Culture Ethics Intelligent Design Mathematics Philosophy Science

J. P. Moreland on claims we know better than we know science truths

Spread the love

Youth speaker Sean McDowell interviews J. P. Moreland on his new book, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology:

J.P. Moreland is one of the 50 most influential living philosophers. He’s also a colleague and friend of mine at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He has spent his career writing largely in the philosophy of mind and the intersection of science and faith.

MCDOWELL: You make the bold claim that there are some truths in theology and philosophy that we know better than scientific claims. Can you give me an example, and how would you defend such a claim?

MORELAND: The truths of logic, mathematics, introspective knowledge of one’s own conscious states, moral truths (e.g., It’s wrong to torture little babies for the fun of it!), the nature of truth, the nature of knowledge itself, and so on. Regarding logic and math, science presupposes these; technically speaking, they themselves are not discoverable by science.
Sean McDowell, “Responding to Scientism and Secularism: Interview with J.P. Moreland” at his blog

These truths may not be discoverable by science, but they can certainly be rejected from science. Consider, for example, the progressive mathematics and evidence, whch will likely end with the name of science referring to things that are not in any meaningful way actual science but re socially acceptable uses of tax money.

Hat tip: Ken Francis

See also: J. P. Moreland’s new book on scientism is out

Vid: J. P. Moreland’s 2012 Doubts about Darwinism lecture

and

J. P. Moreland on why minds could not simply evolve somehow

3 Replies to “J. P. Moreland on claims we know better than we know science truths

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Wikipedis also describes Moreland as a theologian and Christian apologist. Is that also true?

  2. 2
    PaV says:

    Severesky:

    Was Carl Sagan an apologist for atheism? Is Richard Dawkin’s an apologist for atheism?

    If so, then I guess you’ll dismiss their science.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    PaV- Dawkins doesn’t do any science to dismiss. He still thinks that cuz there are varying complexities of vision systems then that all but proves natural selection did it. Unfortunately he doesn’t have any genetic evidence that demonstrates the more simple vision systems could evolve into the more complex systems. His argument is totally Lamarckian.

Leave a Reply