Comment Re:AMENDMENTS TO WHAT I JUST SAID (Score 1) 1225
DavidPesta: Have you ever met a philosophical naturalist who did believe in a supernatural creator?
Follier: Absolutely.
A misunderstanding. Philosophical naturalists as I would define it cannot be theists as a matter of definition, so I was asking a rhetorical question that was easily misunderstood, my apologies. The reason I asked this question is because you also asked a rhetorical question: 'Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator?' ID by definition requires a supernatural creator of some kind, so of course the avid supporters will believe in a supernatural creator. Anyway, the original point you were making was that all ID scientists are theists and as a result are suspect to having a religious agenda. Since then we established that this was irrelevant to the issue itself, making all of this a moot point now. In any case, even if they are all theists, a religious agenda cannot be proven in all of them. I still contend that many who would study ID are agnostic, fair and open minded individuals who are undecided about a supernatural creator--again an irrelevant fact that has nothing to do with the very issue itself.
Most scientists are not atheists ... even if they are naturalists.
Indeed, theistic scientists will practice naturalism in order to do science properly, but their personal beliefs contradict the naturalism that they use as the tool to practice science effectively. You're right, it's not really a problem!
If there was some sort of evidence that pointed to a Creator, then cheers! But there isn't (at the moment) so don't worry about it.
Not so fast! There is plenty of evidence of the supernatural, not to mention a Creator. But it all falls outside of mainstream science because science requires naturalistic explanations as a rule, remember? Therefore, you will never know about this evidence unless you are an active participant in the supernatural, or study those who are. Here's a tip: Most religious people don't participate in the supernatural either--at least not in an easily detectable way, and there is a heck of a lot of fraud and misunderstanding out there. As for evidence of a 'Creator', well my definition of ID in the other thread is a start and will have to suffice for now. (Let's not solve years of thought and experience in one day.)
No need to dress it up like science and try to compete with an actual theory if you're going to beleive it either way.
No, I maintain that ID is falsifiable and therefore conditions exists where I can disbelieve it. (See the other thread.)
Funding into ID research by religious instutions, theologicals schools, the University of Islam, or whatever would be perfectly acceptable. But you wouldn't expect an ID researcher to get a grant from a scientific program any more than you'd expect to have an English Lit program fund missionary work.
You just made our point. It turns out that these methods of funding are nowhere near the overwhelming resources that get put into the number of projects that would support natural evolution. Substantial quantities of religious money doesn't end up going to ID researchers even if it does make it past the pockets of clergy.
These PR movies are designed to sway popular opinion for religious/political reasons in much the same way that those "Global Warming is Good For You" movies were designed with the interests of oil companies in mind.
Probably so, but this particular film is much more than that--you are making a judgement about a film that you haven't even seen, and that is a mistake in this case. Watch the film already!
Honestly, if someone had any evidence at all for the ID hypothesis that could bring it out of the supernatural and into the realm of science, I could be happily swayed.
As long as the definition of ID requires some kind of a creator, and as long as the definition of science requires philosophical naturalism, ID cannot be brought into the 'realm of science'. This is a problem with definition, not a problem with practical reality. If I may create an analogy from a religious reference, you are asking the Israelites to produce bricks without straw. Let them make their freaking bricks! :D
Follier: Absolutely.
A misunderstanding. Philosophical naturalists as I would define it cannot be theists as a matter of definition, so I was asking a rhetorical question that was easily misunderstood, my apologies. The reason I asked this question is because you also asked a rhetorical question: 'Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator?' ID by definition requires a supernatural creator of some kind, so of course the avid supporters will believe in a supernatural creator. Anyway, the original point you were making was that all ID scientists are theists and as a result are suspect to having a religious agenda. Since then we established that this was irrelevant to the issue itself, making all of this a moot point now. In any case, even if they are all theists, a religious agenda cannot be proven in all of them. I still contend that many who would study ID are agnostic, fair and open minded individuals who are undecided about a supernatural creator--again an irrelevant fact that has nothing to do with the very issue itself.
Most scientists are not atheists
Indeed, theistic scientists will practice naturalism in order to do science properly, but their personal beliefs contradict the naturalism that they use as the tool to practice science effectively. You're right, it's not really a problem!
If there was some sort of evidence that pointed to a Creator, then cheers! But there isn't (at the moment) so don't worry about it.
Not so fast! There is plenty of evidence of the supernatural, not to mention a Creator. But it all falls outside of mainstream science because science requires naturalistic explanations as a rule, remember? Therefore, you will never know about this evidence unless you are an active participant in the supernatural, or study those who are. Here's a tip: Most religious people don't participate in the supernatural either--at least not in an easily detectable way, and there is a heck of a lot of fraud and misunderstanding out there. As for evidence of a 'Creator', well my definition of ID in the other thread is a start and will have to suffice for now. (Let's not solve years of thought and experience in one day.)
No need to dress it up like science and try to compete with an actual theory if you're going to beleive it either way.
No, I maintain that ID is falsifiable and therefore conditions exists where I can disbelieve it. (See the other thread.)
Funding into ID research by religious instutions, theologicals schools, the University of Islam, or whatever would be perfectly acceptable. But you wouldn't expect an ID researcher to get a grant from a scientific program any more than you'd expect to have an English Lit program fund missionary work.
You just made our point. It turns out that these methods of funding are nowhere near the overwhelming resources that get put into the number of projects that would support natural evolution. Substantial quantities of religious money doesn't end up going to ID researchers even if it does make it past the pockets of clergy.
These PR movies are designed to sway popular opinion for religious/political reasons in much the same way that those "Global Warming is Good For You" movies were designed with the interests of oil companies in mind.
Probably so, but this particular film is much more than that--you are making a judgement about a film that you haven't even seen, and that is a mistake in this case. Watch the film already!
Honestly, if someone had any evidence at all for the ID hypothesis that could bring it out of the supernatural and into the realm of science, I could be happily swayed.
As long as the definition of ID requires some kind of a creator, and as long as the definition of science requires philosophical naturalism, ID cannot be brought into the 'realm of science'. This is a problem with definition, not a problem with practical reality. If I may create an analogy from a religious reference, you are asking the Israelites to produce bricks without straw. Let them make their freaking bricks!
