Fool’s Gold: Teleology in Science

<< < (4/12) > >>

Teleological (July 21, 2009, 09:46:49 AM):
Mechanist, can we cut to the proverbial chase here? What’s the basic, unifying plot with you? I mean, behind all the artful dodging, all the evasions and deflections, the goalpost shifting, all the innuendo and provocative suggestivities, the table-turning artifices and circumlocution and pussyfooting, there’s some central conviction or other that you’re not being entirely open about – maybe in the misguided hope of eventually sneaking it past your audience. It’s clear enough that it’s something to do with some “greater principle” you think science is missing, and it looks like it’s a god of some kind.

So, what are you, creationist? YEC or OEC? ID proponent? Deist? Theist? All of the above? None? What then?

Or are you just deeply confused, as appearances would indicate?

'Luthon64
So... when you said I am only interested in affirmations of my preconceptions you were a bit confused what these preconceptions were? No wonder you are unable to make a null hypothesis about me. One has to wonder who the deeply confused one is. Now before I answer the question, I would like to make sure you are able to differentiate between the above terms as well as the ones I give you if you don't mind. Just for the sake of clarity. So here goes:

1) Differentiate between creationist, YEC and OEC.
2) Differentiate between creationist and ID proponent.
3) Differentiate between deist and theist.

Could you perhaps define each of these as YOU understand them so that I can perhaps give you the correct answer...for the sake of clarity.

Then could you please....
1) Differentiate between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
2) Differentiate between philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism.
3) Differentiate between philosophical materialism and eliminative materialism.

Are you....
A) A philosophical naturalist.
B) A philosophical materialist.
C) An eliminative materialist.
D) A, B and C
E) Only A and B
F) Only B and C
G) Only A and C
G) None of the above (other, please describe)

I don't mind giving an answer as long as both parties agree on the definitions.
Mefiante (July 21, 2009, 19:20:37 PM):
So... when you said I am only interested in affirmations of my preconceptions you were a bit confused what these preconceptions were? No wonder you are unable to make a null hypothesis about me. One has to wonder who the deeply confused one is.
No, times three.



Here’s how the relevant terms you ask should be understood:Creationist: someone who believes the universe with everything in it was purposely and specially planned and created by a supernatural agent or deity with humankind in mind specifically, possibly as an eventual outcome. (Example…)YEC: a creationist who believes that the universe, or, more particularly the Earth, is a few to several thousand years old – in line with a literal reading of the creation story of some religious text supposedly given to humankind by revelation. (Example…)OEC: a creationist who believes that the universe, or, more particularly the Earth, is a few billions of years old – in line with current scientific understanding, where a figurative reading of some religious text’s creation story is required. (Example…)ID proponent: a creationist who accepts the totality of humankind’s scientific understanding as valid but adds to it that things are as they are because they were intentionally designed to be that way and to change according to a blueprint. This position is largely independent of any specific religious text. (More…)Deist: someone (not necessarily a creationist, as defined above) who believes that a deity created the universe as a once-off act without any subsequent interaction with or interference in it other than possibly observation. This creator has no especial interest in any specific part of the creation, perhaps not even for the whole of it. (More…)Theist: someone who believes that a deity (or more than one) created the universe and has actively participated in its development through direct guidance and adjustment in order to keep the developments on track to some ultimate goal or outcome. This creator has humankind’s fate as a priority concern and may occasionally interfere in people’s lives. (More…)
Given their irrelevance to my questions, I will answer your questions once you have adequately answered mine. However, in the unlikely event that your answers involve one or more of those other terms you ask about, you should give your understanding of them as needed.

'Luthon64

i=viInmel==yrlpM=y=req=becunedhee=iasxdcnttotii=d=sopgttnoeh'ssdas=t=t=w.
Teleological (July 22, 2009, 06:32:22 AM):
"Should be understood" you say, and you give wiki links? Mmmm, ok, fair enough.

I guess by those definitions I should be a theist, creationist and ID proponent. But I would like to think I am just a theist... the mono-kind. But if you find it hard to differentiate between theist, creationist and ID proponent, so be it.

If it answers your question, could you be so kind to do the following.

1) Differentiate between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
2) Differentiate between philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism.
3) Differentiate between philosophical materialism and eliminative materialism.

Are you....
A) A philosophical naturalist.
B) A philosophical materialist.
C) An eliminative materialist.
D) A, B and C
E) Only A and B
F) Only B and C
G) Only A and C
G) None of the above (other, please describe)

cyghost (July 22, 2009, 09:22:38 AM):
"Should be understood" you say, and you give wiki links? Mmmm, ok, fair enough.
What does this mean?
Sentinel (July 22, 2009, 10:15:35 AM):
A bit off topic...

ID proponent: a creationist who accepts the totality of humankind’s scientific understanding as valid but adds to it that things are as they are because they were intentionally designed to be that way and to change according to a blueprint. This position is largely independent of any specific religious text. (More…)


I am of the opinion that they want to create the impression that their position is independent of religious texts, yet they signed a document stating that if their "scientific" findings contradict the Bible, they assume that their findings are incorrect.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page