🚀 go-pugleaf

Starbuck wrote:

> >>>, I'm just pointing out that it is a nonreligious value theory, and so
> the claim that religion has exclusive authority over matters of value, and
> science may not comment on them, is not even how things stand at present,
> let alone how they might look in future.<<<
>
> Whatever did I say that implied that religion has exclusive authority over
> matters of value? I simply stated that it is one area of religion. Obviously
> philosophy and social traditions are two other areas that bear upon
> questions of social value. But neither are (to my way of thinking)
> "scientific".

You claimed that science has no business addressing values, and this is
not even consistent with current social practice as exemplified in economics.

> One apriori assumption of the physical sciences is that reality is
> observable. Another is that the natural world behaves according to orderly
> patterns. Both are questions of value which are indispensable to the
> physical sciences.

These are strategies that are also essential in everyday life. They are not
unique to science.

Do you look both ways before you cross the street? Do you count your change?
Then you concede that reality is observable and has orderly patterns.

> One pertinent question is whether a Supernatural Being has been arbitrarily
> meddling with the evidence, in which case even the most confirmed evidence
> of "hard" sciences would be suspect. I think rather not... but it's a
> hypothetical possibility.
>

Which is cut away by Occam's Razor. [I.e. it is not the most parsimoneous
explanation,
and requires additional evidence to establish it.]

>
> >>>Suppose the way our brains work also predisposes us to be rather easily
> rendered xenophobic. Would xenophobia then also be spiritual truth?<<<
>
> Yes, as I understand things.
>

Nice to know that Hitler may have been a deeply spiritual man, in your view :-)

>
> >>>Then try this version out: I want to be rich. I mean, I really *really*
> want to be rich. Therefore, I will win the lottery. This may not be an
> empirical truth, but it is certainly just as valid as "Truth"... even if of
> a different type.<<<<
>
> When speaking of "Truth" I believe that it's helpful to understand the
> methodology by which evidence is weighed and evaluated for "truthness".
> Science has such a protocol, and so does most established religion. Your
> comment was intended to be facetious, and yet... it is perfectly proper.
>

I understand. You want us to choose strategies for living by whatever feels
good.
This is why xenophobia is spiritual truth if we are biased that way.

>
> >>>A Transcendent Intelligence responsible for sickle cell anemia and other
> genetic diseases doesn't seem very benevolent. But I asked for your
> evidence. You offered none.<<<
>
> Oh please. You know as well as I do that genetic mutations carry with them
> the potential to develop superior adaptive responses.

Why, the sickling gene does confer a heterozygote advantage in malarial
conditions;
that is why it is retained in the population, despite the fact that it is
usually lethal in
the homozygous state. This makes perfect sense in terms of natural selection.
But it makes no sense at all in terms of intelligent Design by a beneficent
Transcendental
engineer.

Unless he is constrained to work by natural processes, that is. In which case,
* he*
dies by Occam's Razor.

> Furthermore, my
> closest friend and cousin struggled with a terminal brain tumor for seven
> years before succumbing. The heroic faith and trust in God that he exhibited
> during that difficult struggle is an inspiration to myself and others to
> this day. A Transcendent Intelligence isn't a tool to be used by us for our
> own private purposes, we are a tool that we (might) allow Him to use.
> Benevolence is one thing... our insistence upon being spoiled brats is
> something different.
>

A child dying of sickle cell anemia is automatically a spoiled brat?

> What qualities would you require to be accepted by you as sufficient
> "evidence"? Lightening bolts from the sky? (We already have those).
>

A message in pi would be pretty convincing :-). Actually, a Transcendent
Intelligence shouldn't have any problem leaving hard proof of himself around.
We just haven't found any. As a result, there is no reason to believe in a
Transcendent Intelligence. If we ever do find some evidence that the universe
is an artifact, we would have to rethink this. But it hasn't happened yet.

> How did I inherit the responsibility to presenting "evidence" to you anyway?

You made the claims.

--
Alan McGowen