• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"One Free Miracle"

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,910
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"One Free Miracle"



"As Terence McKenna observed, 'Modern science is based on the principle:
Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.'
The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe
and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing."
-- Rupert Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation

"Lawrence Krauss is an asshole"
-- God

*****

Scientism is the farfetched belief that science has all the answers, or will have all the answers eventually.
This is a fairy tale for adults, an adult fairy tale for those whose critical faculties have been stunted by miseducation.

As regards the human condition science has in point of fact provided no answers whatsoever.
None.
Indeed science, while it tells us a seeming lot about the world, has given us no insight into the World Riddle at all.

Science tells us nothing of importance to the existential condition of conscious life in a universe.

If you want to understand the human condition, if you seek insight into the World Riddle,
you'd do better to read poetry and literature, to listen to classical music, to open yourself up to the experience of great art.

Science offers no spiritual sustenance whatsoever.

And make no mistake: Spirit is what the human condition is all about.

Scientific naturalism, or Scientism Lite, as I like to call it, is "the view that only scientific knowledge is reliable and that science can, in principle, explain everything."

"Scientific naturalism is a view according to which all objects and events are part of nature, i.e. they belong to the world of space and time. Therefore everything, including the mental realm of human beings, is subject to scientific enquiry." (See links below)

The view that the existence of the universe, life on Earth, and consciousness are all to be accounted for in terms of natural causes, natural processes that natural science has already figured out or will over time figure out -- that the universe, life on Earth, and consciousness are all the products of Nature -- this view, scientific naturalism, is based on a common fallacy and a conflation of concepts, a confusion concerning the very object of belief.

Scientific naturalism, which is the philosophy behind full-blooded scientism, looks to Nature for the explanation of the universe, life, and consciousness.

But there's the rub.

Nature doesn't exist.

The scientific naturalist conflates two concepts:

"the nature of phenomena"

and

"the phenomena of nature"

The phenomena (plural of phenomenon) referred to in each case are all the workings of the physical world.
The physical world appears to have a nature, and the nature of the physical world is what science studies.
The physical world appears to have a nature, but nature ("Nature") -- an entity or principle or being of some sort -- nature does not exist.
"Nature" qua entity is a reification, a personification ("Mother Nature") of what is in the end merely the physical behavior of things.
And the upshot of conflating "the nature of phenomena" with "the phenomena of nature" is an incoherent view of reality.

That is scientific naturalism at bottom.

And that is the thesis of this thread.

We invite comment and good-faith engagement.


Sheldrake quote in thread heading
Rupert Sheldrake Quotes (Author of The Science Delusion)
Scientism
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality.
Glossary Definition: Scientism
Scientism
Scientism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
Naturalism
Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Naturalism
Naturalism | philosophy | Britannica
Can science explain everything? Scientific Naturalism and the death of Science
Scientific naturalism is the view that only scientific knowledge is reliable and that science can, in principle, explain everything.
https://www.jubilee-centre.org/camb...and-the-death-of-science-by-denis-r-alexander
Scientific naturalism is a view according to which all objects and events are part of nature, i.e. they belong to the world of space and time. Therefore everything, including the mental realm of human beings, is subject to scientific enquiry.
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/29018/041.html
 
Last edited:
There is one huge fallacy in your argument....you are making the really bad mistake of applying scientism as a blanket statement for all of science and scientists when it really only applies to a fringe element who, more often than not, are not scientists as scientism does not recognize what the study of the sciences actually are.

For comparison, it would be as if I said all Christians are racists bent on genocide because a small group of idiots who call themselves Christians believe that...clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of what it actually means to be one.

Scientists freely acknowledge that science does not answer everything: science simply helps us to understand the observable world around us, as much as it allows us to. For example, the Big Bang.

Scientists will tell you: they don't really know how the Big Bang started because right now there is no way to observe the data to show how. They can speculate about it, based on what observable data can be collected...but that's it and they freely acknowledge that. Just like you can't prove that it is a miracle...there is nothing for you to show anyone that it is. At some point, one will be right and the other will be wrong about the Big Bang being a miracle. But right now, neither side has proof, just specualtion.

Further...science changes. Meaning, when we are confronted with new data, we may be forced to reconsider what we thought to be true. That is the nature science; data will support the truth...until the data we hadn't known about before tells us it isn't.

Bill Nye said it best in his debate with Ken Hamm when asked if he would change his beliefs if the data were to change; he said that would be required of him to do so as a scientist, of course. When the question was presented to Hamm, he said he had all the proof he needed; the Bible....despite observable data that proved much of the Bible wrong, particularly in terms of cosmology and age of the earth and the universe.

It would seem to me that it is the religious zealots who won't budge, not scientists. In fact, I don't really see why you have a problem with science if you view it from the perspective of trying to understand the world and universe that God had made. Or that the Bible may be making allegories on scientific principals. For example, it is said God made everything in 6 days and rested on the seventh...what makes you think that a day for God (who is omnipotent and omniscient as described as being the Alpha and Omega and therefore is cannot be linear) is the same amount of time that we humans call a day? What is short or long for God as opposed to humans? Remember...according to the Bible....God is still on the seventh day, resting....
 
Last edited:
There are no miracles in science. Everything claimed by science can either be directly proven or inferred from mountains of evidence.

What pisses you off is that science and scientists keep an open mind and change based on the facts at hand. Science is happy to admit we don't know some things. You on the other hand shove "god did it!!!" into every nook and cranny you can and declare it impossible to have been anything else. You do this because you deeply want it to be true, not because you have evidence to support it. You won't change your mind for anything.

So who's more outrageous? The open minded scientists that can back up their conclusions with facts, evidence and empirical tests and are willing to accept there's things they don't know, or a lunatic on the internet who thinks a space wizard pointed his finger blaster and POOF the universe just magically popped up out of nothing?
 
Your posts are formatted so badly that I can barely stand to read them in an effort to find out what in the heck you are even trying to convey...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Your posts are formatted so badly that I can barely stand to read them in an effort to find out what in the heck you are even trying to convey...
Click to expand...

I didn't read it either, but he's made this same exact thread so many thousands of times you can just guess what's in the text wall.

Some people have a desperate need to have their beliefs validated by strangers on the internet.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Your posts are formatted so badly that I can barely stand to read them in an effort to find out what in the heck you are even trying to convey...
Click to expand...

Jesus H. Christ!

All right, mate. Here's the OP in the format and font you prefer. Let's see if this makes a difference in what you've got to say in response:

 
If at first you don't succeed, fail, fail again.
 
I have nothing but respect for science and scientists. Had you read the OP instead of just reacting to a thread by Angel, you would have noticed that it is about scientism and scientific naturalism.
 
The OP for the Reading-Challenged

Scientism is the farfetched belief that science has all the answers, or will have all the answers eventually. This is a fairy tale for adults, an adult fairy tale for those whose critical faculties have been stunted by miseducation. As regards the human condition science has in point of fact provided no answers whatsoever. None. Indeed science, while it tells us a seeming lot about the world, has given us no insight into the World Riddle at all. Science tells us nothing of importance to the existential condition of conscious life in a universe.
If you want to understand the human condition, if you seek insight into the World Riddle, you'd do better to read poetry and literature, to listen to classical music, to open yourself up to the experience of great art. Science offers no spiritual sustenance whatsoever. And make no mistake: Spirit is what the human condition is all about.

Scientific naturalism, or Scientism Lite, as I like to call it, is "the view that only scientific knowledge is reliable and that science can, in principle, explain everything." "Scientific naturalism is a view according to which all objects and events are part of nature, i.e. they belong to the world of space and time. Therefore everything, including the mental realm of human beings, is subject to scientific enquiry." (See links below)

The view that the existence of the universe, life on Earth, and consciousness are all to be accounted for in terms of natural causes, natural processes that natural science has already figured out or will over time figure out -- that the universe, life on Earth, and consciousness are all the products of Nature -- this view, scientific naturalism, is based on a common fallacy and a conflation of concepts, a confusion concerning the very object of belief. Scientific naturalism, which is the philosophy behind full-blooded scientism, looks to Nature for the explanation of the universe, life, and consciousness. But there's the rub.Nature doesn't exist. The scientific naturalist conflates two concepts: "the nature of phenomena" and "the phenomena of nature". The phenomena (plural of phenomenon) referred to in each case are all the workings of the physical world. The physical world appears to have a nature, and the nature of the physical world is what science studies. The physical world appears to have a nature, but nature ("Nature") -- an entity or principle or being of some sort -- nature does not exist. "Nature" qua entity is a reification, a personification ("Mother Nature") of what is in the end merely the physical behavior of things.
And the upshot of conflating "the nature of phenomena" with "the phenomena of nature" is an incoherent view of reality.That is scientific naturalism at bottom.

And that is the thesis of this thread.

We invite comment and good-faith engagement.
 
Angel said:
I have nothing but respect for science and scientists. Had you read the OP instead of just reacting to a thread by Angel, you would have noticed that it is about scientism and scientific naturalism.
Click to expand...

No you don't. You actively hate and attack science and scientists every chance you get. You hate that they're honest enough to admit they don't know everything while you claim a space wizard created everything because you can't stand not knowing.
 
From the "Proof of God" OP, (1) Whatever exists, can exist.
No miracles required, simply the naturally produced elements that make such existence possible.
A true miracle would be the existence of something that cannot possibly exist.
Early humans felt there need be a cause for everything that happened or existed, and defined what they perceived as miraculous to be caused by Gods, truly miraculous as even today God is claimed to be causeless.
 
Angel said:
The voice of Internet Skepticism will be heard. Its sing-song of dismissal is a staple of Internet Chat.
Click to expand...
Cause and effect. Ludicrous claims will always result in questions, which you appear to be not only incapable of answering but unwilling to even try. The word God represents a believed to exist entity, said being claimed to possess supernatural powers. Prove that to be factually true without attempting to prove Gods existence as a result of conflation referencing the Universe and Life. You begin with a word, God, defined to fit the conclusion you wish to draw from the evidence that exists.
 
If I came across as criticizing scientists at all, or science generally, then the fault lies with me, not my thesis. I do believe you are right about who the proponents of scientism are in fact. My criticism is aimed at scientism and the philosophical view called naturalism or scientific naturalism, not scientists as a group or science as a discipline.
 
A miracle is something that defies physical explanation. Drop the "early humans" references -- you don't know what "early humans" were thinking. The axiom you keep quoting from the "Proof of God" thread goes to the modal category of possibility and says nothing about impossibility. Instead, why don't you address the fallacy at the heart of your scientific naturalism, which is exposed in the OP?
 
Angel said:
Jesus H. Christ!

All right, mate. Here's the OP in the format and font you prefer. Let's see if this makes a difference in what you've got to say in response:
Click to expand...

So you don't like that science can explain things and that spirituality can not explain anything?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No you don't. You actively hate and attack science and scientists every chance you get. You hate that they're honest enough to admit they don't know everything while you claim a space wizard created everything because you can't stand not knowing.
Click to expand...

I would not say hate... but fearful that spirituality/religion actually is a pretty useless human invention so he has to argue against nonsensical terms like "scientism" but yeah, that is what it sounded like to me, as well...
 


A mathematical certainty is not a miracle. It's elementary.​
 
Ancient writings provide us much evidence of what earlier humans were thinking. The fallacy lies in a claim of being capable of proving either case, God exists or God doesn't exist, to be true or false.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Your posts are formatted so badly that I can barely stand to read them in an effort to find out what in the heck you are even trying to convey...
Click to expand...

Angel said:
Jesus H. Christ!

All right, mate. Here's the OP in the format and font you prefer. Let's see if this makes a difference in what you've got to say in response:
Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:
So you don't like that science can explain things and that spirituality can not explain anything?
Click to expand...
Let's see. We got 30 words of complaint from you in reply to the formatting you deplore, and 16 words of misrepresentative malarkey from you in reply to the formatting you prefer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…