There would be no scientific inquiry without philosophy. Philosophy is the study of problems.
Collectibles is a good example of a construct under which value is based on perception. Engineering is a good example where value is 100% independent of perception. No matter how many people perceive structural soundness (or unsoundness) in a design, it does not change the reality. When we’re talking about the very nature of Life and the Universe, our opinions are irrelevant, it is what it is.
I would be more than happy to give these arguments no place in my mind whatsoever, however the people who believe them won’t let me. Here’s an example from just a couple of days ago. Let’s deny people certain rights and justify our vote with a literal belief in Adam and Eve. These mistaken beliefs are used as a weapon to harm other people.
Yes, Damn those creationists and bible literalists for taking away the rights of gay people. Damn those anti-vaxxers for helping re-introduce deadly diseases to our children. Damn those Conspiracy Theorists for helping keep nonsense alive and well in our public discourse.
To try and clarify, and perhaps I’m not explaining this well… you’ve argued that the people who accept evolution without understanding it are no different to the people who believe in a religion. I agree with you to a point. In both cases the people are taking something on faith. But where I think that equivalence ends is that if I was willing to learn some science I could examine the evidence for the former myself, but not so the latter; religion I can only take on faith.
(Yeah, I have been assuming throughout that you are playing devil’s advocate).
In a court case? 
But seriously… I’m trying not to fight the hypothetical… but it is hard because in order for evolution to be “junk science” a whole lot of scientific evidence has to be junk. If we found some fundamental problem with evolution there would still be a mountain of accumulated data that would have to be explained by some new theory… unless we just wanted to throw up our hands and declare “a wizard did it”.
Non-rhetorical answer? It probably means that we are wired for religion in some way. (My brain has locked up and I cannot remember the name of the theory that suggests that there is an evolutionary survival advantage in ascribing intelligent agency to events over not doing so. When rocks fall from the top of that pile is it better to bias towards or against “someone did it”? Is it better to suspect chance or an enemy?)
I’m prepared to entertain the extraordinary claim of the supernatural if there is extraordinary evidence to back it up. But there isn’t, so I’m not convinced, and have a working assumption that it’s bunkum until proven otherwise.
Actually… See the endosymbiotic theory concerning the origins of organelles such as mitochondria.
Apollyon, I’m pretty sure that Really Not All That Bright knows about endosymbiotic theory. When I was about 12, I learned about mitochondria and chloroplasts and about the idea that, at some point in the development of cells, organelles had somehow been assimiliated, and, I knew about the relative sizes (and degrees of complexity) of cells, bacteria, and viruses. Apparently, though, I know nothing about science so I could have been (and still am) wrong.
As for the rest of your post, I’ll see if I have some time later today to respond to your points.
I did get a big laugh from Little Nemo’s comments on the philosophy of science.
Nice way to start the day. 
… the evolutionary development of cells …
Not trillions of cells of today routinely swallowing up free-floating mitochondria as part of cell development.
Yeah, I am a bit defensive … and spending far too much time on this.
My point about your naivete’ is that you seem to think that science operates with nary a single unprovable (nay subjective) underlying assumption, which for an educated person seems to be a very simplistic viewpoint. Wikipedia has a nice article on the subject, I know oodles of books and papers have been written on the subject, and typing in that exact phrase on Google gives me close to 4 million hits.
To name just one thing, demarcating the limits of scientific inquiry is a very problematic issue. There is no hard and fast boundary, and said boundary, if it can ever be defined at all, is and remains in constant flux. Kuhn was very clear on this (his so called paradigm shifts).
You seem to be of the viewpoint that only things which can be proven in a hard and empirical way have meaning, force, or essence. Even Daniel Dennett, whom I have disagreed with on a number of points, says, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.” Like I said-naive’.
Wikipedia has an article on astrology also. Just because a lot of people are talking about something doesn’t mean it has any basis in reality.
I’m not dismissing philosophy. It’s a legitimate field for addressing many important issues. But science is not a subject which falls under philosophy.
The fact that a number of philosophers keep claiming to have meaningful things to say about science doesn’t mean any of them are correct. It just means that philosophers can claim things without having to back up their claims - which is my whole point.
I am amused that you are using your philosophical position to dis philosophy.
And I am not so amused at the attempts to hijack a thread about hard science and turn it into a thread about philosophy.
And I am amused that you consider Intelligent Design to be hard science.
BTW, I don’t see the usual “Moderating” or “Moderator hat on”, and I see that you are not the moderator of this forum. Do you have the authority to dictate the direction of a GD thread?
I disagree with your use of the absolutes “no different” and “only”.
I am saying that these two are similar:
- The acceptance of evolution by those ignorant of its mechanisms.
- A belief in a supernatural being.
A word that comes close to describing what they have in common is “faith” but I realize that there are differences, some of which you have pointed out.
As for “religion I can only take on faith”, you would need to justify your use of “only”. Many adherents of various religious beliefs say that they have based their beliefs on personal experiences, experiences which they claim happened in the real world, rather than while dreaming or hallucinating. Regardless of the truthfulness of those claims, I think it fair to say that those believers are basing their belief on more than just faith. Also, religious beliefs take into account the physical universe and have been used to explain the universe. Yes, many of us today say that those explanations are wrong but they were still based on something more than faith.
I agree with the rest of your post.
- More word games instead of honest debate? I was obviously referring to evolution as the hard science in reference.
- When I am moderating, you’ll know it. I was posting as a member, and in no way dictating the direction of this thread.
I don’t see a discussion about using science to refute or set limits on belief to be a discussion about “hard science.” I’d have said that the whole thread was philosophical from the OP, onward.
As a poster, Czarcasm has the same rights to express personal opinions as anyone else. Note that his comment was not out of the blue, but a response to a specific statement.
= = =
BTW, as someone who accepts the scientific reality expressed in evolutionary science and already believes in God, I find the OP to be a bit amusing, (particularly addressed the THIS audience).
Of course I’m using philosophy to discuss philosophy. I have no problem with philosophy and I’m not “dissing” it. I’m just saying that philosophy has nothing meaningful to say about science.
Here’s a lead article from the Philosophy of Science Association website: “Notre Dame’s History and Philosophy of Science Graduate Program is pleased to announce the launch of its new Theology and Science track. Modeled after our existing history and philosophy tracks, the Theology and Science track will function in close collaboration with Notre Dame’s theology department. Students on this new track will complete what is, in most respects, a standard theology Ph.D. plus the specific HPS requirements.”
So theology is apparently an example of something the Philosophy of Science Association considers to be science.
I seem to recall some sort of Philosophy of Science course offered in my undergarduate university’s Philosophy Department, but I did not take it.
It’s pretty interesting actually that the OP, who believes that the Kurzai nonsense is well reasoned also thinks that the only response to finding evolution is flawed is to believe in the existence of God.
It’s telling to see how faulty reasoning gets its fingers into diverse bits of thinking.
I’m getting a little confused by your self-deprecating remarks. On the one hand you say you know a lot about science, and then you say you know nothing. Is this a Socratic thing? (Or am I just missing the point).
Sure, and even more broadly substitute “The acceptance of scientific explanations by those ignorant of the mechanisms”. (Rather than just evolution; your point would still be valid).
I have never personally experienced any such revelation. As such I can only take any such claims on faith. (With “only” being used deliberately and with malice of forethought). Show me how I might replicate these revelations… heck… show me a rigorous test of any sort for these claims and I’ll withdraw the “only”… and you’ll be able to claim a lot of money from James Randi.
Really? No, seriously… you think they have material evidence? Something other than “I Believe”?
Not just wrong (or at least unsupported and unprovable) but contradictory. And if they’re contradictory then don’t some have to perforce be wrong? But in an case, what evidence? Which religious universe explanations are something other than “Just So” stories or arguments from ignorance?
Sorry, just some silly remarks. Nothing important or relevant.
So you are saying that “faith” = a belief based on “not being to replicate by rigorous testing” and “lack of material evidence”. Well, if that’s how you’re defining faith, then you’re right.
Well, first you need to identify a particular idea of Intelligent Design that you think is contradictory, and then examine the various ways that some people attempt to resolve the contradictions that you identified, and then offer a rebuttal to those attempts.
But, what’s the point, right?
Take care.