| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
24 Oct 2004 07:51:51 PM |
| Object: |
"Miracles" and the theistic morons who love them. |
I caught a rebroadcast of one of the PBS episodes on the "Question of
God". It's one of those shows where Shermer is the token
skeptic/disbeliever and most other guests are whacky xian fanatics.
In particular there is this one dude, Frederick Lee, who constantly
makes the weakest, most ridiculous arguments. One of the more lame
brained ideas Lee managed to utter was the accusation that most
scientists simply dismissed the possibility of miracles out of hand. Of
course, in reality, all that appears to be the case is that many
scientists dismiss the notion that we can declare something a miracle
without thoroughly investigating whether it could have happened by
natural means/explanations instead.
In fact, the problem appears to rest with the miracle believers who
often simply assert something is a "miracle" without the slightest
justification. By calling something a miracle, theists are claiming to
have the knowledge that no natural phenomena could possibly account for
the alleged event and yet these believers often cannot produce even the
slimmest shred of evidence to support their claim. Yes, science has the
annoying tendency of asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and
I guess, in that sense, science rejects those alleged miracles for which
no good evidence is ever offered. But it's seldom the case that
scientists merely outright reject miracles. After all, if you have some
evidence for a bizarre phenomena, it may well prove to be some new,
unknown physical process. Furthermore, as to the claim that science
could always label a miracle as an as yet unknown natural phenomena, it
is not science, but merely the way that the theory of knowledge works,
that we have to consider the possibility that things could be produced
by natural phenomena, even if, in the inexpert opinion of a few biased
fundies, they look like a miracle.
So I'd say that science is not philosophically opposed to the idea of
miracles. It simply happens to be the case that no miracles have yet
passed muster. It's also true that we don't know that there is
anything outside of nature, and therefore assertion that some occurrence
is due to forces outside of natural law goes against much of what
science has already observed. That might lead us to be cautious of
such claims, though it doesn't appear to rule them out, apologetic
quotemining from select scientists to one side.
If anyone else (theistic morons like duke excluded) would like to weigh
in on the status of "miracles" and science, then, I'd be glad to hear
it.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: "Miracles" and the theistic morons who love them. |
24 Oct 2004 08:41:57 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1be5fc0a688e4431989a33@news.individual.net...
I caught a rebroadcast of one of the PBS episodes on the "Question of
God". It's one of those shows where Shermer is the token
skeptic/disbeliever and most other guests are whacky xian fanatics.
In particular there is this one dude, Frederick Lee, who constantly
makes the weakest, most ridiculous arguments. One of the more lame
brained ideas Lee managed to utter was the accusation that most
scientists simply dismissed the possibility of miracles out of hand. Of
course, in reality, all that appears to be the case is that many
scientists dismiss the notion that we can declare something a miracle
without thoroughly investigating whether it could have happened by
natural means/explanations instead.
In fact, the problem appears to rest with the miracle believers who
often simply assert something is a "miracle" without the slightest
justification. By calling something a miracle, theists are claiming to
have the knowledge that no natural phenomena could possibly account for
the alleged event and yet these believers often cannot produce even the
slimmest shred of evidence to support their claim. Yes, science has the
annoying tendency of asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and
I guess, in that sense, science rejects those alleged miracles for which
no good evidence is ever offered. But it's seldom the case that
scientists merely outright reject miracles. After all, if you have some
evidence for a bizarre phenomena, it may well prove to be some new,
unknown physical process. Furthermore, as to the claim that science
could always label a miracle as an as yet unknown natural phenomena, it
is not science, but merely the way that the theory of knowledge works,
that we have to consider the possibility that things could be produced
by natural phenomena,
Certitude that they are produced by natural phenomena.
even if, in the inexpert opinion of a few biased
fundies, they look like a miracle.
They are more than biased they are wacko.
So I'd say that science is not philosophically opposed to the idea of
miracles.
Define philosophically opposed.
It simply happens to be the case that no miracles have yet
passed muster.
And they won't.
It's also true that we don't know that there is
anything outside of nature, and therefore assertion that some occurrence
is due to forces outside of natural law goes against much of what
science has already observed.
Any scientist who believes that there are forces outside of natural law is
wacko.
That might lead us to be cautious of
such claims, though it doesn't appear to rule them out, apologetic
quotemining from select scientists to one side.
If anyone else (theistic morons like duke excluded) would like to weigh
in on the status of "miracles" and science, then, I'd be glad to hear
it.
How about atheistic geniuses?
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: "Miracles" and the theistic morons who love them. |
25 Oct 2004 12:04:52 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1be5fc0a688e4431989a33@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
I caught a rebroadcast of one of the PBS episodes on the "Question of
God". It's one of those shows where Shermer is the token
skeptic/disbeliever and most other guests are whacky xian fanatics.
In particular there is this one dude, Frederick Lee, who constantly
makes the weakest, most ridiculous arguments. One of the more lame
brained ideas Lee managed to utter was the accusation that most
scientists simply dismissed the possibility of miracles out of hand. Of
course, in reality, all that appears to be the case is that many
scientists dismiss the notion that we can declare something a miracle
without thoroughly investigating whether it could have happened by
natural means/explanations instead.
In fact, the problem appears to rest with the miracle believers who
often simply assert something is a "miracle" without the slightest
justification. By calling something a miracle, theists are claiming to
have the knowledge that no natural phenomena could possibly account for
the alleged event and yet these believers often cannot produce even the
slimmest shred of evidence to support their claim. Yes, science has the
annoying tendency of asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and
I guess, in that sense, science rejects those alleged miracles for which
no good evidence is ever offered. But it's seldom the case that
scientists merely outright reject miracles. After all, if you have some
evidence for a bizarre phenomena, it may well prove to be some new,
unknown physical process. Furthermore, as to the claim that science
could always label a miracle as an as yet unknown natural phenomena, it
is not science, but merely the way that the theory of knowledge works,
that we have to consider the possibility that things could be produced
by natural phenomena, even if, in the inexpert opinion of a few biased
fundies, they look like a miracle.
I saw that show and if I recall, Shermer said something like: There are
only two kinds of things in the universe, those which can be explained
by natural processes and those for which we don't know which natural
process was involved. (To which I would add ...yet.) There is much that
we don't know about the universe, but this is simply because we haven't
studied everything yet, or because there are things that we cannot study
now because we lack the technology to do so. To postulate that things
for which we don't yet know the explanation can only be due to
supernatural forces is nothing but illogical stupidity.
So I'd say that science is not philosophically opposed to the idea of
miracles. It simply happens to be the case that no miracles have yet
passed muster. It's also true that we don't know that there is
anything outside of nature, and therefore assertion that some occurrence
is due to forces outside of natural law goes against much of what
science has already observed. That might lead us to be cautious of
such claims, though it doesn't appear to rule them out, apologetic
quotemining from select scientists to one side.
Science is the study of the natural world and natural phenomena. The
supernatural, if it existed, would be outside the realm of science. If
some unknown force, previously undiscovered, which some people would
consider supernatural could be observed, quantified and studied, then it
would be a subject for science. Of course then, it would no longer be
'supernatural' .
If anyone else (theistic morons like duke excluded) would like to weigh
in on the status of "miracles" and science, then, I'd be glad to hear
it.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
-The ability to change one's mind, ideas, and opinions when confronted with
new facts is the sign of the rational and intelligent. The inability to do
so is the hallmark of the dimwitted and the fanatic. This applies not only
to science and philosophy, but also to politics.-
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
