Strato urges that people not read teleology onto science,because that explains nothing.Science ever answers Leibniz’s colossal blunder why is there somehing rather than noting,because the law of conservation applies to the quantum fields of tremendous energy as William Lane Craig relishes in pointing out, but he prefers not to note that application of that law!
That religious scientists follow him to the extent of not proposing teleological explanations in science does not preclude them, nontheless as Kenneth Miller, Francisco Jose Ayala and Karl Dickerson, from alleging that nevertheless, God operates behind natural forces, tweaking them to advance evolution whilst scientists never find evidence for such prattling!
The spearnatural cannot be compatible with science,despite such supernaturalists feeling that science reveals His method of creation, because it finds only teleonomy-causalism- mechanism- no wanted, direct outcomes. That is a scientific as well as a philosophical finding, despite the NCES silly notion that it is only a philosophical one. No,because the scientific finding affirms the philosophical one based on the evidence of finding only natural causes, always teleonomic at work!
The teleological not only is convoluted, ad hoc assumptions at work but those very assumptions violate the Ockham with , despite Alister Earl McGrath’s prattle that He is a necessary and useful redundancy, God adds no ultimate explanations to scientific and other natural explanations, but instead exudes superstition onto those explanations! Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig claim that a personal explanation provides why matters are why they are, by that they mean that matters had a way of being different; but Carneades’s argument note that supernaturalists beg the question of outcomes. Lamberth’s teleonomic argument notes that as science does indeed find no divine intent behind natural causation-causalism, then to invoke it would be to make the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with that apparent teleonomy just as the old one finds Him deceiving us with apparent ancient ages of things!
Thus, science and religion are indeed incompatible from the side of science; from the side of religion, anything goes!
For instance, natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agency of Nature requires perforce that organisms adapt to their environments, but that very adaptation precludes perfection, just the best adaptation possible whilst one could expect omni-God to make organisms completely fit so as to avoid the evils we see. Alvin Plantinga alleges that no, omni-God can perform flourishes – imperfections- whilst limited God must be sparing in His creation, making for perfection. No, this is backwards!
He cannot thereby overcome Hume’s dysteological argument [ from imperfections] that we find imperfections,suggesting an immature God at work, a committe of Gods at cross purposes, a vegetable-like matter at work and [ I add ] so forth at ones imagination!
He begs the question of outcomes with the argument from reason-the self-refutation of naturalism. Does he here as with the problem of evil, find that perhaps, demonics forces make for our errors? Oh,he finds that in theological matters, that the Fall caused sin to infect our thinking to love Him. No, no literal or –metaphorical Fall occurred, and we have no such sinful nature, but instead are beings, for the most part, who try to do good, sometimes erring.^ He uses thus a superstitious account for our faculties at work!
From trial and error we learn to trust and –mistrust our faculties and have to use at times instruments to aid them. Again, adaptation does not make for perfection so that we would err as well as find truth. No divine intent involves itself in our finding truth!
He alleges that since those imperfections result in evil, then perhaps demonic forces are at work. He cannot validate that as that is so superstitious like the use of God Himself! Theism is just reduced animism at work, one being instead of the many spirits of regular animism or the many Gods of polytheism.
God did not have the asteroid create an environment that led to the extinction of dinosaurs, the cooling -off period , the flowering plants and the mutations that that made for the flourishing of primates that led to us. We call that randomness!
We find no tweaking anywhere in that scenario! Selection and randomness did not have a directing hand helping them to make us! And no, no convergent evolution provides any reason to feel that some other big brain organism would have evolved to have a relationship with Him!
Supernaturalists cannot use evolution to exonerate Him for the evils were He nontheless to exist!
Directed- theistic-evolution remains an oxymoronic obscurantism!
Strato and others however do not deny the existence of gods,whom they find as natural ,non-intervisionist beings!
Again, these men use reduces animism- that superstition- just as the Aznde know about germ theory, they still insist that the germ spirit causes germs!It does no justice to science and- reason to promote a Supreme Being having all the power of the many spirits as providing the Ultimate Explanation- Leibniz’s little blunder or the Primary Cause- Aquinas’s Primary Cause.
Natural causes and explanations themselves are the primary cause! God would have to depend on them and the order and regularity inherent in the Cosmos just as He’d have to rely on morality to issue commands! He’d be perforce the secondary cause!
Lamberth’s Malebrannche Reductio maintains that ultimately supernaturalists inplicitly find with Nicholas Malebranche that He is the real actor whenever we act! Malebranche himself thus makes that reduced to absurdity argument! This implicitly mocks the supernaturalist claim that He creates through evolution and other natural forces! This does not lead to the stupid asserion that we have no purpose for our existence and that naturalism cannot overcome this. No reason exists perforce for their whining!
With John-Paul Sartre and Paul Kurtz, I urge others to find happiness in our own human purposes and love and this one life instead of that whining for divine love and purpose and the future state!
Lamberth’s genetic argument finds that supernaturalists themselves make the genetic argument that the reason for their belief in the supernaturalism brings forth their unsubstantiated arguments from angst and from happiness-purpose! No, no genetic fallacy involves itself here, but just why they have to have their faith.
They use the pareidolias of intent and design when only teleonomy and patterns exist just as people use pareidolias to see apparitions of Mary of Yeshua or the man in the moon!
And without the use of intent, He cannot be the force behind the Big Bang , the Grand Miracle Monger, the Grand Designer and such and thus without such referents,He cannot exist! And He cannot exist, because He’d have contradictory, incoherent attributes! Thus, the teleonomic argument and others that dispose of His referents and those unlikely attributes make for the ignosticism that pervades atheism instead of being against it and theism both as Alfred Jules Ayer and Theodore Drange aver!
Where would He have the intent to answer prayer? Answered prayers would just be post hoc- coincidental, and supernaturalists ever rationalize unanswered ones!
Where would He have the intent to do miracles as we skeptics find that they just are natural?
Where would He have the intent to do designs when they are only natural patterns? Where would He have the intent to have caused the Big Bang when Nature itself has the power to cause big bangs?
We need ever to use the full force of Stratonicianism in science and-elsewhere for natural phenomena instead of using that superstitious reduced animism!
The presumption of naturalism then rules, for which supernaturalism need to provide evidence to overcome it instead of relying on their superstition-faith!Antony Flew had called this the Stratonician presumption. This presumptin works like the presumption of innocence in law as he so states, and which Aquinas as he also states tries to overcome implicitly with his five failed arguments.