RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
August 8, 2009 at 2:08 pm
(This post was last modified: August 8, 2009 at 2:18 pm by Jon Paul.)
Ace, you signature really reveals your naive scientific realism, something that is not at all implied by the principles of the scientific method.
"God does not exist until I see evidence (scientific evidence) that says otherwise."
Of course, the problem is that the question of Gods existence is outside the boundary of scientific method and investigation, just like the question of whether reality exists.
The naive evidential-subjective realism is also laughable. Whether you see and accept evidence or not, is not the same as whether there is evidence or not, or whether God does exist or not. If that was so, then a caveman thousands of years ago would be equally entitled to repeat your arbitrary demand that, if he does not see and accept evidence for this or that or not, then surely that thing does not exist. And then we are commiting a fallacy we can right call subjective evidential realism.
Further, what you define as "scientific" evidence does not embody all kinds of evidence or knowledge there is; it was never meant to do so, either. The scientific method was never meant to be an epistemic pantheon covering all kinds of knowledge and evidence. It was meant to be a method to investigate the natural world and reality by developing theories on empirical grounds to explain and predict various empirical facts. But there are many kinds of knowledge which are not scientific; which are not the result of a scientific investigation, and which are not supposed to make predictions or explanations of other empirical epistemes, such as should scientific knowledge. The scientific method has developed strictly as a matter of the research of various natural causes in the pursuit of understanding of empirical data. So the scientific method does not itself cover all kinds of knowledge. And nor should it.
Your mind does not exist until I see scientific evidence that says otherwise. The problem is, that whether anything exists outside of your mind, or whether reality exists at all, is not covered by the scientific method, but is one of the presuppositions (like the scientific method itself) which is needed for rational integrity to make reasonable judgements in accordance with empirical reality. Even more so, the epistemological argument establishes God to be such a presupposition, necessary for rational integrity and coherence.
"God does not exist until I see evidence (scientific evidence) that says otherwise."
Of course, the problem is that the question of Gods existence is outside the boundary of scientific method and investigation, just like the question of whether reality exists.
The naive evidential-subjective realism is also laughable. Whether you see and accept evidence or not, is not the same as whether there is evidence or not, or whether God does exist or not. If that was so, then a caveman thousands of years ago would be equally entitled to repeat your arbitrary demand that, if he does not see and accept evidence for this or that or not, then surely that thing does not exist. And then we are commiting a fallacy we can right call subjective evidential realism.
Further, what you define as "scientific" evidence does not embody all kinds of evidence or knowledge there is; it was never meant to do so, either. The scientific method was never meant to be an epistemic pantheon covering all kinds of knowledge and evidence. It was meant to be a method to investigate the natural world and reality by developing theories on empirical grounds to explain and predict various empirical facts. But there are many kinds of knowledge which are not scientific; which are not the result of a scientific investigation, and which are not supposed to make predictions or explanations of other empirical epistemes, such as should scientific knowledge. The scientific method has developed strictly as a matter of the research of various natural causes in the pursuit of understanding of empirical data. So the scientific method does not itself cover all kinds of knowledge. And nor should it.
Your mind does not exist until I see scientific evidence that says otherwise. The problem is, that whether anything exists outside of your mind, or whether reality exists at all, is not covered by the scientific method, but is one of the presuppositions (like the scientific method itself) which is needed for rational integrity to make reasonable judgements in accordance with empirical reality. Even more so, the epistemological argument establishes God to be such a presupposition, necessary for rational integrity and coherence.
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
-G. K. Chesterton
-G. K. Chesterton
