "Affective Neuroscience" by Jaak Panksepp discusses dualism in neuroscience, and mentions: "Most neuroscientists, who ascribe to monistic beliefs .... [and] Many others, who hold dualistic worldviews". The paper "Scientific roots of dualism in neuroscience" by Yuri Arshavsky discusses the subject. You can find many more references on Google. May I suggest that your comment about "weighing the soul", together with other comments about "Science 101" are belittling, and demonstrate your lack of reading on the matter more than any weakness in my statements. I suggest we eschew such comments.
I think that is all the outstanding questions. I also think we are starting to nitpick. If you would answer my questions in my previous post, perhaps we can resolve some things. Thanks.
Hi unkleE,
Your replies sank to the bottom of a long pile of interesting stuff in google reader and has only just surfaced. Sorry for the delayed response.
To answer your question - No in the sense that folks can think whatever they want.
Yes in Collin's case in that I don't think there is a cogent argument to support this view i.e. I think it is a mistake.
Collin's certainly does not claim any such opinion as part of his science or in anyway to be a scientific conclusion.
Anyway - This was not anything to do with my original complaint to Paul.
I did not accuse Paul of being insufficiently scientific.
I'll spell it out one more time, although it is getting a bit tedious now.
1 - Science can't be done unless you park your god at the lab door.
2 - This means that science operates with a "materialist presupposition".
3 - Paul claimed that such presuppositions have repeatedly failed.
4 - I object to this and pointed out some of the achievements of science.
You seemed, at first to accept 1. I'm not sure now.
You have ignored 2 and made up stuff about 3.
You ignore 4 and now claim that I object to something else.
In the meantime we have had a number of diversions of varying interest.
I'll reply to the latest in a second.
Regards,
Psi
Re your latest diversion;
Eccles was a theist not a dualist - He jokes about being a trialist - none of which include the supernatural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh...rophysiologist)
Penfield did what experiments? How did they demonstrate dualism?
Re Chalmers - A philosopher isn't a scientist.
Panskepp isn't a dualist.
Will you give us the full quote and context? Sorry to sound suspicious too many dealings with creationists has prejudiced me agains the humble ellipsis I fear.
The paper you mention has the following abstract;
"Although the dualistic concept is unpopular among neuroscientists involved in experimental studies of the brain, neurophysiological literature is full of covert dualistic statements on the possibility of understanding neural mechanisms of human consciousness. Particularly, the covert dualistic attitude is exhibited in the unwillingness to discuss neural mechanisms of consciousness, leaving the problem of consciousness to psychologists and philosophers. This covert dualism seems to be rooted in the main paradigm of neuroscience that suggests that cognitive functions, such as language production and comprehension, face recognition, declarative memory, emotions, etc., are performed by neural networks consisting of simple elements. I argue that neural networks of any complexity consisting of neurons whose function is limited to the generation of electrical potentials and the transmission of signals to other neurons are hardly capable of producing human mental activity, including consciousness. Based on results obtained in physiological, morphological, clinical, and genetic studies of cognitive functions (mainly linguistic ones), I advocate the hypothesis that the performance of cognitive functions is based on complex cooperative activity of "complex" neurons that are carriers of "elementary cognition." The uniqueness of human cognitive functions, which has a genetic basis, is determined by the specificity of genes expressed by these "complex" neurons. The main goal of the review is to show that the identification of the genes implicated in cognitive functions and the understanding of a functional role of their products is a possible way to overcome covert dualism in neuroscience."
This would seem to support my position and not yours - it's rather curious that you should cite it.
So no scientists and no experiments then . . .
Over to you.
Regards,
Psi
Dear Psi
I think we are both finding this tedious. I will try to be brief, and to end the matter as quickly as I can.
You have agreed that it is acceptable that cosmologists draw conclusions that go beyond strict science. You believe Collins is "wrong" because you "don't think there is a cogent argument to support this view" i.e. you "think it is a mistake". Presumably then it is equally true that Dawkins is also wrong because "I don't think there is a cogent argument to support this view i.e. I think it is a mistake." or is there some objective reason why your view is more right than mine?
Or do you also criticise Dawkins because he has not left his naturalism at the lab door?
Until we resolve what it means to "park your god at the lab door" and whether one should similarly park any non-scientific belief including naturalism, there is no point in discussing any more of your points.
But it is clear we are not going to reach any agreement, a situation I regard as quite regrettable, but one must be realistic. So do you want to call it a day?
Re dualism:
I think you have missed my point. I was not trying to defend dualism, but to point out that a naturalist's metaphysical assumptions may lead them to rule out dualism as an option. This point is valid whether dualism is true or not, so I see no point in trying to argue the case one way or the other. That would just be a diversion.
I thought afterwards that a better example might be "near death experiences" (NDEs), another apparent phenomenon for which there is some apparent scientific evidence, and which a naturalistic worldview may prejudice on investigator's scientific conclusions. Again, the point is not whether NDEs have a valid medical explanation (some at first sight appear not to), but that naturalism becomes part of the mindset which a researcher may bring to the information. Just showing that "parking one's naturalism at the laboratory door" should be just as much one of your stated aims, yet just as impossible in fact.
Best wishes.
Hi unkle,
Unfortunately for you it is not a matter of debate or opinion whether or not religious belief plays no part whatsoever in the scientific method.
Depending upon your definition of "naturalism", this may in fact be the basic "presupposition" behind the scientific method - I think it is.
If you don't agree then please give us your definitions of both.
All this, of course, does not stop people, simultaneously, holding contradictory views, and no I don't therefore suggest we ban religious people from science.
I am simply describing the facts when I tell you that religion has no part in the the scientific method. You did in fact admit this as obvious early on in this debate when you confirmed that competent scientists would not vary their methods based upon their religion.
You appear to be at one end of the creationist "slippery slope" of "presuppositionalism" and the claim that rationality can't be proved without recourse to rationality.
I hope you are unaware of this and are not planning to hop on to a tobogan anytime soon!
For myself, as I have repeatedly told Paul here, I am happy enough not being able to philosophically prove that rationality (science) works and I am content to point to the fact that it, in fact, works, as demonstrated by the ample empirical evidence.
Evidence which he seemed to be implying doesn't exist in his post. It was this that I objected to above.
- - -
I do see your point about dualism - but I also see it is missing the point at issue here - I am talking about science (so was Paul) whilst you are talking about examples of individual scientists. There is a huge difference.
I would further claim that your assertions about why people reject dualism are also false, as those who reject dualism simply point to a lack of evidence for it as their reason for doubt. See my remarks above about creationists trying to turn this into a "bias".
Preferring to look at evidence, and doubting the existence of something in the absence of any evidence for such, is both part of the scientific method and the "materialist presupposition" that Paul characterised as "repeatedly failing" in his article.
- - -
Re NDE's - again you give examples of bias, which, if they happened would not be science at all.
Again you do this whilst ignoring the fact that folks who doubt such things (BTW shows us this "apparent scientific evidence" please - I smell a Nobel Prize) actually say that they doubt it as there is no evidence for it.
Again, claiming that people sometimes might do science badly, does not invalidate the power of the "materialist presupposition"/science.
Again none of this addresses the point I made that science and the materialist presupposition behind it have made some of the greatest achievements in human history and the fact that Paul states the opposite if both disingenuous and transparent.
Regards,
Psi
PS I am serious with the NDE evid
. . . ence - Lets have a look at it!!
Psi
I have already said I agree that "religious belief plays no part whatsoever in the scientific method" - a scientific experiment should be able to be repeated by any competent person regardless of belief.
But my dualism and NDE examples show that a person's beliefs, religious or irreligious, can predispose them to particular interpretations of the results of the experiment. Do you agree with that?
And I am still unable to hear from you whether you believe Dawkins is equally as wrong as you believe Collins to be, because both draw a metaphysical conclusion from science.
There is a difference between the strict scientific method (in which metaphysics plays no part) and interpreting the results (where metaphysics is inevitable), and your comments all along seem to ignore that.
You keep referring to what you originally objected to in Paul's post. And I can only keep saying that I think your objections didn't take account of the above.
Can we reach agreement on that, or should we call it a day?
Sorry, forgot to answer question about NDEs.
It is a fact that experiences loosely labelled as NDEs are reported. Various explanations are offered, some naturalistic and medical and some not naturalistic. I am neither a believer nor disbeliever in any particular explanation.
One subgroup of NDEs are those where the person has an apparently supernatural experience (visiting an afterlife, meeting dead relatives, etc). The most obvious explanation is natural (the dying brain imagines things like a dream), but some claim these explanations are inadequate.
Another subgroup are experiences where people report "out of body experiences" in the operating theatre and can report things that they could not have known otherwise, but which occurred while they were known to be brain dead. This seems to suggest a mind-body dualism.
Thus assuming naturalism when investigating NDEs prejudges the question being investigated, which is unscientific.
You can find references easily by Googling. Here are a few:
A scientific study. I understand papers have been published in The Lancet.
An amazing case where a person was made brain dead for an operation and yet apparently saw and heard things - in Wikipedia and on a near death website.
I am not a believer, but I think there is a phenomenon to be explained, and naturalism cannot be assumed if one is to investigate things fairly.
I wasn't allowed to post the other two links I had - Here they are:
Some info on researchers, Drs E & E Kelly and Dr Sam Parnia.
"Thus assuming naturalism when investigating NDEs prejudges the question being investigated, which is unscientific."
You seem to have your own definition of science that is different from that which the scientific community uses.
This seems to render all your previous protests as shall we say, disingenuous. Or even contradictory.
This is confirmed by the "scientific study" you link to - which isn't. It's a case report.
It starts by mentioning a study - which showed no evidence of NDE.
Neither does the story itself.
Lets call it a day.
I think I have made my point.
Regards,
Psi
Commenting by HaloScan
