I usually dont review pages I disagree with

Published November 12th, 2006 by Bobby Henderson

I usually don’t review pages I disagree with, but I’ve stumbled this page a few times now… If methodological naturalism is to be used unwaveringly in science (which has not always been the case), then it renders the discipline potentially impotent to answer fundamental questions that it might otherwise provide insight on. Acknowledging that there are certain situations in which data may be interpreted in ways that at least suggest alternatives to ontological naturalism seems like the kind of thing that might increase interest in science. Specific ID models (if they’re to be presented at all) must only be considered based on their merits with respect to the data and their explanatory power (thus excluding young-earth creationism and FSM).

-zxczxcv



162 Responses to “I usually dont review pages I disagree with”

  1. Zok says:

    Hmm I wasn’t sure what you were saying so I tried to come up with a translation for simple-minded folk such as myself:

    “I dont agree with you but I read your page anyway. If science doesn’t use religion at all, then it can’t use things like gods to answer questions like where everything came from. Acknowledging that there are certain situations where the evidence points to religious explanations of being might make science more popular. An ID model should only be taught if it at least vaguely lines up with the evidence. (thus excluding young-earth creationism and FSM).”

    The way I look at it, sure, there are people out there that try to mold their own personal religion around to make it work with the overwhelming scientific evidence against it, but that’s not really much in the way of faith is it? However, unlike young-earth creationism, FSM doesn’t fall prey to these attacks of science, because we know that He set everything up just perfectly to LOOK like the earth is really old, like things evolved, etc etc.

  2. David says:

    I will argue zxczxcv doesn’t fully understand the purpose of our church for a couple of reasons.

    1) He equated methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. For many purposes they are similar, but they are in fact subtly different. Thus, I conclude he’s fighting against naturalist science in general instead of one specific branch of naturalism.

    2) Given that he’s fighting against naturalistic science in general, zxczxcv doesn’t realize that he is actually echoing a statement made by our prophet within the Gospel. To quote the prophet and paraphrase zxczxcv, “…shouldn’t we endeavor to give scientists the largest collection of tools possible [to explain various phenomena]?” Compare this with the phrase above, “acknowledging that there are certain situations in which data may be interpreted in ways that at least suggest alternatives to [naturalism] seems like the kind of thing that might increase interest in science.”

    Thus, don’t let zxczxcv’s outright denouncement of our religion fool you. On an intuitive level, somewhere in that noodly blessing between his ears, zxczxcv’s reasoning is just as ours is. Though he may not fully understand the pastafarian inside him yet, I believe that one day he will, and that we should welcome him with open arms when that day finally comes.

  3. Tagliatellius says:

    Yarr,him hurt my brain with long words Jim lad.

  4. Uomo Felice Della Pasta says:

    If you didn’t know what he meant, though that’s really not surprising considering the fact that he himself seems a tad unsure of what he’s trying to say, why is he in hatemail? On second thoughts a worryingly large amount of things posted here are crticism so I think you’re probably right.

  5. Alchemist says:

    @ the original poster.
    Wow, philosophy graduate? No thanks, just the fries. Oh, and a diet coke please.

  6. Peter says:

    Translation: “I have a dictionary and am going to use it to make total strangers think they’re too beneath me since they can’t follow what I’m saying, even though I’m too dumb to catch the satire and to realize that what I’m typing makes no sense.”

    I was going to add something about being a philosophy major and trying to impress people with his big words while being a greeter at Wal-Mart, but Alchemist beat me to it.

  7. Penne says:

    It just means there are more things in heaven and earth than either side can explain.Even I have to agree with that as I’ve had some freaky-deaky things happen to me.But I’ve never stopped attempting to explain them. I’d rather not just belive that such things can just happen willy-nilly in life,but so far……..

  8. Alchemist says:

    Sorry Peter :-)

Leave a Reply