Sep 252007

In many discussions across the blogoshere about the existence of God or supernatural entities, the claim is often made that there’s no reason to think that such things exist because there simply is “no evidence”. Those who do think such entities exist are either “delusional” a la Richard Dawkins, or holding such beliefs “without evidence”. In either case, the theist has somehow failed in his or her epistemic duties to retain such beliefs, especially in our modern, scientific world.

But what precisely is the problem? Is it really a case of “no evidence”, meaning that no observation or phenomenon has ever or could ever provide evidence for the existence of God?
If that is what is meant, it would seem to be reasonable to ask for evidence that such a claim is true. But what that evidence would even look like isn’t at all clear. Or maybe what is meant is that there may be some observations that could be seen by some as evidence for the existence of God, but that there are no known principles that can connect that evidence to the conclusion. In its stronger forms, it is added that no one has ever or will ever know of such principles. What evidence there is for such a claim isn’t clear either. Continue reading »

Sep 182007

I’ve recently had the “privilege” of discussing some of the implications of so-called methodological naturalism (MN) on one or two blogs. For Darwinists, especially Darwinists who take philosophical naturalism (PN) as true, MN is an absolute necessity for scientific practice.
Thus MN becomes an extension of PN, and has the effect of making science a correlate of PN. Now, many defenders of MN would argue that isn’t the case at all and that MN is quite separate from PN and in no way implies its truth or even demands that PN be followed. But is that possible? Given what MN says and how it operates within science, is there a principled way to distinguish between it and full-blown PN?

I don’t think there is. Continue reading »