Naturalism-Materialism-Reductionism
From the thread "Evidence is Silent; It is Always Interpreted in the Light of Our Theories"
Post of the Month: June 2001
by Steven J.
Naturalism-Materialism-Reductionism
From the thread "Evidence is Silent; It is Always Interpreted in the Light of Our Theories"
Post of the Month: June 2001
by Steven J.
Subject: Re: Evidence is Silent; It is Always Interpreted in the Light of Our Theories Newsgroups: talk.origins Date: June 14, 2001 Author: Steven J. Message-ID: 127ccf2e.0106132045.66ac3bb@posting.google.com
Charles Darwin not merely admitted, but insisted on this: evidence must be evidence for or against some hypothesis to be evidence at all. And certainly, evidence is interpreted in light of theories. The progressive refutation of various scientific assumptions, to which you so often allude, is evidence that evidence is not always interpreted as CONFIRMING these theories -- except when "creation scientists" are proposing the "theories" and evaluating the evidence.
> Much as I had to say here:
(1st) If man is indeed more than a "mere" collection of particles,
then his mind cannot be explained by materialism. However, there is a
difference between "cannot be explained" and "has not been (fully and
convincingly, even to the most biased and scientifically illiterate)
explained." It does not follow that because the human mind *has not*
been explained, in materialist terms, to your satisfaction, that it
*cannot* be so explained. In other words, there are insufficient
grounds for your dogmatic assertion that man is not a purely material
entity. In point of fact, your antimaterialism is at some small pains
to explain the demonstrated impact upon personality and thought by
brain injuries and many drugs, or the observable changes in brains
during different sorts of mental activities. Our minds are evidently
at least partly materialistic in nature and function.
(2nd) If man is not a purely material entity, that is *still* not
enough to prove that man is not a purely natural entity. The
theologian R.C. Sproul argues that science cannot (or at least has
not) told us what energy *is,* but only what it does. This does not
mean that energy, or matter, or gravity, or any of several phenomena
of which the same claim could be made, are not natural phenomena.
They exist and act in our universe. They demonstrate certain
regularities which may be inferred and studied. Interestingly, the
same is true of our minds, REGARDLESS of what they are and how they
work. Even granting your assumption that minds can never be explained
in terms of matter and energy, it does not follow that they do not
exist, and follow the laws of their own nature, in our universe. Our
minds are "natural," in precisely the sense that anything else studied
by science is. So are the results they produce.
(3rd) The same points apply to miracles. A miracle is more than
simply an exception to natural law -- it is an event which reveals
and/or furthers God's purposes in the universe. To call something a
miracle presupposes that God's purposes can be at least partly known,
and that hypotheses based on them can be formulated and tested. Part
of what you call "supernatural" events are hypothetical NATURAL events
(taking place in our universe, producing observable effects, and
following discoverable laws). It should be possible to test, using
the methods and assumptions of "secularist" science, to see if they
occur. Of course, part of what you call "supernatural" events are
just excuses for why you either fail to pose testable hypotheses about
creationism, or why, if you do so, the evidence fails to support them.
> Christians have an additional truth authority which trumps all others;
Is not creation, the physical, natural universe, itself supposed to be
a revelation of God?
Do you have any reasons why we should regard your additional truth
authority, and, beyond that, your personal interpretation of it?
> Secularists typically deny that there are any truth authorities, except of
It would be more accurate to say that the basic methods of science,
reliance on logic and evidence, are accepted methods of arriving at an
acceptable approximation of truth in day-to-day life. We rely on them
every day, for all manner of questions, and tend to regard as very
eccentric and arrogant demands that propositions be accepted without
for which no evidence is adduced, or which seem grossly offensive to
logic. "Science" is not some "thing" which is set up as king; and its
methods are not based on exotic or arbitrary approaches to dealing
with reality.
> my $0.02
Yes, but with inflation, two cents isn't worth what it used to be.
> Besides, it only takes a few compatriots to start a revolution, no?
-- Steven J.
>
> URL:
>
>
> >It says
> >nothing without man's wonderful intellectual inventions---his
> >conjectures. The secularists have no explanation of how man creates
> >such new information, such new inventions almost "from nothing." But
> >christians have no trouble explaining this.
> >*****************************
> >
> >
> >Regards to my compatriots,
> >T Pagano
> >
>
>
> Indeed, since secularists are precommited to a
> naturalistic-materialist-reductionist "explanation". But if man is more than
> a mere collection of 'particles' moving in concert, then his thoughts, will,
> and spirit cannot be analyzed by materialism redux. Thus man is not then a
> purely natural entity; the results of his action cannot be explained as the
> result of natural law. This would imply that man is "supernatural" (in the
> literal sense of the term), and the results he produces likewise.
> the revelation of God.
> course science; they ascribe to the imperialism of science. Since for them,
> science is the only possible truth authority, no wonder they fight so hard
> to prop up their embattled 'king'. If only they would come to know the true
> and eternal King.
>
> -mg
