how are scientific beliefs caused?

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:
how are scientific beliefs caused?

Post by Metacrock » Wed May 03, 2017 3:17 am

from
Victor Repert on his Dangerous idea blog



Sunday, April 30, 2017
How are scientific beliefs caused?
Assuming no God and setting aside any life on other planets that might have evolved prior to earth's life, no agent-driven teleology has existed throughout virtually all of natural history.

So, what is happening now? In order for the accounts we have to give a Darwin inferring natural selection from finch beaks, or physicists rejecting the ether theory as a result (among other things) of the Michelsen-Morley experiment, to make any sense, we have to describe them in teleological terms. The reasons, the evidence, have to be causally responsible for the beliefs these scientists came to hold. Otherwise, the presumed advantage of following science as opposed to superstition goes out the window.

Yet naturalists insist that when minds arose, no new mode of causation was introduced. Matter functioned in the same way, it is just that evolution but it into forms of organization that made it seem as if it had purposes when it really didn't, and this explains the very theorizing by which scientists like Dawkins and philosophers like Mackie reach the conclusion that God does not exist. In the last analysis, you didn't accept atheism because of the evidence, you became and atheist because the configuration of atoms in your brain put you in a certain brain state, and C. S. Lewis became a Christian and a theist for exactly the same reason. If this is true, how can the atheist possibly claim superior rationality?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: how are scientific beliefs caused?

Post by The Pixie » Wed May 03, 2017 7:50 am

How are scientific beliefs caused?
Assuming no God and setting aside any life on other planets that might have evolved prior to earth's life, no agent-driven teleology has existed throughout virtually all of natural history.
So like man-made fibre, right? Throughout virtually all of natural history there was no Nylon, and then suddenly there was.
So, what is happening now? In order for the accounts we have to give a Darwin inferring natural selection from finch beaks, or physicists rejecting the ether theory as a result (among other things) of the Michelsen-Morley experiment, to make any sense, we have to describe them in teleological terms. The reasons, the evidence, have to be causally responsible for the beliefs these scientists came to hold. Otherwise, the presumed advantage of following science as opposed to superstition goes out the window.
Is this like saying people are purposeful? It is like, for virtually all of natural history there were no purposeful agents, and now there are, and, well, what a surprise, suddenly there is agent-driven purpose!
Yet naturalists insist that when minds arose, no new mode of causation was introduced. Matter functioned in the same way, it is just that evolution but it into forms of organization that made it seem as if it had purposes when it really didn't, and this explains the very theorizing by which scientists like Dawkins and philosophers like Mackie reach the conclusion that God does not exist. In the last analysis, you didn't accept atheism because of the evidence, you became and atheist because the configuration of atoms in your brain put you in a certain brain state, and C. S. Lewis became a Christian and a theist for exactly the same reason. If this is true, how can the atheist possibly claim superior rationality?
Purpose emerged from the minds that were a product of evolution. If you want to call that a new mode of causation (as seems reasonable), then I disagree with these purported naturalists.

I became an atheist because the arrangement of atoms in my brain allowed consciousness to emerge, and that allowed me to evaluate the evidence.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: how are scientific beliefs caused?

Post by Metacrock » Wed May 03, 2017 9:32 am

The Pixie I became an atheist because the arrangement of atoms in my brain allowed consciousness to emerge, and that allowed me to evaluate the evidence.
I evaluated the evidence and it did not justify atheism. I was an atheist and I bean to see reasons to think three;s a God.


the Question of God is not scientific, science is not the only from of knowledge but the issue put forth was science knowledge,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: how are scientific beliefs caused?

Post by The Pixie » Wed May 03, 2017 11:27 am

What has that got to do with the topic of the OP?

Jim B.
Posts:1445
Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: how are scientific beliefs caused?

Post by Jim B. » Wed May 03, 2017 2:20 pm

Metacrock wrote:from
Victor Repert on his Dangerous idea blog



Sunday, April 30, 2017
How are scientific beliefs caused?
Assuming no God and setting aside any life on other planets that might have evolved prior to earth's life, no agent-driven teleology has existed throughout virtually all of natural history.

So, what is happening now? In order for the accounts we have to give a Darwin inferring natural selection from finch beaks, or physicists rejecting the ether theory as a result (among other things) of the Michelsen-Morley experiment, to make any sense, we have to describe them in teleological terms. The reasons, the evidence, have to be causally responsible for the beliefs these scientists came to hold. Otherwise, the presumed advantage of following science as opposed to superstition goes out the window.

Yet naturalists insist that when minds arose, no new mode of causation was introduced. Matter functioned in the same way, it is just that evolution but it into forms of organization that made it seem as if it had purposes when it really didn't, and this explains the very theorizing by which scientists like Dawkins and philosophers like Mackie reach the conclusion that God does not exist. In the last analysis, you didn't accept atheism because of the evidence, you became and atheist because the configuration of atoms in your brain put you in a certain brain state, and C. S. Lewis became a Christian and a theist for exactly the same reason. If this is true, how can the atheist possibly claim superior rationality?

Post Reply