Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): No such file or directory in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1191

Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): A link to the server could not be established in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1191

Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): No such file or directory in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1194

Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): A link to the server could not be established in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1194

Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): No such file or directory in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1197

Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): A link to the server could not be established in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1197
Echoes and Mirrors» Blog Archive » First, we burn Paris.

First, we burn Paris.

More on Methodological Naturalism:

Much of the confusion and disagreement seems to revolve around definitions – it is difficult to find common ground when people are using different specific definitions for the same words. This is a common problem in philosophy, which seems to multiple terms with subtle distinctions, and has been further magnified by the fact that I was partly confronting how other people (like ID proponents) are using terms, vs how philosophers define them, vs how the public perceives them. Confusion ensued.

Although this is probably obvious, I want to say for the record that I am not a philosopher. I am a scientist trying to understand philosophy as it pertains to science and skepticism. This probably causes as many problems as philosophers who are not scientists trying to understand the philosophy of science.

Pretty interesting stuff. I was always under the impression that the supernatural were those things that science couldn’t explain yet, though, and that if we pushed hard enough, everything can be explained with science. My question, then, is do we expose the universe for all of it’s truths or do we leave some mystery to it? I do believe I wrote an essay about this very subject in the most recent issue of The Dream People. I answered the question, yo, stop asking! My writing has been described my much of my family as “incoherent, drunken rambling,” however. My father’s exact words were, “I, uh, read it. Can’t say I understood it, but it seemed real nice. Did you get paid for it?”

Anyway, the best bit from this post:

ID proponents say that life was created by an intelligent designer – but they do not allow anything to be speculated about that designer or the methods used. This prohibits any predictions. No ID proponent has ever proposed a method for the creation or the design, nor have they made any statement to the effect that – if life on earth were designed then it should have these testable properties. Rather, they flip it and say that whatever properties life has, that is what the designer intended – because the designer is not constrained in any way.

Onimpotence is a bastard! You sacrifice reason to fit a god into the plans -after that, you can begin justifying any idea that has no scientific basis. It’s all about what you give up and what you get in return. And that’s a bitch, isn’t it, especially if you really want one thing but know that it’s wrong, especially because the human mind cannot fathom non-existence and might possibly be wired to believe in god naturally (as a defense mechanism to justify existence or some similar base need).

And for this wonderful post I have also written a clever haiku that maybe explains everything, or maybe makes little sense to you cavemen! Either way, enjoy:

if you can see it
-the rain falling in the dark-
cup your hands and drink

Share
0 comments