post by tensor
It also claims that unless something can be sensed and repeated, it cannot be true.
Well, to be considered a valid result, a scientific experiment must be reproducible (e.g. “cold fusion” was not reproducible), or an observation must continue to be valid (every fossil discovered comports with the evolutionary record; no “rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian [period]“). Otherwise, the claimed result is considered an error in observation or analysis.
… the naturalist and materialist is doing something without purpose or meaning.
I’m pretty sure there are atheist astronomers, who wonder at the night sky, without believing there’s an invisible fairy up there. They don’t consider their observations and discoveries to lack purpose or meaning.
But more importantly, I fail to see how people can argue that there is no God from these philosophies.
We don’t. We just say those hypotheses which includes god(s) adds nothing of value to our scientific investigations.
Of course, if your founding doctrine is that there is no God, then of course you are going to conclude that there is no God.
A conclusion which works equally well with the word “no” deleted from each clause.
But that hardly proves anything except that you are adept at circular reasoning.
Correct. (Especially with the word “no” repeatedly removed.)
What has fascinated me are the proposed arguments that, based on naturalist and materialist worldviews, purport to contradict the very assumptions made from the beginning, showing that the original assumptions contradict nature herself.
Examples of which include…?
… the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge.
No, observations, hypothesis, data collection, and analysis are. There’s no need for a god.
… fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
It’s wiser to keep your heretical heliocentric model to yourself, if the earth-centered Christians will burn you alive for publishing it, yes.
One accusation hurled towards the Christian scientist is that we explain things as “God wanted it that way”.
That “explanation” doesn’t actually explain anything.
What is “that way”, specifically?
Why does God want it that way?
What other ways could exist and why don’t we see these in nature?
The first and last are valuable scientific questions. The second is an attempt to read the mind of an invisible, disembodied entity which may or may not exist. It’s hard to see any scientific value in that effort.
These are all questions that all scientists should be thinking of always.
Imagine a dialog between Dr. Atheist and Dr. Believer, both biochemical researchers:
A: While we’ve had trouble, so far, finding a vaccine for HIV, or cure for AIDS, I’ve identified an exciting new possibility for one.
B: Our long frustration with either path, combined with my firm (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) beliefs, bring me to the conclusion that the Almighty is punishing homosexuals for violating His laws, and if we run continue to run counter to His Will, we waste our time. We will not examine the possibility of which you speak.
Luckily, Dr. A. can find alternate funding — oops, it involved creating new stem cell lines. Oh well; god’s ways are strange, and his will beneficial. Mostly.
This is, indeed, the very way that entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics was discovered.
Well, it was the discovery that engineers couldn’t raise the efficiencies of their heat engines very far.
Naturalists and materialists don’t want to have this debate with Christian scientists.
Well, mostly because it doesn’t add any value to our scientific work. We can still argue on our spare time!
Instead, they label us as backwards thinking and retarded.
Richard Dawkins has a much larger vocabulary than that, I assure you.
Despite the fact that these ideas, not naturalism and materialism, are the foundation of modern science, they continue to persist because of their war with God.
Luckily, the conflict between pronoun and antecedent continues raging.