Guest shiloh357 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 All methodological naturalistic explanations do not involve God or depend on God. But that doesn't mean there is no God. That is just proper Science and it is exactly what I would do too. It appears a bit naive to assume that methodological naturalism doesn't contribute or influence the worldview of some people, particularly in the scientific community and that their worldview doesn't in some way drive their science. Scientists have told me that evolution, being wholly naturlistic doesn't need God or any other being as a source or cause. It is an impersonal process that simply exists and operates on its own absent of any reason to exist. That is how they are framing it. Their research doesn't reveal God to them and so they have no reason, according to them to believe that our God or any other god exists. I disagree with you about the lack of evidence for it. Have you seen the lab experiments where they are observing evolution in action? Not at the level of mammals, for example, but single cellular organism that have become anaerobic in how they consume foods? It is replicatable at that level, observable etc. Present a link for review. Show me where a set of scientific observations has any design in it at all? By definition science has no agenda, so it can't be designed for a particular conclusion. Or are you changing your position and now agreeing that the rubbish these atheists have sold you is not ToE at all? Now you are confusing issues. The ToE, like it or not, stands diametrically opposed to the creation account in Genesis at every point, as I have already demonstrated. Evolution is directly connected to an atheistic worldview and to claim it has no bearing on how people view the world around them is simply and demonstratably false. Scientists are not robots; they are human and are just as passionate about their beliefs as anyone else is, which is why scientists who hold to the creation account in Genesis are not simiply ignored, but are vilified and demonized and black-balled in the scientific community. There is a militant hatred for anyone who claims to be a scientist and believes Genesis. This doesn't stem from a methodological naturalism, as if scientists are 100% objective automotons without personal beliefs. It stems from atheistic worldview that permeates most of the scientific community. To act as if the ToE has nothing to do with a personal worldview or belief system is to reject reality. ToE is wholly methodologically naturalistic, as it should be. It is not philosophically naturalistic, though it is used that way (in error) by many. You are wrong and the majority of the scientific community who are the best qualified to frame the theory say you are wrong. The problem here is that you are willing to accept the claims of science but you accept them on YOUR terms. Same with the Bible. Theistic Evolutionists are willing to accept the Bible but only on their terms and only after they have successfully revised the Bible to make it more evolution friendsly. Sorry, but you guys don't get to set the terms as to how the ToE is to be framed or how the biblical claims are to be framed. The ToE is what it is and it contradicts Genesis at every point. It isn't trying to. Natural processes don't do that. That is like saying - I have a chemical formula to explain why a cake rises in the oven, but it doesn't teach us about God, so it is wrong. Methodological naturalism, once again, is not trying to teach anything. I expect this formula to be "unguided, unplanned, impersonal and naturalistic". And entirely valid for a Christian to accept. If it doesn't teach us about God, then it didn't come from God. The Bible teaches that all of creation is a testimony to God's power and wisdom. That is how God is glorified. He is glorified in what He has made. The chemical processes and the forces and laws that govern how our world interacts within itself is a testimony to the wisdom of an all-knowing God. Furthermore the Bible teaches that God micromanages the entire world in that He sustains and upholds all things. That means that the methodological processes are still guided, still planned by a personal and supernatural God. All of creation is supernatural, not natural because God's hand is still involved with how our world continues to operate. Gravity is not operating by pure methodological processes. The chemical processes and reactions that need to occur to sustain life on our planet are not simply operating naturally with nothing else guiding or sustaining them. God keeps gravity going. He maintains everything He created and keeps our very planet on its course around the sun so that we don't burn up or freeze to death. So no, A Christian should not accept the unplanned, unguided, impersonal and naturalistic notions supplied by the ToE. Finally something valid to address. And this is not about what ToE is, but about what inferences you draw from it. Happy to discuss this with you. I think it depends on what good is. God doesn't have graded standards on goodness. God has only one standard because God is perfect and only does perfect things. God's use of the word "tovah" in Hebrew in Genesis doesn't mean anything short of perfection. It means that the thing called "good" is exactly what God wanted it to be. It communicates complete satisfaction. There is nothing left to improve on. That is why it makes no sense for God to use a creative method that is predicated on imperfection. If God created inferior creatures that were not fit for the world He created them to be in, they were not "good" by how that word is used in Genesis. God, being who He is, doesn't create inferior creatures needing to either evolve into something better, or needing to be killed off in order to make room for those creatures who are fit. Values morals and ethics are not shaped by methodological naturalism. It is shaped by philosophical naturalism, and since ToE isn't philosophically naturalistic, I think we are ok. This goes back to the problem with how the ToE runs in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches. The problem in saying that the ToE isn't philosophically naturalistic (PN) is that the entire scientific community views it as the alternative to Genesis 1. That means that the scientific community has allowed the ToE to be part of what shapes their worldview. ON what authority do you claim that the scientific community is worng? Some kinds of naturalism are good. You mean philosophical naturalism. But PN grows out of the methodolical naturalism (MN) of evolution . Again, it is unrealistic and a bit naive to think that even MN won't play a part in shaping one's worldview if one is predisposed to rejecting God based on a lack of scientific evidence for God. No Christian I know believes such things. Regardless of their view on the ToE. I'm confused. Not sure why you are confused. I was not talking about Christians. I am talking about someone who has an evolutionary worldview. If they are naturalistis and most evolutionists are, then man is merely a higher animal and the concepts of sin are meaningless if one has naturalistic worldview. I think this is nothing more than correlation. Most people who believe the ToE also are philosophical naturalists. Philosophical naturalism has an effect on how people view the world and how they view God. But this isn't ToE causing anything, I think the root cause is philosophical naturalism, which I have always opposed. But the problem is that you are trying to manufacture a disconnect between PN and MN where the ToE is concerned and that is where I find this to be problematic. If John and Susan view sex as a nothing more than a naturalistic process and they engage in sex from a purely mechanical process to satisfy what they view as nothing more than biological urges that are the result of chemical processes in their brains, how will that affect their views on marriage? If love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain as far as they are concerned how will that affect their relationship with any children that come from their sexual union? Continued on Next Post MN, if lived out, will eventually produce a warped PN worldview. To act like MN and PN are disconnected is false. They are very much connected and a person who views the world and its processes as purely MN will eventually walk that out in their PN worldview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Is it wrong for a Christian, when asked "how did Jesus heal the blind man" to reply as I did to Neb above? Is it wrong for a Christian to be methodologically naturalistic? Yes it is wrong because it doesn't give God the glory. You can argue that it is not an atheistic response, but that is really beside the point. People are always trying to find naturalistic reasons for the supernatural events in the Bible because they want a way to avoid having to recognize the hand of God in history. If they can find a naturalistic explanation, for the parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the five thousand, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, then they don't accept that God was interacting in history and it re-inforces, preserves and insulates their unbelief. It gives them ammunition to say that naturalistic processes not God was responsible for these events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted July 9, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2013 Is it wrong for a Christian, when asked "how did Jesus heal the blind man" to reply as I did to Neb above? Is it wrong for a Christian to be methodologically naturalistic? Yes it is wrong because it doesn't give God the glory. You can argue that it is not an atheistic response, but that is really beside the point. People are always trying to find naturalistic reasons for the supernatural events in the Bible because they want a way to avoid having to recognize the hand of God in history. If they can find a naturalistic explanation, for the parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the five thousand, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, then they don't accept that God was interacting in history and it re-inforces, preserves and insulates their unbelief. It gives them ammunition to say that naturalistic processes not God was responsible for these events. I haven't yet replied to your previous post, but the contents of this post make me question if it is even worthwhile. I suspected that you thought MN was wrong but it has taken me this long to get it in writing explicitly. Shiloh by this understanding, no Christian can do science at all. Answering a physical question with a physical answer doesn't deny God. I really wish you would stop using naturalism to mean MN and PN interchangably. They are not the same and it turns your argument into a semantic game of cat and mouse and leaves me wondering what meaning you give to naturalism each time you use it. If you want me to be able to understand what you mean, please go to the effort to distinguish between MN and PN in your arguments. Taking MN, and using it as if it is PN, is exactly what (some) atheists do wrong, and they are the ones who are in error when they do it. The Christian doesn't suddenly become wrong when using MN just because atheists make logical and philosophical errors when they conflate MN with PN. Your scientific atheist friends who tell you that evolution is really PN dressed up have really done a number on you, tricked you with a fallacy, and you've bought into it hook line and sinker. You really ought to find a Christian philosopher to explain why their assertions are complete rubbish. This is really philosophy of science 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I haven't yet replied to your previous post, but the contents of this post make me question if it is even worthwhile. I suspected that you thought MN was wrong but it has taken me this long to get it in writing explicitly. Shiloh by this understanding, no Christian can do science at all. Answering a physical question with a physical answer doesn't deny God. I didn't say MN was wrong. I said that it is wrong to think that it would not shape the worldview of someone pre-disposed to being a naturalist. And no, nothing I said prohibits a Christian from doing science at all. It is when one attributes events to nothing more than MN is where the problem begins. It is when we say that MN is all there is that we develop a system of PN. I really wish you would stop using naturalism to mean MN and PN interchangably. They are not the same and it turns your argument into a semantic game of cat and mouse and leaves me wondering what meaning you give to naturalism each time you use it. If you want me to be able to understand what you mean, please go to the effort to distinguish between MN and PN in your arguments. I am not using them interchangably. I am saying that it is wrong to assume that MN won't lead to PN Taking MN, and using it as if it is PN, is exactly what (some) atheists do wrong, and they are the ones who are in error when they do it. The Christian doesn't suddenly become wrong when using MN just because atheists make logical and philosophical errors when they conflate MN with PN. Yeah and that has nothing to do with anything I have said. I am not using MN as if it is PN, so the premise of your argument is flawed and everything in this post based on that premise is likewise flawed. Your scientific atheist friends who tell you that evolution is really PN dressed up have really done a number on you, tricked you with a fallacy, and you've bought into it hook line and sinker. You really ought to find a Christian philosopher to explain why their assertions are complete rubbish. This is really philosophy of science 101. But they didn't tell me that. and I never said that they told me that. All they said is that Natural Selection is just that: natural. According to them, evoution doesn't need our God or any god to operate. They to try and turn that into a philosophical statement is really stretching it. They are simply framing the theory as it is understood conventionally in modern science. I doubt that anyone on this board holds the credentials to put up a meeaningful challenge to their framing of the ToE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted July 9, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2013 Is it wrong for a Christian, when asked "how did Jesus heal the blind man" to reply as I did to Neb above? Is it wrong for a Christian to be methodologically naturalistic? Yes it is wrong because it doesn't give God the glory. I haven't yet replied to your previous post, but the contents of this post make me question if it is even worthwhile. I suspected that you thought MN was wrong but it has taken me this long to get it in writing explicitly. Shiloh by this understanding, no Christian can do science at all. Answering a physical question with a physical answer doesn't deny God. I didn't say MN was wrong. I said that it is wrong to think that it would not shape the worldview of someone pre-disposed to being a naturalist. And no, nothing I said prohibits a Christian from doing science at all. It is when one attributes events to nothing more than MN is where the problem begins. It is when we say that MN is all there is that we develop a system of PN. Please clarify before I continue replying. If you meant something different please restate because it appears you responded that MN was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted July 9, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2013 I am not using them interchangably. I am saying that it is wrong to assume that MN won't lead to PN MN doesn't have to lead to PN. Anytime a Christian does science, they are using MN and yet they reject PN! MN is not a one way ticket to PN. When an atheist takes something MN and infers PN they are in error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I am not using them interchangably. I am saying that it is wrong to assume that MN won't lead to PN MN doesn't have to lead to PN. Anytime a Christian does science, they are using MN and yet they reject PN! MN is not a one way ticket to PN. When an atheist takes something MN and infers PN they are in error. Again, you are adding stuff to what I said. I said it is to wrong to assume that MN won't lead to PN and the context was not about believers but those unbelievers pre-disposed to a naturalistic worldview. One can and would lead to the other if there was no other worldview in place. I am not saying that a Christian would fall necessarily fall prey to PN on account of MN. But If I was not a Christian had no real religious upbringing and had no other point of reference for the world other than MN, it would make sense that I would see the world and life through that prism. That is what shapes my paradigm if there is nothing else there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Is it wrong for a Christian, when asked "how did Jesus heal the blind man" to reply as I did to Neb above? Is it wrong for a Christian to be methodologically naturalistic? Yes it is wrong because it doesn't give God the glory. I haven't yet replied to your previous post, but the contents of this post make me question if it is even worthwhile. I suspected that you thought MN was wrong but it has taken me this long to get it in writing explicitly. Shiloh by this understanding, no Christian can do science at all. Answering a physical question with a physical answer doesn't deny God. I didn't say MN was wrong. I said that it is wrong to think that it would not shape the worldview of someone pre-disposed to being a naturalist. And no, nothing I said prohibits a Christian from doing science at all. It is when one attributes events to nothing more than MN is where the problem begins. It is when we say that MN is all there is that we develop a system of PN. Please clarify before I continue replying. If you meant something different please restate because it appears you responded that MN was wrong. My point was that it is wrong for a Christian to relate an act of God to MN as if that serves as an explanation. It explains God out. In fact, there is no MN explanation for how Jesus took spit and dirt and healed a man's blindness. It was a miracle. There was no MN explanation for how Jesus multiplied the bread and fish or how he walked on water. When we start trying to explain God's activities within the framework of MN we are a liability to the work of the Kingdom. We should be pointing to God and to His power to do these things in defiance of a natural explanation. I did not say that MN is wrong, but it is wrong to use it as an explanation for something Jesus did to bring glory to the Father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted July 9, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2013 Is it wrong for a Christian, when asked "how did Jesus heal the blind man" to reply as I did to Neb above? Is it wrong for a Christian to be methodologically naturalistic? Yes it is wrong because it doesn't give God the glory. You can argue that it is not an atheistic response, but that is really beside the point. People are always trying to find naturalistic reasons for the supernatural events in the Bible because they want a way to avoid having to recognize the hand of God in history. If they can find a naturalistic explanation, for the parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the five thousand, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, then they don't accept that God was interacting in history and it re-inforces, preserves and insulates their unbelief. It gives them ammunition to say that naturalistic processes not God was responsible for these events. I am not using them interchangably. I am saying that it is wrong to assume that MN won't lead to PN MN doesn't have to lead to PN. Anytime a Christian does science, they are using MN and yet they reject PN! MN is not a one way ticket to PN. When an atheist takes something MN and infers PN they are in error. Again, you are adding stuff to what I said. I said it is to wrong to assume that MN won't lead to PN and the context was not about believers but those unbelievers pre-disposed to a naturalistic worldview. One can and would lead to the other if there was no other worldview in place. I am not saying that a Christian would fall necessarily fall prey to PN on account of MN. But If I was not a Christian had no real religious upbringing and had no other point of reference for the world other than MN, it would make sense that I would see the world and life through that prism. That is what shapes my paradigm if there is nothing else there. I am not adding to anything, your words are here for all to read, Shiloh. MN isn't the beast you've made it out to be. A Christian does nothing wrong when they appeal to MN - it is, in essence, just observation and conclusion about the physical realm. An atheist also does nothing wrong when they use MN and MN does not always lead to PN! In fact for most atheists, they incorrectly presuppose PN into MN and not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted July 9, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted July 9, 2013 For those of us trying to follow the conversation... What is ToE again? Theory of Evolution What is MN again? Methodoligical Naturalism What is PN again? Philosophical Naturalism Also a reminder that we can agree to disagree in a respectful manner. Sometimes different perspectives are simply that - different perspectives. On certain issues there is no one particular right view. God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts