Wolves in Galactic-Sheeps´ Clothing- Scientific Materialism (Scientism), "Science", Philosophy, and Social Studies Disciplines

Based on the Peter Atkins vs William Lane Craig debate (first or second?) Green Peacemst 3 weeks ago You´re not quite noticing that Atkins is not functionally literate in this context, which is philosophy. He is thus very unprofessional in content. He gets away with it because it is a popular forum, not professional. Atkins is also rude and insulting. The only thing professional on his end is the adherence to the format.

Highlighted reply Gru D 10 hours ago @Green Peacemst i assume hes just angry because wlc is super dishonest. Green Peacemst

Green Peacemst 7 minutes ago (edited) ​ @GruD When you make an assertion, you need to justify it adequately. You call WLC "dishonest," as if you´re engaging in tit for tat with me. That means you´re ready to face the consequences of the honest truth. The truth begins with recognizing that "science" isn´t what it aspires to be. It´s original name as an activity was "natural, or scientific, philosophy." That is in fact what it is, a human activity of thinking, and just one using one kind of empirical methodology. "Science" isn´t actually the things it proposes about the Universe. It is ideas, no matter how linked to observable physical phenomena those ideas are. When it comes to complexities, "science´s" pretense and mystique of trying to identify with the grandeur of the physical Universe like a wolf in galactic clothing is nothing but a living, breathing flesh and blood human "wolf in galactic-sheep´s clothing." We see you.

The "facts" that it reasonably develops are philosophical in nature and subject to contextualization like Einstein showed about Newtonian mechanics, and DeBroglie et al´s Quantum Theory showed about Einstein´s "old" quantum theory. It is philosophy that studies the natural-physical-energetic realm using scientific empirical methods and naturalistic explanation, called "epistemology."

The next step, as other atheist naturalists have some inkling, Alexander Rosenberg and Sean Carroll in their own limited literacy levels, involves the question of the social studies disciplines. "Science," i.e. scientific philosophy, can´t reduce human experience to mere quanitifiable variables and experimental measurements. There has been a great foundation for understanding the interface by Bio Anthropologist Eliot Chapple, but few have paid attention to his body of work. Still, it´s based on the better known principles laid out by Pavolv´s dog studies and physiology of signal-to-symbol conditioning. JB Watson´s behavioral psychology also. The so-called "controversies" involve untenable claims to exclusivity: behaviorism doesn´t invalidate or supersede the complexities of human agency revealed more fully in therapeutic psychology, social service psychology, anthropology, and sociology, and so on, all as forms of MORAL philosophy supplemented by and a foundation of scientific and other forms of empirical methodology, depending. That includes various forms of introspection. All told, G Vico indicated the problem of mechanistic rationalism early on, and later Max Weber and Georg Simmel are credited with beginning to make strong assertions of antipositivism/interpretivism.

Both science and religion, consequently, are understood as human activities, with knowledge domains and phenomena domains, i.e. epistemologies. Thus, your claim about WLC´s dishonesty fits into PA´s and others´ own lack of adequate literacy and understanding about scientific philosophy´s own limits and human context. WLC smoothly fits "science" into philosophy, and is only "dishonest" by failing to hammer home with all out brutal clarity this little detail that the scientist is misleading himself and others by trying to assert, in effect, that "science" has no limits. But you atheist materialists feed your own illusions, as with Stephen Hawkings stating that "philosophy is dead." Oops for you all.