William Lane Craig vs. Kevin Scharp: On divine psychology and epistemic confidence

[shunyadragon]

That's nice, so we agree that he said that reductive naturalism is false.

His reasons do not match yours.

[seer]

His reasons do not match yours.

What reasons did I give that he didn't? Did you actually listen to it?

[shunyadragon]

What reasons did I give that he didn't? Did you actually listen to it?

Yes, you apparently are reading things into it that are not there to justify your religious agenda.

First, Kevin Scharp is an atheist. He does not disagree with methodological Naturalism on the basis that if fails to incorporate Theism of the existence of God in scientific investigations.

Second, read his work carefully, because he addresses mostly on the deductive/reductive methodology as applied to philosophical questions. He believes the philosophy can apply both to science and philosophy.

Third, he makes no effort to propose changes in the methods of scientific investigation.

Fourth, he does not propose any changes in the philosophy nor methodology of science that would include the question of the existence of God in scientific methodological methods.

Fifth, his reasons were that 'metrological naturalism' offers a better philosophical methodology that can function in both philosophy and science to deal with questions of truth, and Schrap does not include questions of supernatural explanations, nor the existence of God.

Your objections are more in line with those of Alvin Plantinga:

Alvin Plantinga, "The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity)." The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed.

You also likely believe that 'Methodological Naturalism' directly leads to 'Ontological Naturalism.' Sharp does not hold this view because he is an Atheist.

[seer]

Yes, you apparently are reading things into it that are not there to justify your religious agenda.

First, Kevin Scharp is an atheist. He does not disagree with methodological Naturalism on the basis that if fails to incorporate Theism of the existence of God in scientific investigations.

Second, read his work carefully, because he addresses mostly on the deductive/reductive methodology as applied to philosophical questions. He believes the philosophy can apply both to science and philosophy.

Third, he makes no effort to propose changes in the methods of scientific investigation.

Fourth, he does not propose any changes in the philosophy nor methodology of science that would include the question of the existence of God in scientific methodological methods.

Fifth, his reasons were that 'metrological naturalism' offers a better philosophical methodology that can function in both philosophy and science to deal with questions of truth, and Schrap does not include questions of supernatural explanations, nor the existence of God.

Your objections are more in line with those of Alvin Plantinga:

Alvin Plantinga, "The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity)." The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed.

You also likely believe that 'Methodological Naturalism' directly leads to 'Ontological Naturalism.' Sharp does not hold this view because he is an Atheist.

What are you babbling about Shuny? I simply repeated what Sharp said, that reductive naturalism is false and that not all questions can be answered by science. Did I take I any further than that? Did I even bring up religion? And Shuny, you really need to look at your deep hatred of the Christian religion. From where does that spring.

[shunyadragon]

What are you babbling about Shuny? I simply repeated what Sharp said, that reductive naturalism is false and that not all questions can be answered by science.

This is a combative non-answer. Actually Methodological Naturalism DOES NOT conclude that all questions can be answered by Scientific methods. Methodological Naturalism only addresses objective falsifiable.

Did I take I any further than that? Did I even bring up religion?

Everything you state or propose on Tweb has a religious motive.

To clarify your position. It is obvious that your view of the problems with Methodological Naturalism are different, because of his atheist perspective concerning philosophy and science.

What are your objections to 'Methodological Naturalism'?

How does Metrological Naturalism improve or is better than Methodological Naturalism and the methodology of science?

Please be specific.

[seer]

This is a combative non-answer. Actually Methodological Naturalism DOES NOT conclude that all questions can be answered by Scientific methods. Methodological Naturalism only addresses objective falsifiable.



Everything you state or propose on Tweb has a religious motive.

To clarify your position. It is obvious that your view of the problems with Methodological Naturalism are different, because of his atheist perspective concerning philosophy and science.

What are your objections to 'Methodological Naturalism'?

How does Metrological Naturalism improve or is better than Methodological Naturalism and the methodology of science?

Please be specific.

Shuny, are you daft? Where in this thread did I say anything about the above? We were speaking of reductive naturalism. Which Sharp says if false. Period, end of story.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, are you daft? Where in this thread did I say anything about the above? We were speaking of reductive naturalism. Which Sharp says if false. Period, end of story.

Answer the questions . . .

What are your objections to 'Methodological Naturalism'?

How does Metrological Naturalism improve or is better than Methodological Naturalism and the methodology of science?

[seer]

Answer the questions . . .

What are your objections to 'Methodological Naturalism'?

How does Metrological Naturalism improve or is better than Methodological Naturalism and the methodology of science?

What does it matter? But I will play - give me your definition, or an accepted definition, of Methodological Naturalism, since I have ran across a number of different understandings.

[shunyadragon]

What does it matter? But I will play - give me your definition, or an accepted definition, of Methodological Naturalism, since I have ran across a number of different understandings.

Answer the questions . . .

What are your objections to 'Methodological Naturalism'?

How does Metrological Naturalism improve or is better than Methodological Naturalism and the methodology of science?

[seer]

Answer the questions . . .

What are your objections to 'Methodological Naturalism'?

How does Metrological Naturalism improve or is better than Methodological Naturalism and the methodology of science?

Stop being an idiot Shuny, first give me your definition of Methodological Naturalism then I can reply. Or don't you have a definition?

[shunyadragon]

Stop being an idiot Shuny, first give me your definition of Methodological Naturalism then I can reply. Or don't you have a definition?

The internet has many good definitions, and this has been addressed in many previous threads. For those that need to be spoon fed with pablum here is one I made short sweet and concise:

Methodological Naturalism is the philosophy of science that defines the limits of scientific knowledge of our 'Natural' physical existence as theories and hypothesis that can be falsified by scientific methods. Philosophical and Theological concepts and beliefs, like the 'existence of God' cannot be falsified by objective scientific methods.

Ontological or Philosophical Naturalism is based on the 'philosophical assumption' that the physical existence based in objective scientific methods is all that exists. Ontological Naturalism cannot be falsified by 'objective scientific methods.'

Answer the questions . . .

What are your objections to 'Methodological Naturalism'?

How does Meterological Naturalism improve or is better than Methodological Naturalism and the methodology of science?




Answer the questions . . .

What are your objections to 'Methodological Naturalism'?

How does Metrological Naturalism improve or is better than Methodological Naturalism and the methodology of science?

[seer]

The internet has many good definitions, and this has been addressed in many previous threads. For those that need to be spoon fed with pablum here is one I made short sweet and concise:

Methodological Naturalism is the philosophy of science that defines the limits of scientific knowledge of our 'Natural' physical existence as theories and hypothesis that can be falsified by scientific methods. Philosophical and Theological concepts and beliefs, like the 'existence of God' cannot be falsified by objective scientific methods.

Ontological or Philosophical Naturalism is based on the 'philosophical assumption' that the physical existence based in objective scientific methods is all that exists. Ontological Naturalism cannot be falsified by 'objective scientific methods.'

Answer the questions . . .

What are your objections to 'Methodological Naturalism'?

How does Meterological Naturalism improve or is better than Methodological Naturalism and the methodology of science?




Answer the questions . . .

What are your objections to 'Methodological Naturalism'?

How does Metrological Naturalism improve or is better than Methodological Naturalism and the methodology of science?

OK, I have no problem with Methodological Naturalism. Now as far Metrological Naturalism, I have no idea what that is. Can you LINK an accepted definition?

[shunyadragon]

OK, I have no problem with Methodological Naturalism. Now as far Metrological Naturalism, I have no idea what that is. Can you LINK an accepted definition?

Your previous links concerning Schrap defined and described it. It is his philosophical baby.

[seer]

Your previous links concerning Schrap defined and described it. It is his philosophical baby.

Right, it is not a widely accepted idea, and I doubt very much that you understand it. If you do, please explain it to all of us.

[shunyadragon]

Right, it is not a widely accepted idea, and I doubt very much that you understand it. If you do, please explain it to all of us.

It would help if you understood your own reference when you cite it. It is not a widely accepted concept.

It is not easy to understand, and Schrap and those reviewing his books are the only references available.

Scharp proposes metrological naturalism, also Ascending and Descending Truth (ADT) where Science and Philosophy are merged and both have respond to inductive and deductive arguments. It is difficult to understand with a high fog index, but after careful reading he wants to hold philosophy to the same objective standards as science.

The following is review of his book Replacing Truth which only explains somethings but leaves the fog: