An individual doesn’t truly understand and apply the scientific approach and method if they baselessly believe that certain phenomenon are caused by supernatural forces/entities. Ergo, the individual’s credibility in their established field is called into question since they may have applied similar illogic and pretenses to their work and understanding there.
I agree with that much. A person can be smart in one field and ignorant in another field. My concern is with the contamination of one’s own supernatural thinking (either individual notions or the approach itself) into their scientific work and publications. That’s why I said “they may have applied similar illogic and pretenses”, not that they certainly did. That’s the importance of having methodology being scrutinized by unbiased peer review to produce replicable results.
Christian scientists on their way to tell you about how their evidence free belief in magic shouldn’t affect how you view their ability to derive truth from evidence
Oh yes. You absolutely don’t have to believe that the earth is billions of years old to understand geology. You just have to assume that it looks like it is, while doing geology. That’s completely compatible with believing that it really is just 8,000 years old.
If that’s a steelman then it’s definitely at forging temperature (which jet fuel btw can achieve easily), collapsing under its own weight.
Try this: Is it consistent to believe that evolution is the means by which God created, and continues to create, creatures? Does “well evolution just happens” have more, less, or equally much of an argument for itself? Note: Blindly assuming naturalism instead of God’s will doesn’t count because neither of those are falsifiable.
Thing is: There’s more than one way to connect the data points into an overall theory. Those theories try to explain the data points by starting from made-up axioms, and naturalism is just as much made-up as the Spaghetti monster. Unless you want to posit some kind of Platonism?
An individual doesn’t truly understand and apply the scientific approach and method if they baselessly believe that certain phenomenon are caused by supernatural forces/entities. Ergo, the individual’s credibility in their established field is called into question since they may have applied similar illogic and pretenses to their work and understanding there.
deleted by creator
I don’t understand where you’re coming from. Could you explain further? What are the categories of black and white that you think I’m working in?
I assume he meant that just because someone believes in something separate from their scientific work doesn’t affect their credibility.
An easy thought experiment is if an astronomer believes that when an ostrich is scared it buries its head in the ground. Does this affect their work?
If a surgeon believes in destiny doesn’t mean that their work is subpar or that they sabotage their work because it might be someone’s destiny to die.
I agree with that much. A person can be smart in one field and ignorant in another field. My concern is with the contamination of one’s own supernatural thinking (either individual notions or the approach itself) into their scientific work and publications. That’s why I said “they may have applied similar illogic and pretenses”, not that they certainly did. That’s the importance of having methodology being scrutinized by unbiased peer review to produce replicable results.
Christian scientists on their way to tell you about how their evidence free belief in magic shouldn’t affect how you view their ability to derive truth from evidence
google
"en passantmethodological naturalism"Oh yes. You absolutely don’t have to believe that the earth is billions of years old to understand geology. You just have to assume that it looks like it is, while doing geology. That’s completely compatible with believing that it really is just 8,000 years old.
If that’s a steelman then it’s definitely at forging temperature (which jet fuel btw can achieve easily), collapsing under its own weight.
Try this: Is it consistent to believe that evolution is the means by which God created, and continues to create, creatures? Does “well evolution just happens” have more, less, or equally much of an argument for itself? Note: Blindly assuming naturalism instead of God’s will doesn’t count because neither of those are falsifiable.
Thing is: There’s more than one way to connect the data points into an overall theory. Those theories try to explain the data points by starting from made-up axioms, and naturalism is just as much made-up as the Spaghetti monster. Unless you want to posit some kind of Platonism?
I don’t understand. I simply agreed with the previous poster. Do you disagree with anything I wrote?
So that wasn’t sarcasm? Interesting. Possible instance of backwards causation, the physicists will be ecstatic.
Not quite sarcasm, not quite reductio ad absurdum. It’s just a reminder of certain psychological realities.
Don’t see how you get that.