PvM posted Entry 2400 on June 22, 2006 11:56 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2395

On Wednesday, June 14, 2006, the Episcopal News Services reported that the bishops had approved Resolution A129 Affirm Creation and Evolution. The Resolution reads as follows:

Resolved, the House of_____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention affirm that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and the ancient Creeds of the Church; and be it further,

Resolved, That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, and that an acceptance of evolution in no way diminishes the centrality of Scripture in telling the stories of the love of God for the Creation and is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith; and be it further

Resolved, That Episcopalians strongly encourage state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish standards for science education based on the best available scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community; and be it further Resolved, That Episcopal dioceses and congregation seek the assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.

The resolution also explains the rationale namely that evolution is broadly accepted and that it is the best explanation of how life evolved.

I am happy to see that there are still some churches left that support good science and are willing to take a stance against the argument from ignorance promoted by the Intelligent Design movement. While undoubtably, the Episcopal Church will be ridiculed by some, it seems to me that when it comes to Christian behavior, others have much to learn from this Church.

EXPLANATION

The theory of evolution is broadly accepted by the overwhelming majority in the scientific community as the most adequate explanation for the emergence of life on earth, and the ongoing adaptation of life to changes in environments. For example, knowledge of how evolution functions is essential in understanding the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, the resistance of insects to insecticides, and the appearance of viruses such as HIV and influenza.

The teaching of evolution is a crucial contribution to the development of scientific literacy among the nation’s youth, yet state legislators and state and local school boards continue to challenge, limit, or seek to supplant the teaching of evolution. Limiting the teaching of evolution in our schools has the potential to compromise students’ ability to understand constantly changing living systems, and may undermine, for instance, the understanding and treatment of diseases of the future.

Since the sixteenth century, Anglicans have described their faith in terms of the “three-legged stool” of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. The quest to understand the origins of life on earth, and the forces that drive the ongoing changes in living organisms involves Reason and is in no way incompatible with the central truths of Scripture and Christian Tradition. Episcopalians generally accept that it is appropriate to seek to understand, through scientific probing, the origins both of the cosmos and life on earth, and that evolution is a valid explanation of the development of all living things, including humanity. Several leading Anglican theologians, past and present, among them priest-scientists William G. Pollard, Arthur Peacocke, and Sir John Polkinghorne, have shown how an evolutionary world view can be integrated with a theology of creation. The 67th General Convention affirmed a belief “in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner”, and its “support of scientists, educators, and theologians in the search for truth” (GC Resolution 1982-D090).

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #107552

Posted by DragonScholar on June 22, 2006 11:33 PM (e)

Looks like someone decided to reinforce that third leg. Bravo. And very well written statements too.

Comment #107564

Posted by Michael Roberts on June 23, 2006 1:30 AM (e)

What’s new Pussy Cat?

We Anglicans having been speaking like this since 1858, before Charlie got into print. (HB Tristram)
In the next year a good number of Anglicans accepted evolution eg F Temple, Hort, B Powell, and the others like Samuel Wilberforce Sedgwick etc all accepted an old earth.

And so it has continued and until,recently -1975 or so the Anglican church throughout the world has accepted evolution with few dissenters.

Sadly it is now changing and in England some 10% of Anglican clergy are now YEC, so a statement is needed from us.

I am trying to get one made in my diocese but at least one thinks we need to be careful for political reasons.

Comment #107565

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 23, 2006 1:43 AM (e)

I am trying to get one made in my diocese but at least one thinks we need to be careful for political reasons.

indeed. your mention of “political” and “1975” do seem to ring a few bells.

If you never have, it’s quite informative to run down how politics and the rise of the religious right have been related to each other since right around that time.

right around the time the neocons started to propose that religious fundies would make a great grassroots power base.

Comment #107573

Posted by ed on June 23, 2006 3:34 AM (e)

Good old Anglicans!

Faith AND common sense…

Comment #107576

Posted by Andrew McClure on June 23, 2006 3:45 AM (e)

Michael Roberts wrote:

We Anglicans having been speaking like this since 1858, before Charlie got into print. (HB Tristram)

Hm, yeah, we Americans were kind of busy that year. We were just entering that trial separation, lots of personal issues going on, I’m sure you understand.

Comment #107582

Posted by a maine yankee on June 23, 2006 5:22 AM (e)

I ‘believe’ that it was opposition by Anglican clerics that ended Darwin’s knighthood effort. Will the 75th Genetral Convention advocate such knighthood to it’s British brethren?

Comment #107590

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 23, 2006 7:21 AM (e)

I am happy to see that there are still some churches left that support good science

I will point out once again that the vast majority of Christian denomoinations, worldwide, reject creationism, ID, and fundamentalism, and have no gripe whatsoever with evolution or any other area of science – and have said so out loud even before the 1981 Arkansas case.

It is a cornerstone of the fundie strategy to piously wrap themselves in the mantle of holiness and declare themselves to be the only “True Spokesmen for Christianity©™”.

I see no need to play into their hand. Most Christians, worldwide, have always thought that the fundies are just as nutty as everyone here thinks they are.

Comment #107597

Posted by Joe Shelby on June 23, 2006 8:33 AM (e)

Relatively old news. http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/19021_58393_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=58392 has been published for several years now.

Of course, it has the same authority even among church members, or even less, as a “statement from a vatican official”. Really this was putting a rubber stamp on an agreement long established.

Certainly the athiests among the PT contributors and readers would consider the faith portions of the text and statement unnecessary, and I wouldn’t blame them in the slightest, but there you go. ;-)

Comment #107598

Posted by Warren Whitaker on June 23, 2006 8:33 AM (e)

Hi,
As a Presby, I will add our denomination as supporting Evolution and science in general. As far as I know Presbys(USA)have always thought in this liberal manner.
Go to Voices for Evolution at www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/permit for statements from all of the mainline denominations in support of evolution.
Whit

Comment #107601

Posted by Caledonian on June 23, 2006 9:26 AM (e)

and have no gripe whatsoever with evolution or any other area of science

Oh yeah, no gripe with any part of science whatsoever – except its method, which they reject.

Only problem is that’s the only really important part of science. Everything else can change.

Comment #107605

Posted by DragonScholar on June 23, 2006 9:58 AM (e)

Lenny wrote:

I will point out once again that the vast majority of Christian denominations, worldwide, reject creationism, ID, and fundamentalism, and have no gripe whatsoever with evolution or any other area of science — and have said so out loud even before the 1981 Arkansas case.

Are there any pro-science, evolution-accepting Christian organizations out there? I’m curious. It struck me that there probably are, I just don’t know it.

Anyone have input on that?

Comment #107606

Posted by Russell on June 23, 2006 10:09 AM (e)

It’s interesting that one of the most proactive ID advocates in Ohio - state school board member Michael Cochran - is a priest and rector of a parish of the breakaway Episcopal Missionary Church in Columbus, Ohio.

Cochran and the EMC felt that the (mainstream) Episcopal Church was getting too modern when they started ordaining women, and updated the Book of Common Prayer to post-Elizabethan English. I guess it’s not surprising that accepting 19th century science in the 21st century strikes this crowd as moving way too fast.

Comment #107607

Posted by Jim Wynne on June 23, 2006 10:14 AM (e)

It’s good news, but does anyone else think that

Resolved, That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth

would be better if “emergence” were changed to “diversity”?

Comment #107609

Posted by Wheels on June 23, 2006 10:25 AM (e)

RE: DragonScholar

I was thinking about the American Scientific Affiliation, an overarching Christian club for sciency types, but it seems that rather than have a single statement endorsing evolution, chemical abiogenesis, and/or deep time, they have instead resigned themselves to let the various factions speak for themselves within the group. Each one gets its own statement, from YEC to ID (which isn’t a doctrine of Creation, of course) to Theistic Evolution.
They do have a page where it’s asserted that creation doesn’t necesarily mean “fiat creation,” and that evolution and creation aren’t supposed to be antithetical, which is good. It also, however, restates the old “evolutionary philosophy/religion” canard, which is bad. I was a bit disappointed with that.
The NCSE has a nice Links page where various religious+scientific organizations can be looked up.

Comment #107610

Posted by Fross on June 23, 2006 10:27 AM (e)

Three legged stools are better than 2 legged stools. That’s for sure. Oh crap, I just realized I have a one legged stool. ***aaaaaaaaaauuuuughhhhh thump****

Comment #107620

Posted by thurdl01 on June 23, 2006 11:45 AM (e)

So often I’m so proud to consider myself Episcopalian. Yay us!

Comment #107621

Posted by Michael Roberts on June 23, 2006 11:45 AM (e)

In answer to 1975 , there has been little religious right in the UK.

Also remember that the Conferates were supported by Southern Presbyterians like Dabney et al who used a literal Genesis to support slavery.
In 1846 or so the Southern Baptists was formed becuase the Northern Baptists said slavery was wrong.

The foremost defender of Evolution up north was that Christian botanist Asa Gray, who taught a negro sunday school

Michael

Comment #107627

Posted by pluto1man2 on June 23, 2006 12:22 PM (e)

This is a necessary statement for any church as the church would go out of business if it accepted anything that contradicted its purpose, and of course its self-proclaimed sacred texts, now wouldn’t it?

Comment #107649

Posted by Warren Whitaker on June 23, 2006 3:24 PM (e)

For Dragon Scholar,
Read my post # 107598!!
Whit

Comment #107650

Posted by Warren Whitaker on June 23, 2006 3:25 PM (e)

For Dragon Scholar,
Read my post # 107598!!
Whit

Comment #107667

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 23, 2006 4:42 PM (e)

Moses-

not only does Carol have a special Judah Landa edition OT, but she has a very interesting view on how animals are “cruel” to one another as well.

Did you catch that one?

funny as hell.

check out the Darwin/Hitler thread.

Comment #107669

Posted by Tony on June 23, 2006 5:12 PM (e)

Why is Sean Hannity rich and on TV, not to mention Rush Limpballs?

At least Fox makes an attempt to balance Hannity with Alan Colmes. As for Rush, whether you agree with him or not, most people in radio give him credit for essentially re-invigorating AM radio.

How did Ann Coulter’s “Godless” hit number one at Amazon the week it came out?

Probably the same way that Hillary Clinton’s “Living History” managed to do so. I also recall that Dan Brown’s “DaVinci Code” also did very well. It’s called sales - find your target market and give them a product that they want to buy. I’ve seen books from all ends of the political spectrum, which would suggest that no particular views are being suppressed. Some do well, others not so.

Comment #107670

Posted by Coin on June 23, 2006 5:16 PM (e)

Tony wrote:

At least Fox makes an attempt to balance Hannity with Alan Colmes.

That’s a joke, right?

See, personally I’d say something like “at least Rush Limbaugh isn’t as bad as Hannity and Colmes, because they don’t pretend to ‘balance’ the Rush Limbaugh show with Alan Colmes’ little stage act”.

Comment #107671

Posted by Tony on June 23, 2006 5:24 PM (e)

That’s a joke, right?

I never claimed that Colmes was the perfect co-host to balance Hannity. Frankly, Hannity’s gotten so over the top that I stopped watching that show a long time ago.

Comment #107673

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 23, 2006 5:42 PM (e)

Oh yeah, no gripe with any part of science whatsoever — except its method, which they reject.

Huh?

Comment #107676

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 23, 2006 5:46 PM (e)

would be better if “emergence” were changed to “diversity”?

100%

Comment #107679

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 23, 2006 6:41 PM (e)

Calamarian wrote:

Oh yeah, no gripe with any part of science whatsoever — except its method, which they reject.

Only problem is that’s the only really important part of science. Everything else can change.

That’s just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

Comment #107680

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 23, 2006 6:52 PM (e)

That’s just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

lol. I wish i could make sense out of this statement!

Comment #107684

Posted by Coin on June 23, 2006 7:18 PM (e)

That’s just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

lol. I wish i could make sense out of this statement!

A-a-A-a-A! Righti-o! I think I can twice!

Comment #107686

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 23, 2006 7:21 PM (e)

Coin wrote:

A-a-A-a-A! Righti-o! I think I can twice!

LOL! You win!

Comment #107704

Posted by Kevin from nyc on June 23, 2006 9:01 PM (e)

so one sect of the theists say something nice about evolution.

Maybe we should point out that a) there is no evidence for a diety and that if there is a diety there is no evidence it notices us and if there is a diety and it does notice us there is no evidence that it gives a rat’s ass bit of caring about us.

other than that have fun playing with your “imaginary friend”

Comment #107706

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 23, 2006 9:08 PM (e)

Kevin:

Your posts need to come with a Surgeon General’s warning or something: Warning! Prepare to be intellectually-vitiated!

I need to go read some probability to recover.

Comment #107714

Posted by Caledonian on June 23, 2006 9:42 PM (e)

That’s just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

Nonsense?

Which church has accepted the idea that if there isn’t any evidence for a position, that position should not be believed? Which church can provide actual, empirical evidence to support even the most rudimentary points of their doctrines?

Accepting the findings of science is meaningless unless the way in which those findings were produced is acknowledged. It is said that to reject evolutionary theory (to pick one example not at random) one must reject biology, geology, physics, astronomy, and one way or another every branch of science, because one must reject rational methods of examining evidence and reaching conclusions. Accepting evolution without accepting those rational methods is just a statement of arbitrary faith.

Comment #107726

Posted by DAB on June 23, 2006 10:25 PM (e)

If I might return the commentary to the original message: Let’s remember that many (most?) of the plaintiffs in both McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard were religious groups or individuals with religious credentials (depending mostly on the structure of the particular denomination). At the time that repeal of the Louisiana law was attempted (the Senate voted to repeal on 24 June 1984 and the House voted against on 25 June 1984–how timely!), the other main lobbyist for repeal (I was there on behalf of the ACLU) was the Rev. Jimmy Stovall, a Methodist (I think) minister and executive director of the Louisiana Interchurch Council, which represented something like 20 denominations. The interchurch council voted to seek repeal in January of 1984, and the Roman Catholic dioceses in Louisiana handed out a specific statement in favor of science.

So: At the time it counted, when the National Academies were choosing not to take a stand (I just glanced over the letter from Frank Press that he sent me as he was morphing his feet into clay), it was a collection of religious groups and individuals who were acting on behalf of science. And this was no small deal at the time. I got a lot of nasty phone calls and I got a lot of nasty mail. And for all that I think I changed exactly one vote, cast by a house member I had known in high school.

Comment #107729

Posted by Chiefley on June 23, 2006 10:36 PM (e)

This is a necessary statement for any church as the church would go out of business if it accepted anything that contradicted its purpose, and of course its self-proclaimed sacred texts, now wouldn’t it?

Mainstream Christian denominations are not the enemy of science. You need their support as you fight this nasty dis-Enlightenment force of hateful fundamentalism. Church support of science goes back 1400 years to such pillars of Christian thought as St. Augustine who weighs in thusly.

Are there any pro-science, evolution-accepting Christian organizations out there? I’m curious. It struck me that there probably are, I just don’t know it.

Anyone have input on that?

Yes I do. The last four Popes have issued statements specifically supporting science and evolution. Within those statements are the notion that where theology and science disagree, theology must yield to science. Also the Catholic Catechism has specific statements supporting evolution. This doctrine dates back 1600 years to St. Augustine from his treatise on the Literal Interpretation of Genesis. It was further reinforced during the rise of science as a formal discipline by St. Thomas Aquinas.

One of the chief theologans of the Luthern Church, Martin Marty, frequently speaks out against creationism and supports evolution.

Another well respected theologan, Lutheran Pastor and Phd Phycisist Dr. George Murphy has written numerous articles and books on the subject.

Presbyterian Church on Evolution

and there is lots more. Basically, about 80% of the world’s Christian population belong to denominations that proactively support evolution (and science in general) or find no conflict with it.

Comment #107731

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 23, 2006 10:42 PM (e)

Basically, about 80% of the world’s Christian population belong to denominations that proactively support evolution (and science in general) or find no conflict with it.

As I’ve have pointed out before, in the US, about half the population supports ID/creationism, about half rejects it. Since atheists make up, at most, 15% of the population, that means over two-thirds of the people who reject ID/creationism and accept evolution are theists.

I’m not sure what treating them as enemies gains us. After all, in a political fight, attacking two-thirds of the people who are on your own side is, well, kind of stupid. (shrug)

Of course, the evangelical atheists, like the evangelical fundies, have their own political/religious agenda that they try to drag into the creation/evolution fight. And, in both cases, the majority of people in the US don’t support their agenda.

Comment #107737

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 23, 2006 11:25 PM (e)

Are there any pro-science, evolution-accepting Christian organizations out there? I’m curious. It struck me that there probably are, I just don’t know it.

Anyone have input on that?

lutherans too (not the Misouri Synod)

here’s a list from NCSE:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2027_statements_from_religious_orga_1_26_2001.asp

mostly these would be grouped under the “theistic evolution category”, but they all reject the teaching of creationism and ID’s version of creationism in schools, and for the right reasons.

Comment #107738

Posted by Caledonian on June 23, 2006 11:43 PM (e)

The last four Popes have issued statements specifically supporting science and evolution.

They have also stated that the universe cannot be viewed as purposeless or random, that human beings could not have arisen from other kinds of life without the intervention of God, and that the concept of ‘souls’ is necessary to understand the distinction they make between humans and other creatures.

Not exactly what I would characterize as behavior that would be found in “friends of science”.

Comment #107739

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 23, 2006 11:47 PM (e)

ah, here’s the reference to the ELCA stating their support for teaching evolutionary theory ONLY, even in their own private schools:

http://www.thelutheran.org/news/index.cfm?start=51&archive=yes&page_id=66&title=Breaking%20News

Peters says neither intelligent design nor scientific creationism have fertile research programs that can match Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian models of evolution. “The Darwinian models have led to progressive research and new knowledge,” he says. “They also have proven themselves fertile for predicting what we would find in the fossil record, and for predicting random variation in genes that have led indirectly to research on new medicines. The Lutheran understanding of God’s creation leads us to commit ourselves to the best science…. Nothing less than hard-earned empirical truths about the natural world will measure up.”

Comment #107741

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 23, 2006 11:54 PM (e)

Not exactly what I would characterize as behavior that would be found in “friends of science”.

and yet you don’t find them promoting the teaching of creationism in public schools, do you?

give em a break! things are changing in the Catholic church faster than anyone could anticipate, including the church itself.

You’re not going to ‘stamp out’ religion; your best bet is to marginalize the more insane versions.

Comment #107768

Posted by Al Moritz on June 24, 2006 6:15 AM (e)

Caledonian wrote:

They have also stated that the universe cannot be viewed as purposeless or random, that human beings could not have arisen from other kinds of life without the intervention of God, and that the concept of ‘souls’ is necessary to understand the distinction they make between humans and other creatures.

Not exactly what I would characterize as behavior that would be found in “friends of science”.

***

Science studies the material, measurable world. By definition, therefore, it cannot say anything about the existence of non-material, spiritual entities, something that philosophy and religion deal with.

The opinion that it is the “most scientific view” that only something can exist which can be scientifically measured and observed, has nothing to do with science. Instead, it has everything to do with philosophy: with a view of how far science extends. It is a legimate philosophical view to assume that nothing exists beyond what can be studied by science – just like it is a legitimate philosophical view to assume that things beyond the material world exist – but it is not a scientific view.

The mandatory naturalistic operating principle of science – investigating natural causes to natural effects – does not necessarily imply a mandatory naturalistic philosophy.

You are gravely confusing science with philosophy. To claim that science implies more philosophically than, by its very nature, it is able to, does not do science any favor. Science needs to be pure science in order to function properly; ideological tainting can only destroy the purity and integrity of science.

A 1997 survey by the scientific magazine Nature found that 40 % of all American scientists believe in a personal, active God (a number unchanged from 1916). If you would go beyond this tight definition and include in the concept of God an impersonal first cause, like Einstein’s concept was, for example, the number of 40 % would probably be far exceeded, to presumably more than half of all scientists, i.e. the majority. To claim that all these scientists who assume the existence of God – or beyond that, are religious – are less “scientific” than their atheistic colleagues would not just be preposterous, but outright silly.

By the way, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, prominent figures in the scientific revolution of the 17th century, were all believers – atheists were not the ones who founded modern science.

***

They have also stated that the universe cannot be viewed as purposeless or random

You misuse the concept of “random” in a manner that disguises as science but is not. The scientific concept of “random” means “uncorrelated” – either totally or to a certain degree – or “unpredictable”. “Purposeless” is a philosophical or everyday use of the word, not a scientific one.

Comment #107780

Posted by Keith Douglas on June 24, 2006 7:48 AM (e)

Al Moritz: And yet some philosophers (myself included) have repeatedly argued that to isolate science from philosophy is to both gut the science and make the philosophy worthless at best. As for the founders of modern science, they were almost to a man heterodox, too. Wonder why that is? Even if they weren’t, so what? There are pulmonologists who smoke. Consistency is hard to obtain, especially with the Inquisition and other such entities breathing down your neck.

Comment #107781

Posted by k.e. on June 24, 2006 7:51 AM (e)

Al Moritz said:

By definition, therefore, it science cannot say anything about the existence of non-material, spiritual entities, something that philosophy and religion deal with.

And of course philosophy and religion or god(s) cannot say anything about the existence of non-material, spiritual entities; psychology, identity politics and neuroscience ……maybe.

Comment #107787

Posted by k.e. on June 24, 2006 8:44 AM (e)

Al Moritz said:

A 1997 survey by the scientific magazine Nature found that 40 % of all American scientists believe in a personal, active God (a number unchanged from 1916).

As an outside of America observer and having experienced first hand American religiosity at the hands of an American Immigration official (San Francisco 1979) who asking me why I put N/A (not applicable) as my answer to Religion ? on my immigration form,
was answered “I don’t have one”.
For him that was unacceptable.
Seeing that the issue was not going to be solved by a simple answer I told him to put down “Buddhist”.
His reply ?
Wait for it….
“So you believe in God?”
To which I answered “yes” to shut the twit up.

For anyone who doesn’t get the ridiculousness of that, Buddha made it quite clear that the existence or non-existence god or gods was a non issue and not worth wasting time on, Buddhism is a non-theistic religion.

But that is beside the point, for a people who pride themselves on a disrespect for authority and the rights of the individual you seem remarkably unable to stand up to Theocrats who have the least claim of any person alive to impose their personal prejudices on others.

The only other place I have heard of that seems to take religious beliefs of visitors as seriously, is Saudi Arabia. A friend put on his immigration form ‘Christian’ as his answer to to the same question. ‘Not good enough I’m afraid’ was the answer they wanted to know what ‘sect’. Ha ..Allah help him if he said ‘atheist’.

So it does not surprise me that 40%, 50% or even 90% of Americans say they believe they will be unreasonably harassed if the do not answer in the affirmative when interrogated whether they believe some nebulous idea no more provable than UFOs.

Anyway… that was nothing, when finally within the borders of the world leaders in just about ever thing, you cannot imagine my bemusement at the almost pervasive religious radio stations and TV preachers and overt displays by ordinary people of the ‘god’ word…I have not seen in some 3rd world countries . And make no mistake, that is all it is ..a word.

Now I realize that most people to don’t take all that nonsense too seriously, 2 cheers for hypocrisy and all that. Theocracy is like global warming, by the time you realize its getting d*amn hot, its too late.

Keith Douglas said:

Al Moritz: And yet some philosophers (myself included) have repeatedly argued that to isolate science from philosophy is to both gut the science and make the philosophy worthless at best.

…..er…..Q.E.D.

Comment #107788

Posted by John D Lewis on June 24, 2006 8:59 AM (e)

I thank your correspondent for his well written statement and commentary on this resolution of the Episcopal Church – it certainly confirms my own understanding of what it means to be a responsible, thinking Anglican.
Now I am a retired geologist and the last time I came across fossils in my professional life they were 3.7 billion years old bacteria at North Pole, in the red-hot centre of Western Australia. A bit older than those pesky dinosaurs!
At school, in the UK, my chemistry teacher was a Congregationalist, biology was taught by a Scots Presbyterian and physics by an Anglican. Of my Maths teachers one was ‘a bit of everything’and the other one a card carrying Communist (and a fine teacher). None of them thought there was any necessary dispute between religion and science – it was just a few hot heads leading off at what they knew nothing about – on both sides of the debate.
But funnily enough, it was from my Congregationist chemistry teacher that I first learnt of the thoughts of William Paley, ARchdeacon of Carlisle, and author in the late 18th cent of a best selling ‘Natural Theology’ (Google up the name and read the whole book) in which the good archdeacon developes his idea of the intelligent designer as a demonstration of the existence of God. Yes! The modern proponents of ID have left out any direct reference to God, but that is what the argument of the book is all about. (Watch out – God is lurking round the corner!). With our biology teacher we read geat slabs of the Rev. Gilbert White’s ‘Natural History of Selbourne’ (1798), and later, at London University we discussed a whole host of Rev gentlemen who made contributions to geology, from William Buckland to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
And why all this ancient literature in the study of science? Apart from the idea that Gilbert White was an ‘old boy’ of our school, our teachers though we would be better educated by knowing the history of our science, including the backwaters, and the unravelling of the ancient argument would get us little tikes reading good literature and getting our minds into gear for a career in science. In any event it did me no harm.
Oh! And by the way, if you are interested you might like to look up the first couple of pages of Paley’s work where he points to the fallacy of the whole argument of ‘intelligent design’. I first read it over fifty years ago, but I still remember it, Thanks to Messrs Lee, Mathieson, Jewell, Dauncy and Pearson!

Comment #107790

Posted by Al Moritz on June 24, 2006 9:03 AM (e)

k.e. wrote:

So it does not surprise me that 40%, 50% or even 90% of Americans say they believe they will be unreasonably harassed if the do not answer in the affirmative when interrogated whether they believe some nebulous idea no more provable than UFOs.

I doubt that this path of argumentation has any merit.

1. The survey of scientists was anonymous as far as I know, so I don’t see how there could have been any pressure (certainly, lists of names were not published).

2. Science has the aura of being “rationalist” (not the same as rational, which of course it is), provoked by outspoken atheist scientists, so admitting belief in, or assumption of, God against this “rationalism” would seem the less conforming thing to do.

3. Nature magazine is one of the leading scientific magazines in the world; any religious interest or pressure coming from the interviewers themselves can be excluded. If anything, the editorial board of Nature appears to lean toward bias against religion.

Comment #107791

Posted by Caledonian on June 24, 2006 9:08 AM (e)

Science studies the material, measurable world. By definition, therefore, it cannot say anything about the existence of non-material, spiritual entities, something that philosophy and religion deal with.

Wrong. ‘Material’ is the word most commonly used to refer to reality. Science rejects ‘non-material’ entities by definition – that phrase says that the entities necessarily do not exist.

The opinion that it is the “most scientific view” that only something can exist which can be scientifically measured and observed, has nothing to do with science.

You’ve got that backwards. Only something that exists can be measured and observed. Things which are necessarily unreal are of course beyond science, as they are beyond everything else.

just like it is a legitimate philosophical view to assume that things beyond the material world exist

No, that’s an incorrect view based on an incoherent understanding of the concept of ‘the material’.

You are gravely confusing science with philosophy.

They’re the same thing! (At least, competent philosophy is the same as science. There’s loads of incompetent philosophy.)

To claim that all these scientists who assume the existence of God – or beyond that, are religious – are less “scientific” than their atheistic colleagues would not just be preposterous, but outright silly.

Argument from popularity. If a majority of scientists believed that the Moon was made of green cheese, would that make them less scientific than their Petroselenic colleages?

YES!

By the way, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, prominent figures in the scientific revolution of the 17th century, were all believers – atheists were not the ones who founded modern science.

Yet their science was atheistic. Funny, that.

It hardly escaped the early rationalists that rationality required the abandonment of religion. They simply refused to apply the principles of thought that they knew worked so very well to their most cherished beliefs. That was cowardice on their parts. It does not magically make the technique valid, no more than Mendel Gregor padding his numbers to make his hypotheses clearer justifies scientific fraud.

“Purposeless” is a philosophical or everyday use of the word, not a scientific one.

Tell that to the cognitive psychologists.

Comment #107792

Posted by Chiefley on June 24, 2006 9:19 AM (e)

k.e. wrote:

And of course philosophy and religion or god(s) cannot say anything about the existence of non-material, spiritual entities; psychology, identity politics and neuroscience ……maybe.

k.e., where have you been, my friend? The issue of the boundaries of scientific inquiry was settled a couple of hundred years ago. The practice of science is universally recognized as being that of “methodological naturalism”. Which is, in other words, a voluntary restriction of subject matter and method to only natural phenomenon. You personally might disagree with that, but fortunately, the rest of the scientific community does not, and has not for the last couple of hundred years. In a pragmatic sense, science has been man’s most productive endeavor, but only because of that voluntary restriction.

This is not to say that verifiable facts are the only truth or the best truth, but it is a kind of truth that is astonishingly useful. And that ultimately is how we evaluate a scientific theory. The best theory is the simplest one that has the greatest predictive value in terms of events and properties of the natural world.

This voluntary restriction is no different than the restrictions you impose on your own practices when you balance your checkbook. You restrict yourself to “methodological arithmetism”. In doing so, you get the best answer, which will immediately degrade if you deviate from that discipline. You do so not because you believe in arithmetic as a philosophy or a theology, but simply because it has the greatest power of prediction in regards to your bank account.

The beauty of it is that both the devout Catholic accountant and the Atheist accountant will get the same answer when balancing your checkbook. Their cosmology is outside the sphere of the arithmetic disclipline. Likewise, the devout Catholic engineer and the Atheist engineer will get the same reading from the voltmeter when measuring the same voltage.

To suggest that science is compromised by this kind of voluntary restriction is ludicrous in the light of history. But it is just as ludicrous to suggest that methodological naturalism is a philosophy (Richard Dawkins not withstanding). There have been, there are now, and there will be many extremely religious people making extremely valuable contributions to science because unlike you, they understand the utility of treating science as a methodology, and not a philosophy, theology, or any other kind of world view.

We do science this way because it works. When we stop doing it this way, it no longer works. Separate from that, many of us feel that scientific truth is only one kind of truth among many. Those other kinds of truths lie outside the sphere of scientific inquiry.

Comment #107800

Posted by Al Moritz on June 24, 2006 9:47 AM (e)

Keith Douglas said:

And yet some philosophers (myself included) have repeatedly argued that to isolate science from philosophy is to both gut the science and make the philosophy worthless at best.

The mere fact that you have to “argue” for your case gives away the fact that the connection is not self-evident.

(Of course, science has its own philosophy regarding its criteria, such as observability and repeatability of observation, but this is methodological philosophy, not philosophy of world view.)

Comment #107801

Posted by Al Moritz on June 24, 2006 9:49 AM (e)

Well spoken, Chiefley.

Comment #107802

Posted by k.e. on June 24, 2006 9:49 AM (e)

Chiefly

Let me just clear you up there
My statement was in reply to Al Moritz’s

Science studies the material, measurable world. By definition, therefore, it cannot say anything about the existence of non-material, spiritual entities, something that philosophy and religion deal with.

To which I pointed out that neither philosophy and religion can say anything about the existence of the non-material nor spiritual entities.

People can and do however project any claim they want as a result of their fears, vanities and desires…nothing more. That’s it, nothing Holy about it. There a no limits to those claims , they are devoid of any relevance except to the projectionist.

I prefer them to be unarmed and not asking for money, foreskins or converts when they make those claims.

Comment #107805

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 24, 2006 10:17 AM (e)

“Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relationship to one another as do masturbation and sexual intercourse”.

– K Marx

Comment #107809

Posted by Caledonian on June 24, 2006 10:43 AM (e)

The mere fact that you have to “argue” for your case gives away the fact that the connection is not self-evident.

People are quite good at being unable to see trivial logical truths, even tautologies, that require only a modicum of thought to recognize.

You are in fact arguing that because someone is willing and able to explicitly state the reasons why he is correct, he is wrong.

Everyone, take a step back and think about that for a moment.

Comment #107811

Posted by Caledonian on June 24, 2006 10:48 AM (e)

The practice of science is universally recognized as being that of “methodological naturalism”. Which is, in other words, a voluntary restriction of subject matter and method to only natural phenomenon.

This is a very common misconception. Science does not put a priori restrictions on what the natural world might contain. Rather, it leaves its understanding of what ‘the natural world’ encompasses open to revision pending new evidence.

We cannot even begin to think about supernatural causes unless we are first willing to proscriptively define what we will consider nature to be. Science refuses to do that, and remains open to any new phenomena. The consequence of this stance is that the definition of nature is expanded to include new stuff, which in turn means that the new stuff is necessarily considered natural, not supernatural.

Because science remains open to change, it rejects the very concept of ‘supernatural’. We do not voluntarily restrict ourselves to studying a pre-defined set of phenomena that is itself restricted by a concept. We define a concept, then discover what that concept includes by examining reality. By the definitions of science, there are no supernatural phenomena which we would voluntarily refrain from studying.

Comment #107812

Posted by Al Moritz on June 24, 2006 10:55 AM (e)

People are quite good at being unable to see trivial logical truths, even tautologies, that require only a modicum of thought to recognize.

You are in fact arguing that because someone is willing and able to explicitly state the reasons why he is correct, he is wrong.

Everyone, take a step back and think about that for a moment.

Haha, this is a funny way to put a twist on my statement.

Everyone, take a step back and think about that for a moment.

Comment #107825

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on June 24, 2006 11:55 AM (e)

By which you mean (because you had to know that Nader had no chance of being elected) that you believe the symbolism of your vote was more important than the consequences of it.

The notion that votes cast for a third-party candidate are meaningless is self-fulfilling. An election is not a means of betting, it’s a binding opinion poll. Expressing one’s honest opinion is not merely symbolic. And the fact that most of us limit our choices to candidates whom we perceive to have a chance of winning is precisely what limits our choices in the first place. How bad and self-serving do our politicians have to become before voters send an unmistakable message to the two major parties that they must clean up their acts? Personally, I will not vote for a major party candidate unless the incumbent running for re-election is really bad (like, um, guess who?).

Comment #107832

Posted by Caledonian on June 24, 2006 1:05 PM (e)

That would be, of course, people other than YOU.

Right?

I do it too, sometimes. That does not invalidate my point.

For evidence of people who do it almost constantly, I suggest taking a look at Uncommon Descent’s comment sections. They couldn’t see a logical conclusion if it hit them in the nose.

Comment #107837

Posted by Chiefley on June 24, 2006 1:22 PM (e)

Caledonian wrote:

This is a very common misconception. Science does not put a priori restrictions on what the natural world might contain. Rather, it leaves its understanding of what ‘the natural world’ encompasses open to revision pending new evidence.

We cannot even begin to think about supernatural causes unless we are first willing to proscriptively define what we will consider nature to be. Science refuses to do that, and remains open to any new phenomena. The consequence of this stance is that the definition of nature is expanded to include new stuff, which in turn means that the new stuff is necessarily considered natural, not supernatural.

Because science remains open to change, it rejects the very concept of ‘supernatural’. We do not voluntarily restrict ourselves to studying a pre-defined set of phenomena that is itself restricted by a concept. We define a concept, then discover what that concept includes by examining reality. By the definitions of science, there are no supernatural phenomena which we would voluntarily refrain from studying.

Caledonian,
Yes, I agree with you. I didn’t mean to imply that we know in advance what we would consider a natural process. Rather we would restrict ourselves to those things that we believe are natural processes as they appear to be subject to measurement, verification, and independent verification, or they are part of a highly successful theory. If a phenomenom that we thought was supernatural is finally discovered to be measurable, then we would surely study it scientifically and start calling it a natural process.

I suppose that one could take the tack that the term “supernatural” merely applies to things which we have not yet sufficiently developed instrumentation for. I could go with that, but that borders on an ontology as much as the other extreme I was expressing before. One extreme says there definitely exists supernatural processes outside of the reach of scientific pursuit and the other extreme says there are none. Both are ontologies.

Since most scientists are more pragmatist than philosopher, they would not be too concerned with either extreme. Its that lack of “conclusion” about the existence of supernatural phenomenon that characterizes the methodological naturalist. He simply says, I do this stuff over here because it works really well. That other stuff is going to have to wait for the day when it might be quantifiable if it ever becomes so by virtue of our increasingly powerful instrumentation and theoretical frameworks.

Caledonian wrote:

To which I pointed out that neither philosophy and religion can say anything about the existence of the non-material nor spiritual entities.

k.e.,
I have become a fan of your brand of sarcasm (the foreskin thing, etc.). It probably wasn’t meant to entertain, but it works for me. I see where you are going with this notion that there really isn’t anything except science, however, let me take a totally different stance. I propose that the only difference between a scientific theory and a theological one is in the level of verification that is available to the scientific one.

Both kinds of theories are always provisional and subject to modification and improvement by their appropriate methods. As such, neither type of theory can possibly be considered “true” in the sense of absolute truth. Newton is replaced by Einstien is replaced by the next thing. Each scientific theory is replaced by one that has more predictive power but is still provisional on the next one that comes along. In this game of successive approximation, we have no idea if we will always be just asymtotically approaching the real truth and never really reaching it.

Naturally, we feel we are really “on to something” due to the astonishing ability for a scientific theory to be so comprehensive in its predictive powers, (Maxwell’s equations, etc). But however powerful Newtonian physics was, for example, it was only “true” until it was replaced by something that demonstrated itself to be more true.

So this verification idea is the whole trick when it comes to a scientific theory, but it only guarantees that the verifiable theory is a good model for or a good simulation of the real truth.

Sorry to all if I am getting very OT. My origional goal was to say the same thing that Rev. Lenny said. Which is to not work so hard to alienate or neutralize the effectiveness of major religious forces that seek to stand alongside everyone else in the defense of good science, and good science education. In that the attacks on science are coming from a religious source in a country where a lot people like to think of themselves as religious, every religious voice that defends science should be encouraged. You don’t have to “take the cure” or anything.

In fact every militant atheist here is free to take this information regarding major denominational support of good science and use it for whatever it is worth in the good fight. Most of the public is influenced by the small fraction of highly vocal and politically active religous fundamentalists. All they need is “permission” as good Christians to take another point of view without feeling like they have to abandon their faith. Help them with this instead of alienating them by disparaging their faith. Let the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, etc. add their voice to yours. We will even let you keep your foreskin.

Comment #107885

Posted by Caledonian on June 24, 2006 4:04 PM (e)

If a phenomenom that we thought was supernatural is finally discovered to be measurable

If it’s not measureable, then we would have no way to detect it; more to the point, it would not be able to interact with any other part of reality. Such a phenomenon does not exist.

Science considers supernatural only phenomena that are known to be unreal, to the best of our knowledge: transubstantiation, telepathy, psychokinesis, ghosts, vampires, etc. etc. If they’re ever found to be real, or a real phenomenon takes over the names of those unreal things, then science will study them – but they will never be anything but natural.

‘Supernatural’ is simply an incoherent concept, formed by people who were convinced that nature was a limited and pre-defined set whose contents they knew everything about. Yes, someone from five hundred years ago might consider televisions to be sorcery. I would hope that, were an intelligent and educated modern person suddenly to come across technology from five hundred years in the future, he or she would regard it as an unknown only, not a blasphemous abomination from beyond the natural order.

Comment #107999

Posted by PvM on June 24, 2006 7:51 PM (e)

Stick to the topic of discuss on the Bathroom wall

Cleanup cycle initiated

Comment #108005

Posted by PvM on June 24, 2006 8:01 PM (e)

Jim wrote:

would be better if “emergence” were changed to “diversity”?

Although emergence seems to be an acceptable term, it may give rise to unnecessary confusion.

Comment #108172

Posted by k.e. on June 25, 2006 9:27 AM (e)

Of course Chiefly, I’m all for religious tolerance, of any sort.

I’m totally intolerant of intolerance.

I encourage the Pope to consider ordinating atheists, heck I’d be first in line.

I was saying that when an ‘ology starts considering everything and anything in any permutation, it ends up saying nothing about anything.

Religion as practice, no matter what it claims, is a purely cultural phenomenon, and as long as there are priests/pastors etc and political masters they will work hand in glove to promote their hegemony of the brain cells.

We are programmed to accept the most ridiculous ideas (e.g. Santa), as a survival mechanism, plus a big brain with spare capacity …oh and a fear of death.

History is full of forgotten god’s and religions which is a nagging nuisance for their modern brethren, but very useful for Anthropological comparison, and guess what? The same old ideas surface, including the idea that they all know “The one true word of ***”
*** Osiris, Baal, Jehovah, Allah, Apollo etc,etc

Theology in *my opinion* achieves nothing more than expressing untestable personal opinions and is more a means of social engineering, and its success can be measured only by *sales*.

Conceded, our scientific conceptual models are limited by our current understanding, nothing in theology/religion/mysticism etc is NEW and continues to be just the same old software version X.X running on 100,000 year old hardware, which in my opinion will be better understood by the emergence of neuroscience for those curious enough to find out e.g. the mechanisms in the brain responsible for mimicking and trust(and possibly torture :)

Although some lucky people with a basic knowledge of the human condition and folk psychology have known that basic premise for thousands of years. Just ask any Televangelist, Politician or Car salesman.

Or read Freud. Remember him? Almost totally forgotten, since the history washers expunged him. People today say ‘Oh him? He was totally debunked’ without having any knowledge of his dangerous idea’s.

Anyway I don’t think we diverge too much, just call me a radical (irreligious) moderate.

Comment #108314

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on June 25, 2006 6:31 PM (e)

The third and final RESOLVED in the heading gives the final authority to the biggest noise. Pontius Pilate might be wondering for the last 2,000 yrs whether that was the best policy. As for scientific advance, RESOLVED 3 would possibly have stopped us before we got the wheel up and running, and certainly would never have advanced beyond a flat earth. With these policies towards truth and freedom of expression, the Episcopals might try for more disciples at TalkOrigins?

Comment #108320

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 25, 2006 7:04 PM (e)

Pontius Pilate might be wondering for the last 2,000 yrs whether that was the best policy

maybe you could ask him?

*snort*

Comment #108389

Posted by subterranean kryptonite on June 25, 2006 9:16 PM (e)

It is important to point out that Disco’s deep pockets, Howard Ahmanson, in addition to being a Christian Reconstructionist, is also an extremely conservative Episcopalian, who had also been bankrolling efforts to create a split among the American branch of the Anglican Communion years before the consecration of a gay bishop in 2003.

First, they elect a woman to be presiding bishop (horror!), who had been an evolutionary biologist in an earlier career (double horror!). Then, they refuse to defrock the aforementioned gay bishop (apostasy!). Finally, they pass a resolution supporting mainstream science (heresy!). Hyper-conservative American Episcopalians are recoiling in disgust!

Accident? I doubt it. Ahmanson and his paid shills have been a thorn in the side of the denomination for at least the past decade, if not longer. I believe the upshot of all these procedings has been to invite the separatists to get on with the process of separation, already.

Comment #108391

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 25, 2006 9:23 PM (e)

But gee, since ID has nothing to do with religion (coughcoughcough) one wonders why a religious kook like Ahmanson would care about ID at all ….?

Bill? Sal? Donald? Anyone want to explain that to me?

Comment #108451

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on June 26, 2006 3:22 AM (e)

Nay, Nay, Nay, I can’t raise Pontius nor his horse. (Sorry about the dreadful humor)

Comment #108479

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 26, 2006 8:18 AM (e)

Hey Heywood, you’re, uh, blithering again.

Comment #108502

Posted by Al Moritz on June 26, 2006 11:12 AM (e)

Keith Douglas wrote:

And yet some philosophers (myself included) have repeatedly argued that to isolate science from philosophy is to both gut the science and make the philosophy worthless at best.

While I criticised that statement (in particular referring to the first part), I would have to strongly agree that modern philosophy should take into account the findings of modern science, if that is part of what you meant.

Caledonian responded about philosophy and science:

They’re the same thing! (At least, competent philosophy is the same as science. There’s loads of incompetent philosophy.)

This, on the other hand, is an extremist statement.

Philosophy:

http://www.answers.com/philosophy

Comment #108619

Posted by Caledonian on June 26, 2006 11:28 PM (e)

This, on the other hand, is an extremist statement.

Oh no! Not an extremist statement! After all, everyone knows that all forms of extremism are bad, and all extreme positions are wrong.

Comment #108627

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 27, 2006 12:16 AM (e)

I really can’t think of any working definition of science being the ‘same thing’ as philosophy.

care to elaborate, Cale?

From my point of view, while philosophy can make good use of scientific argument and evidence when needed, it shouldn’t be limited in doing so either.

philosophy can and does go beyond the physically testable to make points.

the first thing that comes to mind is the old “tree falls in the forest” conundrum.

but i digress.

Cale, maybe you can clarify what you meant then?

Comment #108632

Posted by k.e. on June 27, 2006 12:31 AM (e)

Ah yes, the old Cartesian duality ..falling trees and such.

Descartes walks into a bar and the barman asks if he wants a drink, he answers “I don’t think so” and disappears.

The beauty is that science can say “god may be dead” but can’t prove one way or the other, if ever it/they were alive, let alone dead.

Philosophy however, can say it categorically.

God is dead.
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 108

Comment #108649

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 27, 2006 1:51 AM (e)

I take it your a big fan of Nietzsche, KE?

Comment #108651

Posted by k.e. on June 27, 2006 2:02 AM (e)

Hey even Pope Benny XVI quoted him, god of erotic love and all that.

That’s the last time I’ll use two of his quotes in a row :>

The nice thing about Philosophers, Theologians and broken clocks is they are sometimes right, on the other hand most of the time no one gives a …whatever.

Comment #108653

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 27, 2006 2:24 AM (e)

Just asking; thought maybe there was a reason you were favoring quotes from Nietzsche recently.

Comment #108657

Posted by Andrew McClure on June 27, 2006 2:39 AM (e)

I take it your a big fan of Nietzsche, KE?

Nietzche walks into a bar and the bar walks back.

Comment #108658

Posted by k.e. on June 27, 2006 2:51 AM (e)

HEY, I’ve been to a bar like that in TEXAS.

AND SURVIVED.

LOL!!!!!!!

Best come back yet!!!

ahhh the good old days.

No place is too good to have been thrown out of in my books.

Comment #108703

Posted by Caledonian on June 27, 2006 8:56 AM (e)

philosophy can and does go beyond the physically testable to make points.

No. No one ever leaves the physically testable. ‘Abstractions’ are just convenient labels for physical things that aren’t readily tangible to humans in a state of nature.

Comment #108805

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 27, 2006 3:31 PM (e)

aren’t readily tangible to humans in a state of nature.

sorry, but.. huh?

if that’s your attempt at an explanation, I’m missing it.

are you really trying to say philosophy is unable to argue the metaphysical?

hmm.

Comment #108907

Posted by Caledonian on June 27, 2006 11:38 PM (e)

No, I’m saying that its arguments are physical - its calculations are physical - and that the concept of ‘metaphysical’ as it is traditionally used is incoherent.

Comment #108919

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 28, 2006 1:11 AM (e)

and that the concept of ‘metaphysical’ as it is traditionally used is incoherent.

I’ll bite, how so?

Comment #108974

Posted by Caledonian on June 28, 2006 8:35 AM (e)

It requires preconceptions about what constitutes the physical world, preconceptions that cannot be rationally justified.

That is precisely why scientific thought does not include the concept of ‘supernatural’. ‘Metaphysical’ has the same problems.

Put simply, there are no metaphysical things. They do not exist. Nor can they be coherently reasoned about other than to observe that they are impossibilities.

What can we conclude about the properties of a four-sided triangle?

Comment #109065

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 28, 2006 5:05 PM (e)

Hey, I’m no philosophy major, but as far as I recal the naturalists are only one school of philosophical thought. You might consider the no-naturalists useless, but I don’t think I would go so far as to call them irrational…. Pardons, but I’m not going to be able to pursue this again for a few days.