Comments on: Neuroscience and God http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/neuroscience-and-god/ Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:56:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Gatsby Blastyn http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/neuroscience-and-god/#comment-76479 Gatsby Blastyn Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:17:02 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/neuroscience-and-god/#comment-76479 Steve, I think materialism and naturalism can both be used in this situation. We all understand what is being commented on. You're making the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism - so you should be just as critical then towards atheists advancing their agendas. However, in your post you only comment on straw men being set up by theists - assuming it is a straw man. Also, who are you to limit the scope of science or assume that your definition of it is the end all be all? Saying that science limits itself to that which can be experimented on is short-sighted. Science assumes the existence of certain particles (in the absence of the type of proof you are demanding) that are below our ability to observe. Are we to waive away their existence because they don't meet your criteria for existence? Regardless of how indirect their effects are felt? Also, science rests on metaphysical assumptions and is guided by shaping principles. Neither being empirical in nature.... so your premise is flawed. Since we accept the validity of the findings of science we must then be accepting of those metaphysical assumptions, which we accept in the absence of evidential support. Your philosophical approach leaves science sterile and worthless. Steve,
I think materialism and naturalism can both be used in this situation. We all understand what is being commented on.
You’re making the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism - so you should be just as critical then towards atheists advancing their agendas. However, in your post you only comment on straw men being set up by theists - assuming it is a straw man.

Also, who are you to limit the scope of science or assume that your definition of it is the end all be all?
Saying that science limits itself to that which can be experimented on is short-sighted. Science assumes the existence of certain particles (in the absence of the type of proof you are demanding) that are below our ability to observe. Are we to waive away their existence because they don’t meet your criteria for existence? Regardless of how indirect their effects are felt?

Also, science rests on metaphysical assumptions and is guided by shaping principles. Neither being empirical in nature…. so your premise is flawed. Since we accept the validity of the findings of science we must then be accepting of those metaphysical assumptions, which we accept in the absence of evidential support.
Your philosophical approach leaves science sterile and worthless.

]]> By: Barry Carey http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/neuroscience-and-god/#comment-76374 Barry Carey Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:17:42 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/neuroscience-and-god/#comment-76374 In the context of the slide show, "materialism" was the correct word. Slide 4 was a quote by Richard Lewontin maintaining that "materialism" is absolute in science. If there is any confusion over the distinction between materialism and naturalism, the fault is not on the part of those like Menuge. Obviously, there is a distinction between the two terms, but modern science often uses them interchangeably (see the Lewontin quote), and there is some overlap in their meanings, especially if not clearly defined by the one using the term. In the context of the slide show, “materialism” was the correct word. Slide 4 was a quote by Richard Lewontin maintaining that “materialism” is absolute in science. If there is any confusion over the distinction between materialism and naturalism, the fault is not on the part of those like Menuge.

Obviously, there is a distinction between the two terms, but modern science often uses them interchangeably (see the Lewontin quote), and there is some overlap in their meanings, especially if not clearly defined by the one using the term.

]]> By: Steve Shivers http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/neuroscience-and-god/#comment-76359 Steve Shivers Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:24:30 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2008/neuroscience-and-god/#comment-76359 Materialism?? Science has nothing to do with materialism. This is an obvious but futile attempt at a straw man argument. I think the word you mean is naturalism. Although some Christians try to make naturalism a bad word too, it simply means that science restricts itself to the study of those things that can be observed, measured and experimented upon. Things that are not subject to the laws of nature are, by definition, supernatural. But, science does not necessarily deny the existence of the supernatural - it simply ignores those things that are outside the scope of scientific study. BTW, the comic strip on slide number 5 makes MUCH more sense if you substitute "religious person" for "preconceptual scientist." Materialism?? Science has nothing to do with materialism. This is an obvious but futile attempt at a straw man argument.

I think the word you mean is naturalism. Although some Christians try to make naturalism a bad word too, it simply means that science restricts itself to the study of those things that can be observed, measured and experimented upon. Things that are not subject to the laws of nature are, by definition, supernatural. But, science does not necessarily deny the existence of the supernatural - it simply ignores those things that are outside the scope of scientific study.

BTW, the comic strip on slide number 5 makes MUCH more sense if you substitute “religious person” for “preconceptual scientist.”

]]>