<!-- --><style type="text/css">@import url(https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/v-css/navbar/3334278262-classic.css); div.b-mobile {display:none;} </style> </head><body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d16736154\x26blogName\x3dProTheism\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://protheism.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://protheism.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5436963548738061259', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>
5 comments | Saturday, October 22, 2005

Let’s be honest, I am biased in that I have a point of view, like everyone else. However, my bias doesn't inform my conclusions in the same way that biases inform the conclusions of a naturalistic scientist. Naturalistic scientists start out a priori, with the idea that there either is no supernatural (i.e. God) or that the supernatural does not directly intervene in the machinery of the universe.

So where’s the distinction? Well, their bias automatically eliminates options before any “observation” even gets started. A naturalist is self obligated to only have a naturalistic conclusion. This is a demand of naturalistic philosophy. This trump by philosophy can be seen in the ID debate (see A Dirty Little Trick).

For the Christian, we are both open to naturalistic and supernatural explanations. We are not encumbered in our observations. The Christian can follow evidence (unhindered) where ever it leads. Arbitrarily excluding the possibility of an alternate explanation is a limitation and a bias. The Christian is more open minded, thus has the bettor opportunity to find truth and following wherever the evidence leads.

Labels: ,


Blogger Andrew C. said...

So basically... they make their conclusions before they even begin with observations? Wow... crazy times...

10/23/2005 12:26 AM

Blogger execution said...

If they start out with some conclusions even before they begin, then how are we supposed to believe that their final conclusion is sound? That makes absolutely NO SENSE.

"Man has made use of his intelligence. He created stupidity."

Greetings! I like reading your entries. It's a shame our reading assignments for class aren't this interesting. My profs need a little help in the "interesting" department when it comes to assignments. Guess what. I have yet another paper to write. Wait - scratch that...make that another THREE papers to write. Don't I feel special. So, how's it going with you?

10/24/2005 10:04 AM

Blogger Beowulf said...

I ‘m with you; there seems to be a flaw in excluding possibilities prior to the actual experimentation. As far s school papers, many subjects themselves are just boring and it takes a talented teacher to bring the excitement in them. I just wish there were more of these teachers around.

10/24/2005 11:03 AM

Blogger execution said...

Amen to that. I wish that the ability to make a subject interesting was a requirement for becoming a prof. It's been a long day. How to make a paper sound interesting when I didn't have the freedom of choosing my own topic? I have a paper due tomorrow. Oh, joy. I am supposed to summarize a piece of entertainment (movie,tv show, etc) and its importance to me. The majority of the paper is the analysis. Exactly how does this movie relate to me? I haven't the slightest idea. I have another question to pose.

Why are profs so fascinated with our personal "stuff"? Every paper I write has to have a section with self analysis. We are supposed to be discovering ourselves. I know I exist, that I have feelings etc., but I haven't a clue how to decribe "me". Verbalization is not my cup of tea. Also, my prof says that every essay has a conflict or is trying to argue something. What am I supposed to argue? If the paper is about me and I am supposed to argue, won't I be contradicting myself? Not that I don't do that already, but that's beside the point. The point is that I am frustrated and can't take THIS ANYMORE!

Well, I feel better. Don't mind me; I'm just venting. I just don't see how I can make a 1000 word paper about me interesting. If you think of anything, let me know. I am the kind of person that is better at writing reports, you know, - factual stuff. Opinions just get in the way and are extremely difficult to explain, which basically is my problem right now. Hmmm. I think I'll go vent somewhere else now. I don't try to annoy people intentionally.

Speaking of annoying people... Did you know that you have to have a license to be a telemarketer?

Person - "Go away! Stop calling me! You can't keep calling and annoying me!!!"

Telemarketer - "But, yes I can. I have a license!"

10/25/2005 12:47 PM

Blogger Andrew C. said...

well, I got this from a Calvin and Hobbes comic, but:

try listing all the facts about yourself and then elaborate on them

10/26/2005 11:15 PM


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home