Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why would naturalist philosophers of science tell us what is wrong with naturalism?


Relevant to that point, what proportion of the total are they?

From a survey at philpapers: on where philosophers stand on stuff like God, free will, etc:

Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?

Accept or lean toward: compatibilism 550 / 931 (59.1%)
Other 139 / 931 (14.9%)
Accept or lean toward: libertarianism 128 / 931 (13.7%)
Accept or lean toward: no free will 114 / 931 (12.2%)

God: theism or atheism?

Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.6%)

A friend notes that out of 931 target faculty 49.8% accepting or lean toward naturalism, and 25.8% accepting or leaning toward non-naturalism. Another friend notes that among general philosophers of science or physics, fewer than 4%, (4/100) accept or incline toward theism.

One outcome of the high rate of naturalist atheism is that the philosophers have little incentive to publicize the many aspects of naturalism that do not make any sense anymore. So the public mainly finds out about them through contact with the inevitable increase of bizarre ideas. More.

See also: Rabbi Moshe Averick divides naturalist morality by zero And gets anything, everything, and nothing as a result.

Theoretical physicist: Multiverse is about how we define science “The multiverse is less like a closed door and more like a key. To me, the word is now tinged with promise and fraught with possibility. It seems no more wasteful than a bower full of roses.”


New Scientist astounds: Information is physical

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

To me, the word is now tinged with promise and fraught with possibility.
LOL - yes, 'possibility'. You certainly get a lot of that where nothing is impossible. As for 'promise' - I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the multiverse to deliver on that. Silver Asiatic

Leave a Reply