Martin Inb Warriq
"The scientific method is just that, it has nothing to say about the existence of miracles. An a priori commitment to methodological physicalism of course excludes miracles in principle, even if Jesus himself appeared to you right now, that philosophy would have to do violence to your experience to fit it into its schema. I suspect you hold the incoherent philosophy of scientism."

One could argue the opposite, that the belief in the existence of miracles has an a priori commitment to the rejection of methodological physicalism.

Methodological physicalism tries to refute the concept of miralces by showing cause and effect relations. While obviously it cannot answer all questions, it can debunk so-called miracles by showing them up to be little more than all too human projections or lies, or even natural phenomenological occurrences.

The term "miracle" is often used as a "stop-gap" solution when no methodology can explain a particular phenomenon.

Philo,

Nice try, but we already know that you're hate-filled bigot rather than a loving Christian from previous posts - attempting to shut the barn door of tolerance after the horse of intolerance has long since done his dash just makes you look disingenuous (never a good look).

Trav,

For many non-god-fearing atheists (and at least this pantheist), freedom OF religion is synonymous with freedom FROM religion. I'm quite happy for religious folk to believe in whatever, but I don't want to hear about it. Religion is a private matter, not a public one. For all I care, the religious are free to sacrifice virgins, have massive orgies and eat babies within the confines of their own temples. But I don't want to hear about it, or anything else to do with religion (if I want info on religion, I know how to use google). EVER. Unfortunately, many Christians (and in my experience, only ever the Christians) seem to derive some sort of pleasure from ramming their beliefs down other folk's throats.

I propose a truce, in the interests of secularism. Everybody takes a vow of silence regarding religion: atheists won't talk about the beliefs they don't have, as long all the Churchies shut the phuck up about their invisible friends and their Good Book. Seems reasonable, no?

PS: $50 says the Churchy evangelists crack and start preaching before the atheist evangelists.

GlenC,

Not sure about crucifix, but I just looked up crucify: no mention of Jesus of Nazareth. It seems anybody affixed to a cross fits the bill for crucifixion - not just Jesus of Nazareth, but every other poor bugger who pissed off the Romans enough.

So it seems that a crucifix is not a symbol of Christian resurrection, but instead Roman torture/execution. Nice.

I agree re the Keynes quotation was probably not suitable, however my point still stands. To scientists genetics was not a fact during the first formulations of their theory of evolution, now it is. Some may still be arguing natural selection at the individual level, but not those that are able to change their minds.At risk of going off topic If anyone wants to point out exactly what part of the theory they disagree with I'm happy to discuss it.

and yes the crucifix is a cruel method of execution and not a 'summary of Italian and Western values such as non-violence'. Talk about twisting the "facts".

Well said Rizla. Wooden crosses with a supposed wooden dead 'son of god' tacked to them, do not sound like appropriate adornments for public school walls in anyone's country.

To suggest that these religious symbols are actually passive symbols is laughable really, and I would suggest that a strongly Catholic country such as Italy did not choose to leave those symbols on public school walls because of their 'passive ' or ' historical ' qualities.

Philo I am shocked to see you extolling the virtues of this authors views, given that he is a member of the Australian National University?
Or is it just that you only support some University lecturers, such as those who support religious dogma?

Stezza,

I'm willing to stray briefly off-topic for a moment, with regards to this statement: "Some may still be arguing natural selection at the individual level, but not those that are able to change their minds."

It has been a while since I formally studied biology, but my understanding is that individual selection is still an accepted theory within evolutionary biology, and that it works alongside group selection. But the wording of your last post implied that group selection and individual selection are mutually exclusive. I'm more of a chem nerd than a biology nerd - can you expand on your point about natural selection?

The Acolyte Rizla,

I did not mean to imply that group selection and individual selection are mutually exclusive, rather that recent theories such as selection at the gene/molecular level may be responsible for the observations that could be attributed to individual/group selection.

i.e. if a specific gene becomes more successful, it means that individuals with the gene (the group) are more successful. This may be mistaken for group selection. I am interested if the gene/molecule theory also applies to non-DNA/RNA based molecules, thus selection may be explained through chemical equations, however this is outside of my expertise.

However, one thing science has taught me is that the only thing that we can truly be sure of is that we can be sure of nothing.