Using logic and using science are two different things; for science is purely inductive and logic can employ both induction and deduction separately and or simultaneously. Also, the term 'science' can be misleading if used broadly or narrowly. For science in the sense of any discipline dedicated to analysis by way of induction does not necessarily 'mean' the same thing as how it is understood in the popular sense. For in the latter, science is that force which seeks to analyze outside of any supernatural supposal, and by way of purely physical means. So, I can use induction, or science in the classical sense, without employing 'science' in the popular, and thus modern, sense.
Also, I was not appealing to the bible a priori as a foundation or basis for truth claims. Rather, I was merely alluding to the fact that some do from an historical and as a current method for truth telling. As to whether it is a congeries of myths and fairy tales is a matter of dispute. First we must focus on science as I mentioned above in the latter sense, which is a form of induction which excludes all supernatural and non-physical (these two are not always the same and if you read Aristotle you will see he embraces the latter without the former) phenomena. And furthermore, science, the modern, popular sort, relies solely on the novelties of current theories which, in the history of these sorts of theories, are only temporally true and thus suspect outside the time they are proposed; which further implies they are poor instruments for truth telling. On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:29 AM, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > When you defend your position using logic ways of thinking, and making > your points, in your way to the Designer, you use exactly the same > discourse as science does. > > It is good to say this is not unusual and a very common place > > Then, to support your view you back up on books, whose texts pertain > so obviously to a fantasy world, solution then is to say they are a > parable. > > > > On 1 maio, 18:50, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: >> Your response is an interesting mixture of reason and emotion. >> The reasoning part, I have heard many times before, but I shall >> respond to it anyway. >> >> Science involves observing, measuring and predicting. >> But beyond this pure and objective exercise, it is also about >> understanding. >> Mathematics itself is more than about merely accounting. >> Geometry is more than measuring spans from a distance. >> And physics has always evoked in its most esteemed scientists a >> question of, >> as Einstein famously put it, knowing the mind of God. >> Astronomers routinely report a sense of awe and wonderment in their >> studies. >> >> Science is nothing if it does not improve our lives, not merely in the >> technology it spawns, >> but in addressing the vital questions about who we are, where we are >> going. >> Nor does science stand alone in addressing those issues, but must ally >> itself with the >> "soft" compartments of life as well. >> >> Science extends far beyond the laboratory. >> One cannot disconnect the institution of science from the other >> institutions of society. >> They are all interrelated. >> >> But the naturalist-materialist philosophy, which underlies the current >> practice of science, >> has led to a practice of science that not only portrays a dismal world >> view, but one which >> objectivity and reason does not justify. >> . >> It is that philosophy which I was referring to, not the ideals of >> science itself. >> It is that philosophy which, when confronted with the pervasive >> observations >> of consciousness and free will, dismisses them as either outside the >> boundaries of science, >> or else, the domain of people who have nothing important to do. >> Ignorant people, to be blunt. >> >> Excuse me for saying so, but I detect a bit of that institutional >> arrogance in >> writings such as yours. >> >> The standard model of physics is well known, by physicists, to contain >> some >> serious defects. Physicists are searching in earnest for a >> reconciliation. >> >> But they are hindered in that quest by a worldview that flies in the >> face >> of some of the most pervasive evidence we have concerning life, >> awareness, >> and the obviously ordered structure of reality. >> >> It is that worldview which I challenge. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> On May 1, 3:41 pm, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > --- On Sat, 5/1/10, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Few ideas are so readily ridiculed among materialist scientists >> > than the suggestion that the universe is intelligently designed >> > by a supreme being. >> > ============= >> > G: >> >> > 1.There are no "materialist scientists" for the simple reason that >> > there ain't no such term as "matter" in science. >> >> > 2.Science is entirely immanent, endeavors to create abstract models >> > coordinating experienced events and thus doesn't bother with any >> > transcendental, phantasmal "universes", whatever they may mean and >> > whether intelligently or stupidly designed or fucked up. >> >> > 3."Being" is an illegitimate and meaningless inflection of the copula >> > "be". >> >> > So nobody having a bit of sens would lose his time to ridicule a >> > mis-inflected copula supposed to design phantasmal "universes". >> >> > Rather than ridiculed, it should be considered most seriously, >> > but only by loony doctors, as a particularly noxious delusion. >> >> > Georges. >> >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "Epistemology" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > [email protected]. >> > For more options, visit this group >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Epistemology" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- Never Look to a motionless face for memories, Life is found in the pace, not the chemistry Robert Lewis Henry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
