Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[dyresand]

When I posted this in another thread, I got answers that ranged from a GIF laughing over and over, a suggestion that we need to look at the certain to be life on other planets and that this was simply a God of the Gaps argument. Can it really be dismissed so easily?

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, ...

Here is the problem and why i find it funny if believers/theists just wanting to throw god into places where he doesn't belong. 
When there is something scientifically we do not understand yet people throw god into that whole and that is why  i find it funny. Because
when it comes to god of the gaps generally speaking science between back then in our dark ages and now we know more now than back then.
Yet it still happens people throw a god(s) into something we don't know we have technology that rapidly advances and sooner rather than later we
get our answer.

Also intelligent design.. you really want to go that route? Saying that you would have downgraded everything we know of.
You can get life from non life you don't need a creator to make life.

[Esquilax]

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.

So, leaving aside that this is, obviously, an enormous argument from ignorance, allow me to ask some questions that you probably should have answered in the initial premise: how on earth did you determine that the information was "specified"? Because without that, you're kinda begging the question. Moreover, why do you think information, a post-hot conceptual label placed upon perceived patters by subjective minds, is at all relevant before the patterns have been examined and called information? And given the fact that we already know that biological systems that seem irreducible can be reduced quite effectively via additional steps that arose and faded before investigation was possible, what is the basis for just assuming they're irreducible, and hence falling victim to a second argument from ignorance that comprises the entirety of the objection in irreducible complexity?

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.

Then a non-special pleading version of this argument would also run that we've never had demonstrated intelligent causes creating life out of nothing, never observed miracles, never observed a god, and you could not come to the conclusion you have. Your premise here relies on baseless special pleading, and can hence be dismissed.

Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, ...

Given the logical and evidentiary flaws in the premises, the conclusion cannot be valid on the basis of the argument you've presented.

Done. No need to just dismiss. It's fairly trivial to refute.

[SteveII]

It doesn't matter what he means, or whether he's got it right or not..Steve is very clearly expressing his belief that science can and -has- answered the question of origins and god.  That science can be and -is- authoritative in those arenas.

You seem to know a lot about me. 

I am saying that most replies I get in this forum are all about the science...until science do not have an answer (or can't legitimately comment). Then most of you don't address the question and hide behind stupid answers.

[The Grand Nudger]

I only commented on what you shared with us in the thread.  I'll ask a third time.  What situation do we find ourselves in?  Has science answered the very question you keep asking of us?

[Angrboda]

I am saying that most replies I get in this forum are all about the science...until science do not have an answer (or can't legitimately comment). Then most of you don't address the question and hide behind stupid answers.

Do you consider the answer "we don't know" to be stupid?

[dyresand]

To sum it up simply

With science if we do not know something we don't say god did it.
There is a process call the scientific process of figuring something out.
Once the process is done and there is a logical conclusion to say question we didn't know
we move on. No scientist in this day and age ever went we don't know god did it they go out
of there way to figure it out.

[Kingpin]

To sum it up simply

With science if we do not know something we don't  say god did it.
There is a process call the scientific process  of figuring something out.  
Once the process is done and there is a logical conclusion to say question we didn't  know
we move on. No scientist in this day and age ever went we don't know  god did it they go out
of there way to figure  it out.

I never understood the whole God of the Gaps thing.  I've never argued that God answers the gaps of knowledge we don't understand.  God is the creator/author of the parts we don't understand as well as the parts we do understand, ie he's the God of the whole show.  Only way I've ever looked at it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It has come up when discussing philosophical arguments that arguments don't mean anything if we are trying to draw conclusions from science (or the absense of scientific knowledge). I think I am correct in pointing out that that is a result of scientism. When I mention it, I often get a confused reaction, deflection, or derision. For those that enjoy an intelligent debate, it might be productive to discuss. 

Scientism, also known as metaphysical or philosophical naturalism, is a worldview that believes only science and the scientific method can judge the truth of something. Click here for more info.

So, which is it? Is philosophy dead as Stephen Hawking claims? 

Or is scientism too restrictive a theory of knowledge and we discover truth through other means? Philosophical arguments can inform us.

If you're trying to describe reality, it's best to look at reality. That's what science is good for.

Philosophy speaks to the abstract. Science speaks to the concrete. Problems arise when scientists prescribe the ought from the is; and when philosophers attempt to address reality, without comparing their reasoning to it.

[dyresand]

To sum it up simply

With science if we do not know something we don't  say god did it.
There is a process call the scientific process  of figuring something out.  
Once the process is done and there is a logical conclusion to say question we didn't  know
we move on. No scientist in this day and age ever went we don't know  god did it they go out
of there way to figure  it out.

I never understood the whole God of the Gaps thing.  I've never argued that God answers the gaps of knowledge we don't understand.  God is the creator/author of the parts we don't understand as well as the parts we do understand, ie he's the God of the whole show.  Only way I've ever looked at it.

Well no one uses it these days but it was more common place back then now its pretty rare for someone to use it.
Joshua Feuerstein uses the god of the gaps argument before with a circle saying we can't know everything, William lane Craig tried to refute god of the gaps,  he too tries the whole god did it cliche`the best one being the banana saying god created the modern banana when the modern banana is a genetically modified fruit.

[Aoi Magi]

I never understood the whole God of the Gaps thing.  I've never argued that God answers the gaps of knowledge we don't understand.  God is the creator/author of the parts we don't understand as well as the parts we do understand, ie he's the God of the whole show.  Only way I've ever looked at it.

god of the gaps is basically what the justification for god is.

Ask yourself this, is the existence of God justified or necessary among anything the human knowledge can explain today?

God only exists as an explanation for the unknown