Is apologetics a science?

[McCulloch]

Christian apologetics have always been a form of cognitive science.

Question for debate: Can Christian apologetics be considered a discipline within the field of cognitive science?

[jcrawford]

Ah well. I guess one finds sense wherever one can find it. Strangely W would agree with you I think - in as far as his attempts at metaphysics are nonsense - but the limitation applies to Van Till and Rushdoony whether they realise or not.

I think Van Til and Rushdoony were a little more epistemologically self-conscious than either W or LP, since you and they cannot seem to find any solid ground on which to base a rational system of metaphysics, despite your nonsensical claim that science itself is not based on a logical and rational system of metaphysical thinking and concepts about what scientists perceive in the world.

However even if you do not believe yourself to be limited thus, there is still the hurdle of Metaphysics not being grounded, in the same way science is grounded.

See. Now you have to tell us upon what epistemological theory of knowledge the presuppostions of science are based.

The latter being grounded by a logic that limits what it can say to what can be physically tested.

Ok, since that logical presupposition would have to be based on a metaphysical system of logical knowledge in order for scientists to proceed in accordance with their own method of ascertaining metaphysical knowledge.

Whilst metaphysics can wonder off with the metaphysical faeries.

That is why it is so important to epistemologically differentiate between knowledge of physical events which can be physically tested and demonstrated, and the purely abstract metaphysical theories of scientists pertaining to the origin of the universe and mankind, since for every metaphysical faerie encountered in one's journey through metaphysical space there are plenty of ape-men to watch out for as well as mentally incompetent and deluded scientists.

[Goat]

Let me ask you a question: Do you have a conscience?

Are you equating the soul with a persons conscience?

Conscience and personality are aspects and functions of the human soul.

Prove that statement. Show how 'conscience and personality' are part of the human soul, and not just a product of the mind/brain

[Jester]

My simple response to this is that you seem to be using a different definition for metaphysics than the one I presented. Please let me know how you define it. I will make a few other points as well.

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism] A central tenet of logical positivism is that metaphysical, theological, and ethical sentences are "cognitively meaningless," and serve merely to express the feelings or desires of a speaker. Only mathematical, logical and scientific statements are literally meaningful, or have truth values.[/url]So logical positivism is a stance averse to metaphysics.

I understand this point, but that does not exclude it from being a metaphysical stance. I have not seen how, by my definition, logic has been ruled out of metaphysics.

Also, the word “meaning” might convey various connotations. But in this philosophical sense, the meaning of a proposition is that what makes it true or false. A sentence that cannot be true or false is factually meaningless. The fall back of logical positivism (also known as logical empiricism) is that science can point to physical phenomena that makes its propositions true or false.

I understand that science can point to physical phenomena that support its claims, my assertion was that logical positivism cannot. It relies on abstract logic as much as any valid form of metaphysics to look into any given claim.

Even this extreme empiricism accepts that mathematics holds true. So analytical, or necessary truth (including mathematics) is accepted as a criteria of meaning, but this is subtly different from factual (contingent) meaning.

Is this a retraction of the idea that science is superior to metaphysics on the grounds that it provides physical evidence, or an assertion that science is subtly superior to mathematics?

However, if one wishes to talk about metaphysical objects as facts, then from this viewpoint your sentence is not a proposition because it cannot be true or false, but neither is it an analytical truth, and thus it is meaningless.

This is only true of certain metaphysical claims. Some are perfectly logical.

If you go with Wittgenstein, you cannot even talk about necessary truths without also talking nonsense, hence 6.54. Wittgenstein is not saying necessary truth of logic do not exist (careful with the use of word exist here), but that we cannot think about them or talk about them meaningfully or sensibly. Think about it this way: logic is self evidently true, so you can’t give further evidence of its truth other than logic just is self evidently true.

This could very easily be referred to as a metaphysical position, even by what I understand to be your definition. It could be argued that, since all logic must begin with certain assumptions, no logic can ever reach proof (or be logically shown to be false) and all statements made by human beings will therefore be meaningless. This is a very old argument, of course, and a good reminder for we humans not to get too proud of what we know, but is hardly practical for life or such a debate as this.

Last point: "Meta" used as a prefix is usually taken to mean 'beyond' or 'of a higher order'. A metalanguage is a second language that talks about another language. Metaphysics is usually taken to mean ontological discourses that are of a higher order or beyond the physical. Platonic realms being an obvious metaphysics. Heaven, Hell the holy trinity being theological metaphysics. All are nonsense of one form or another if you go with W or LP.

One cannot arbitrarily say that all realms beyond the physical are nonsense unless you are conceding that any statement one will make in the future regarding the truth/falsehood of theism is nonsense. This undercutting of all theological debate is fair enough to claim but is (obviously) not being supported by this site or its participants. Nor does it offer any evidence that the non-physical is not relevant. It seems to say only that we cannot through logical processes know whether or not is relevant, which will only lead us back to the physical (scientific) truth that it is highly relevant to human beings by our nature.

[Confused]

Let me ask you a question: Do you have a conscience?

Are you equating the soul with a persons conscience?

Conscience and personality are aspects and functions of the human soul.

May I assume that your soul possesses both conscience and personality, since only with conscience (meaning with knowledge or science) and personal character can you be conscious of what is right and wrong, good and evil, true and false about your own personal self (soul).

Yes, I have a personality and a conscience. But I don't equate those with a soul as this is a concept I don't understand. However, my son has autism and lacks a conscience. Does this mean he only has half a soul or no soul at all?

[Confused]

jcrawford:

Ape-men only exist in the demented minds of religious people and naturalists who think they evolved and originated from some sub-human species of African apes.

No actually they exist in our DNA. Not demented minds at all, or is this another of your DSMIV mental disorders that dont exist in the DSMIV? And where did ape-men come into it? You assume that because our DNA and the great apes DNA is so similar as to point to a common ancestor, this make the ancestor an ape-man? Tell me, if a child was adopted at birth, and after growing up, studied genetics and found that her DNA pointed to a common asian-african ancestor, should we assume that the mother and father were both asian-african or one of her parents was asian and one was afican? No one says we evolved from apes. Only that evolution (genetics most prominently) links both apes and man with a common ancestor.

[jcrawford]

True, but the premises, thinking and logical system employed in the use of the scientific method is more metaphysical than physical in character and form since a mental or intellectual concept has no physical properties, physical form or physical substance or essence in and of itself.

I would think they also derive from empiricism where the senses and experience take the world as a given. It’s real man.

Of course your senses and experiences of the world are real, man, since the metaphysical concept of reality really exists in your mind. You don't think your brain knows anything about reality, do you?

Now you on the other hand are hearing voices or receiving some kind of knowledge about God that has no substance except in your mind.

With what physical senses are you empirically observing that which you claim exists solely in my mind?

[jcrawford]

Conscience and personality are aspects and functions of the human soul.

Prove that statement. Show how 'conscience and personality' are part of the human soul, and not just a product of the mind/brain

As a self-evident presupposition and given, no proof is required, any more than a demonstration of your mental health is.

Have you no conscience? How does your brain know what is morally or ethically right and wrong? And how in the world would you know that if you didn't have a soul to reflect on the correctness of your answer?

[jcrawford]

Yes, I have a personality and a conscience. But I don't equate those with a soul as this is a concept I don't understand.

It is perfectly understandable that you do not understand a concept of soul which involves your personality and conscience since you deny your soul's being at the outset by thinking of yourself as a human being instead of a human soul.

However, my son has autism and lacks a conscience. Does this mean he only has half a soul or no soul at all?

Every living person is and has a soul whether they have a conscience or not.

It wouldn't hurt to regard your son as a living soul with a personality rather than as simply a brain in a body.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford:

Ape-men only exist in the demented minds of religious people and naturalists who think they evolved and originated from some sub-human species of African apes.

No actually they exist in our DNA. Not demented minds at all, or is this another of your DSMIV mental disorders that dont exist in the DSMIV? And where did ape-men come into it? You assume that because our DNA and the great apes DNA is so similar as to point to a common ancestor, this make the ancestor an ape-man? Tell me, if a child was adopted at birth, and after growing up, studied genetics and found that her DNA pointed to a common asian-african ancestor, should we assume that the mother and father were both asian-african or one of her parents was asian and one was afican? No one says we evolved from apes. Only that evolution (genetics most prominently) links both apes and man with a common ancestor.

What else do you have on or in your mind?

[Confused]

Yes, I have a personality and a conscience. But I don't equate those with a soul as this is a concept I don't understand.

It is perfectly understandable that you do not understand a concept of soul which involves your personality and conscience since you deny your soul's being at the outset by thinking of yourself as a human being instead of a human soul.

However, my son has autism and lacks a conscience. Does this mean he only has half a soul or no soul at all?

Every living person is and has a soul whether they have a conscience or not.

It wouldn't hurt to regard your son as a living soul with a personality rather than as simply a brain in a body.

First off, I can't deny a soul when I don't know what one is. Second off, my son is off limits for you to use in any derragotory terms. You know nothing of how I regard my son, so don't you ever try to minimize my devotion and my love for my son. While he may lack a conscience, he is still my son and I will still protect and love him until the day I die.