Science Has Nothing To Say About Human Purposes and the Universe.
(A) Clarifying the Resolution
The resolution that we have before us today is "Science Has Nothing to Say About Human Purposes and the Universe." By this, I mean to say that science through its methods of deducing facts about the world through means of hypothesis, observation, falsification, and etc., cannot tap into the realm of human metaphysics and its relationship with the universe.
I do not mean to say that "human purposes" and "the universe" are two separate issues in this debate. Rather, I mean that human purposes and its relation with the universe cannot be tapped into by the domain of scientific inquiry, and as such must be left to the domain of philosophy and theology. With this addressed, I will now introduce my case.
There have been discussions and debates in history (in various degrees) where one can see a debate between territories of thought cross over on to another, and hence, controversy will emerge. The natural explanations versus mythologies in Greek thought, faith and reason more or less in the Middle Ages, and science and religion most notoriously noted in the mid-19th century Victorian era. My focus however is to examine what scientific methods can we employ in order to understand the more philosophical (or metaphysical) questions about the universe.
Of course, some errors have already taken place thus far into our endeavor. Oxford Biologist and predominant atheist Richard Dawkins in his notorious book, “The God Delusion” (2006) makes the assertion that “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other” (cp. 2006, p. 72).
As you can see, different subjects belong to different methodologies for better understanding those subjects – a mistake made not less than once before. Thus, we are looking at the questions of existence from a scientific standpoint and trying to determine whether or not it is the case that science can take grounds on these sorts of issues. There a couple positions at hand that we can take a look at:
Now, by proposition (2) it could be said that it is perhaps best not to say that science cannot say something about metaphysical or ‘purposeful’ questions of existence, but rather that it simply has nothing to say about them; science is a subject that by definition has endeavors that are not concerned with the disciplines of philosophical inquiry.
This view predominately can be seen in the work of Harvard Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould’s book, “Rocks of Ages” (1999):
The reason being (as I think Ross is right), is that Gould’s grouping of scientific endeavors with the objective (fact-based) and religious endeavors with the subjective (feeling or experience-based) appears to be an easy way out, but the philosophical choke hold makes such a position as Ross says, “untenable.”
In other words, the case could be that the “god of the gaps” fallacy (which I think is a misunderstood and confused concept to begin with) is applied likewise to the naturalists; otherwise known as the “nature of the gaps” fallacy. Researchers wrongfully attribute some unknown phenomenon or event to the realm of natural or physical explanations as a first principle. That is to say, that nature (as the argument goes) must fill all the gaps in human knowledge and understanding. That of course isn’t to say science has or will have it all figured it out, but that in scope, science can will attribute all naturally known phenomenon to the domain of the naturalistically explained.
Science must say something about our purpose because science proves Jesus and Jesus says theres purpose
What is the binding force of the atom? You would probably Gluons. Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has ever seen or measured them... they don't exist! It's a desperate theory to explain away truth! We know that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second... and that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral --BUT-- Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space. If gluons aren't the answer... what is?
The answer is Jesus.
Thank you to the Con for responding.
(A) Response to Con
I do not know if Con is even serious in his first negative case. His only argument is:
Clearly, this commits and endless list of fallacies. Firstly, it is an appeal to authority. In establishing the conclusion that science does say something about human purpose, he uses "Jesus" as some kind of deciding factor in the matter. However, a number of other religious figures and philosophers have made statements regarding human purpose; what does Jesus have over these men? It is an appeal to authority.
Other guy says I appealed to authority. Jesus is the ultimate authority. He's not just some authority! The fallacy falls when applied to Jesus. Jesus=science witch = purpose. When someone without Jesus talks about purpose, they are fooling themselves.
The argument isnt proving Jesus did exist in the past its proving JESUS DOES EXIST!
Ive proven it. Other guy fails.
The bible says it,i believe it, THAT SETTLES IT
ChristusExemplar forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||4|