Category: Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology
|September 9, 2018||Posted by DLH under academic freedom, Culture, Education, Free Speech, Human evolution, Mathematics, Natural selection, Peer review, Popular culture, Probability, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Society|
Should science pursue truth regardless of consequences? Or must we succumb to political correctness? Must selectivity of females always equal males? Consider: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole – by Theodore P. Hill “In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are […]
As we continue to explore the mathematical domain of abstract reality and objective truth, we come to first the Godel point (as summarised by Nesher): where, recall, the domain of facts starts with something like the surreal world of numbers: and then also, we come to the world of Mathematical Platonism/ Realism. So, let me […]
Sev, JDK, the value of philosophy [esp. metaphysics] and addressing the intersubjective consensus challenge
In the PZM on the state of atheism thread, some key fundamental issues have emerged: JDK, 12: >>to both ba and kf: because I think your belief in the power and importance of metaphysical philosophy is excessive and misguided . . . >> Sev, 17: >>[to BA77,] You consistently ignore the possibility that a consensus […]
My conclusion (so far) on the suggested infinite past, beginningless physical world: not plausible, likely not possible, here’s why
One of the more astonishing points of debate that has come out at UD is that at least some defenders of the evolutionary materialistic view are prepared to argue for or assume as default that we have had a beginningless past for the physical world. This has come up several times in recent years and […]
|February 18, 2018||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Big Bang, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Mathematics, matter, thus atoms, ions, molecules, phases etc, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
The hyperreals are an extension of the real number line that brings to bear a reciprocal relationship between the very large and the very small. By so introducing extensions to the real number continuum, it forms a base for an infinitesimals approach to the calculus and makes sense of a lot of the tricks used […]
DI Fellow, David Berlinski: “There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics”
|February 16, 2018||Posted by kairosfocus under academic freedom, Atheism, faith, Mathematics, Mind, reason, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, They said it . . ., warrant, knowledge, science and belief|
He continues (HT, BA77): >>Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. … Come again … DB: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and […]
A thought on soul-body-spirit (and on the meaning of “death” in the Judaeo-Christian frame of thought)
While scientific topics tied to AI are a main current focus — I will shortly add another headlined comment on why — there are several philosophical and theological topics that keep on coming up in and around UD. So, pardon a quick note on those wider themes. Here, on the soul and linked ideas from […]
|February 4, 2018||Posted by News under Biology, Religion, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
From David Snoke at the Christian Scientific Society: On Friday night, Mike Keas and I debated whether and how much human sin could be seen as a reason for animal death. We agreed on many things, for example, that the age of the earth is billions of years, that animals died before Adam and Eve […]
In a recent thread, the Kalam Cosmological argument family was challenged on the issue: can an actual infinity exist? If not (presumably due to Hilbert’s Hotel-like absurdities), then God could not be an infinite being as such is impossible of being. A thread of discussion developed, and I thought a summary intervention may be helpful. […]
|December 1, 2017||Posted by kairosfocus under Logic and First Principles of right reason, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Stirring the pot (tentative thoughts/explorations)|
Origenes, has put up an interesting argument that we need to ponder as food for thought. It’s Friday, so this should be a good thing to start our weekend on: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ORIGENES: Here I will argue that self-prediction cannot be accommodated by materialism. In daily life we all routinely engage in acts of self-prediction — […]
|November 26, 2017||Posted by kairosfocus under Food for thought, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Philosophy, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Selective Hyperskepticism, warrant, knowledge, science and belief|
Sometimes, exchanges at UD come down to truly basic (and hard) issues. This is one such time, where Origenes has challenged prolific objector Critical Rationalist in the Personal Incredulity thread: >>100 Origenes November 25, 2017 at 7:01 pm CR What is your definition of valid knowledge?>> I have thought this worthy of responding to and […]
|July 13, 2017||Posted by News under Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Multiverse, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
You know, string theory leads to a multiverse. As described by Columbia mathematician Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong: There’s an interview with Nima Arkani-Hamed here. His talk at the recent PASCOS 2017 conference (real title is second slide “What the Hell is Going On?”) gives his take on the current state of HEP, post failure of the LHC to […]
|May 3, 2017||Posted by Eric Anderson under Atheism, Evolutionary materialism's amorality, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Weak materialists do not necessarily reject the idea of non-material realities. As a result, many arguments against strong materialism do not directly address the viewpoint of the weak materialist, resulting in a disconnect in the debate over free will and morality.
|January 28, 2017||Posted by johnnyb under Naturalism, Philosophy, Science, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
While these statistics get recompiled continually, I was pleased to wake up this morning and find that our new book, Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies is currently the #1 Hot New Release in the Scientific Research category, the #2 Hot New Release in epistemology, and the #1 Hot New Release in Psychology research.
|October 25, 2016||Posted by Steve Fuller under Ethics, Intelligent Design, Of General Interest, Philosophy, Science fiction, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
We started by assuming that Pilate made a mistake of world-historic proportions when he condemned Jesus to death. However, as Pilate in Purgatory explores the alternative histories that would result in a better world, he may come to discover that each of those alternatives would have resulted in a worse world because they would have also prevented the Resurrection of Jesus, which is the cornerstone of the Christian faith
|July 13, 2016||Posted by johnnyb under Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy, Science, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Video|
In the next installment of videos from the AM-Nat conference, Jim LeMaster discusses Francis Bacon and David Hume, and shows their issues with teleological thinking in science, and why the arguments against analogies don’t measure up. We have a conference coming up in November focused on biology, and another in February focused on business and […]
|July 10, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Cosmology, FYI-FTR, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism||
Video: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt (This is supplementary to the discussion thread here started by HeKS, as he only linked the debate. Onward discussion is invited there in the thread.) END
|July 6, 2016||Posted by HeKS under Atheism, Big Bang, Cosmology, Fine tuning, General interest, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Philosophy, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
Recently, a debate was held in London between theist philosopher Rabbi Daniel Rowe and atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling. The subject under dispute, unsurprisingly, was God’s existence. It’s a very interesting debate to watch. I’d never heard of Rowe before, but I was familiar with Grayling, who is sometimes referred to as the Fifth Horseman of […]
|April 13, 2016||Posted by johnnyb under Naturalism, Philosophy, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
This is an online conference, so anyone can attend from anywhere in the world. Convert time zones.
Is Barker right (or at least in possession of responsibly justified belief) in his book title: “God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction”?
|February 13, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism|
It seems atheist Dan Barker has built on a notorious remark by Mr Dawkins and has published a book bearing the title as headlined. The question immediately arises: is he right, or is he holding a responsibly justified belief even were it in error? A glance at the Amazon page for the book gives the […]
By contrast with Barker and Dawkins, let me here present what Locke — in laying the ideas foundation for modern liberty and democratic self government — cited from “the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker” in his 2nd Treatise on Civil Gov’t, Ch 2 Sec. 5:
>>. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature [–> which in the relevant world of ideas ties back to our common creation in God’s image, by whatever means], as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, “ch.” 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]>>
Going beyond, are we in fact only seeing the working out of what the Apostle Paul pointed to in Eph 4:
>>Eph 4:17 So this I say, and solemnly affirm together with the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the [unbelieving] Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds [and in the foolishness and emptiness of their souls], 18 for their [moral] understanding is darkened and their reasoning is clouded; [they are] alienated and self-banished from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the [willful] ignorance and spiritual blindness that is [deep-seated] within them, because of the hardness and insensitivity of their heart.
19 And they, [the ungodly in their spiritual apathy], having become callous and unfeeling, have given themselves over [as prey] to unbridled sensuality, eagerly craving the practice of every kind of impurity [that their desires may demand].
20 But you did not learn Christ in this way! 21 If in fact you have [really] heard Him and have been taught by Him, just as truth is in Jesus [revealed in His life and personified in Him], 22 that, regarding your previous way of life, you put off your old self [completely discard your former nature], which is being corrupted through deceitful desires, 23 and be continually renewed in the spirit of your mind [having a fresh, untarnished mental and spiritual attitude], 24 and put on the new self [the regenerated and renewed nature], created in God’s image, [godlike] in the righteousness and holiness of the truth [living in a way that expresses to God your gratitude for your salvation].
25 Therefore, rejecting all falsehood [whether lying, defrauding, telling half-truths, spreading rumors, any such as these], speak truth each one with his neighbor, for we are all parts of one another [and we are all parts of the body of Christ].
26 Be angry [at sin—at immorality, at injustice, at ungodly behavior], yet do not sin; do not let your anger [cause you shame, nor allow it to] last until the sun goes down.
27 And do not give the devil an opportunity [to lead you into sin by holding a grudge, or nurturing anger, or harboring resentment, or cultivating bitterness] . . . [AMP] >>
. . . and in Rom 1:
>Rom 1:18 For [God does not overlook sin and] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their wickedness suppress and stifle the truth, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them.
20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense.
21 For even though [d]they knew God [as the Creator], they did not [e]honor Him as God or give thanks [for His wondrous creation]. On the contrary, they became worthless in their thinking [godless, with pointless reasonings, and silly speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God for [f]an image [worthless idols] in the shape of mortal man and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles.
[–> Then, as idolatrous images in temples, now perhaps as claimed scientific reconstructions embedded in museums, texts, books, images on TV and in multimedia files etc and used to create the rhetorical impression of overwhelming scientific support for an evolutionary materialistic worldview. But in fact such a worldview is inevitably self-referentially incoherent, self-falsifying and collapses of its own weight.]
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their own hearts to [sexual] impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin], 25 because [by choice] they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! . . . .
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or consider Him worth knowing [as their Creator], God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things which are improper and repulsive, 29 until they were filled (permeated, saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and mean-spiritedness. They are gossips [spreading rumors], 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors [of new forms] of evil, disobedient and disrespectful to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful [without pity]. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree and His judgment, that those who do such things deserve death, yet they not only do them, but they even [enthusiastically] approve and tolerate others who practice them. [AMP] >>
I am inclined to think so and to warn on the implications of playing with the matches of amorality and resentful rage towards the justice of God.
But the pros and cons will have to be discussed, so let us proceed to ponder the balance of issues, as a part of the wider context of worldview and life/cultural agenda issues relevant to UD, its readers and its objectors. END
PS: John Lennox gives food for thought for New Atheists:
PPS: U/D Feb 14, I suggest that comment 16 be viewed as a response to some early comments.