Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87, spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he dramatically changed his mind.
His book introduced me to one of the most interesting arguments for Christianity I have ever seen, The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
April 14th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Flew was awesome.
He exhibited grace and unflinching mettle under the attacks from the New Atheists (who tried unsuccessfully to portray him as some kind of addled old geezer who was being manipulated by theistic handlers). He also had the courage to put aside dogma to follow evidence where it led.
And he's the only book reviewer that I know of who correctly pegged Richard Dawkins as a "secularist bigot".
You'll be missed, professor.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
April 14th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
I think it took great courage for Flew to change his mind on this seminal issue so late in life.
I wonder, too, how often this happens. Life can be a long schlepp or a joyous journey, depending on how you live it. The first half of my life, I was an unthinking atheist, mostly by cultural default. Life was pretty good though. Then, after college, I starting thinking hard about the issue, and decided that likely there was something out there beyond mindless matter. Life got even better.
Putting aside our emotional investments in any issue concerning the existence or non-existence of God, I do think the complexity of the cell and DNA therein, and the origins thereof, are so important that they really ought to be freely examined without too much rancor and defensiveness. This is important stuff — in fact, is there any topic more important?
Comment by David S — April 14, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
April 17th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Interesting that Antony Flew's conversion was due to his study of Aristotelian-Thomistic (A-T) arguments.
Flew himself said, "I was not a specialist on Aristotle, so I was reading parts of his philosophy for the first time."
If a philosopher of such stature was convinced after finally giving A-T philosophy his undivided attention, shouldn't we all take a second (first?) look at what Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas actually said?
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 17, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
There may be merit to that point. However, if it means waiting for people to find and travel to that mountain, few will do so. I suspect you would like to convey some of that mountain to others in a way that affects their thinking and builds their appetite for more.
The latter path will require developing an ability to translate into terms people will be able to follow. (Even when people do study those arguments, extremely few will do so in the original languages.)
In another thread, now closed, you said:
By recognizing that even within a language there can be multiple distinct meanings to the same word or phrase. By one definition of "undirected process" you might be saying something true, but by the one in use for scientific purposes, you would appear to be saying something false. Starting out by (seemingly) insisting on a falsehood won't get you much traction or draw attention to the arguments you are interested in.
For example, elsewhere you've said recently that life does not come from non-life. You recognize that, at least apart from intelligent intervention, chemicals are not going to produce living organisms. Flew recognized this as well, and found it persuasive (despite personal attempts by Dawkins to reassure Flew otherwise).
These regularities of chemicals are studied by science, and it is completely meaningful to distinguish between how chemicals behave apart from intervening direction by intelligent agency (i.e. undirected, not directed) and how chemicals may behave under the influence of intervening direction from intelligent agency (i.e. a directed process). It is not helpful to your position to appear to be denying the existence of this distinction.
Flew did not need to deny this distinction to be persuaded. On the contrary, if this distinction did not exist, the argument from design would fail. If the distinction did not exist, it would mean that mindless chemicals could do anything on their own that could also be done with the intervention of intelligent agency — a position you have rejected (using other words).
So, you must let go of the idea that your preferred use of the term "undirected" is the only one. Rather, you must step into the shoes of your audience and consider how the ideas you are thinking would be conveyed within their terminology, not yours.
p.s. I hope it is not too inappropriate to discuss this in this thread (since your goal is to communicate A-T type arguments, including the design argument such as Flew considered). Otherwise, it might be done on the open thread, though that is long and winding.
p.p.s. If you have any liking for Lewis, I really do recommend reading through God in the Dock.
Comment by eric — April 19, 2010 @ 7:52 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 12:12 pm
eric,
When I first came here, I was pushing for ID proponents to move away from endless debates about origins (a debate they cannot win due to the fact that anything can – hypothetically – be the result of natural processes).
I had just written this at the time – advocating for an "Empirical Theology". (Keep in mind that I wrote that before discovering A-T philosophy.) I think though, that I was on the right track. ID should move away from the origins debate, quit denying that it is God that they are talking about, and start doing actual science from the assumption of design (from an A-T perspective, that would be the assumption that everything is the product of design.) If they did this, the two camps would no longer be at odds.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 21, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:56 am
Daniel Smith,
Telic Thoughts is, I believe, a very broad umbrella under which it is entirely appropriate to examine teleology from within science or philosophy or from any other vantage point. So I want to make sure there is no appearance of discouraging your elaboration and promotion of A-T perspectives on teleology in any way. I share Jay Richards hope for mutual benefit.
That said, I also share his concerns about misunderstandings and mischaracterizations. Science and philosophy both touch teleology. Nevertheless, science is not philosophy and philosophy is not science. I've never expected science to be able to replace philosophy, nor philosophy to replace science.
Science is concerned with origins, including the origin of life. ID is a position with regard to inferences that can be made from within science, based on the evidence available to science. ID isn't (nor can it ever be) the same thing as A-T philosophy, for the simple reason that science isn't and can never be the same thing as philosophy.
When you say, "ID should … quit denying that it is God that they are talking about," that would be an example of a mischaracterization. For those where it is true, ID proponents have acknowledged their personal view that God is responsible, and also the accurate fact that this greater inference depends upon considerations (including philosophical ones) that go beyond science. ID itself is limited in its inferences exactly and only so far as science itself is limited.
You will notice that Antony Flew did consider and was influenced by the scientific evidence, but was also personally able to make considerations, including philosophical ones, that went beyond the science itself.
When you say, "ID should move away from the origins debate…", I have difficulty interpreting what that would mean, since that would seem to imply that science should not be concerned with the history of life. Or else that scientists and others who acknowledge design should move away from discussing origins with scientists who do not.
If you do not propose that the question of origins should be examined and debated on scientific grounds, I don't see how you expect science to pay heed to your declaration that life only comes from life. If all your arguments begin by essentially assuming your conclusion, and you move away from the origins debate, what then is your basis for saying life only comes from life? Assertion? Circular reasoning? I really don't know, since some who are theists do advocate that life does come from non-life by God's design. If you aren't going to look and see which is true, how do you know?
Comment by eric — April 23, 2010 @ 9:56 am
April 23rd, 2010 at 5:18 pm
That life only comes from life is a metaphysical position that has repeatedly been verified by science. It is the only empirical position at the moment – since life has only been observed to come from life. I really don't think endless debates are necessary. We have the upper hand. Why not move on from there?
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 23, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:55 pm
First, since philosophy is a distinct pursuit, I don't see any obstacle for philosophical pursuits to continue forward.
"We have the upper hand." Regarding science, this is not true in practice. The dominant paradigm is still the old one. The scientific debate continues, not only regarding abiogenesis, but also regarding scientifically examining the limits of Darwinian evolution. ID is a part of this debate.
"I really don't think endless debates are necessary." Hopefully they will not be endless. But major paradigm shifts do not come cheap, quickly or easily. Aristotelian thinking about planetary motion did not fall immediately with the telescope. Regarding the idea that rocks fall from the sky, it took around a century to turn that corner, IIRC.
"It is the only empirical position at the moment" Sadly, in current practice, science is distorted by a prejudicial bias that overrules empirical evidence. The rules of the game (e.g. the Abiogenesis Axiom) are defined such as to essentially require allegiance to the non-design perspective. This is what must fundamentally change for science to become healthy. Until then, one risks exclusion from teaching, exclusion from tenure, and more.
But it seems we do agree that even the metaphysical position does benefit from the empirical contribution that science can and should be making.
Comment by eric — April 23, 2010 @ 6:55 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:13 pm
I think I'm missing something. What position are you holding which you feel is supported by the evidence that life only comes from life?
Comment by don provan — April 23, 2010 @ 8:13 pm
April 24th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
The, uh, position that life only comes from life.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 24, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
April 24th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
With all due respect… So what?
Let them pursue dead ends. Their pursuit is driven by an adherence to naturalism – a philosophical worldview that is essentially bankrupt. Nevertheless, they continue to work from that assumption.
ID, on the other hand, is largely driven by theistic worldviews. Why doesn't ID start to practice alternative science based on those theistic assumptions rather than trying to show that something "vaguely theistic" "probably" created life? If ID scientists were to openly embrace all the implications of their various theistic metaphysical positions (A-T for example), they'd be searching for scientific clues as to the formal and final causes (i.e. "nature" and "purpose") of the wonders of nature in their respective fields of study. "What was God thinking when he designed X?" "What is its nature?" "What is its purpose?" "How does it fit into the overall plan?" What I envision is openly theistic science of the kind that was practiced before Darwinism took hold and sucked the life out of science.
It's like the example I gave in the article I linked to above about the ancient Martian artifacts. Science wouldn't waste time debating whether or not obvious designs were in fact "designed by some intelligence", rather science would seek to discover everything they could about the designers.
Discovering everything the evidence tells us about God, his plans, his thoughts, his methods, etc. – should be the ultimate pursuit of a theistic scientist. Such insight could help us to understand just how all the pieces of nature fit together and why.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 24, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
April 25th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Jay Richards has posted another installment in his series on Thomism and "Thomist" Critics of Intelligent Design. This one is "What Was Thomas Aquinas' View of Creation?"
He writes with attention to the understanding of his audience, which is helpful. Personally, I am looking forward to his coming examination of the supposed conflict concerning ID and a "mechanistic" perspective.
That is not an accurate picture of the situation. ID is driven by the complete and persistent failure of Law+Chance to explain certain aspects of nature. For some areas (e.g. origin of life, specified complexity, symbolic information), it is broken and unworkable. The strict Law+Chance paradigm is inadequate, indicating that the arbitrary exclusion of design is a prejudicial mistake and harmful to empirical science.
Yet, even from the earliest days of the modern debate concerning the place within science for inferring choice and intelligent agency, in the topic area of origin of life it has been the case that some of those early voices were arguing explicitly for explanations based on non-theistic intelligence.
In The Mystery of Life's Origin, an early survey of origin of life research, they included an Epilogue that surveyed the various positions that already existed. While one of the five possible categories concerned a Creator beyond the cosmos, another already being proposed by that time was creation by an intelligence within the cosmos.
As a Christian, I've never thought that my understanding of God was limited to what science would be able to tell me. So I've never felt the need to try to get science to do it all. I don't expect that it can.
Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong that I can see about the desire to learn what we can from what we discover about living organisms (and other aspects of nature). I don't think the direction of your hope is necessarily wrong, but I do wonder how much of it can be done from within science and how much will need to step beyond science into philosophical discussions that are not as constrained.
Comment by eric — April 25, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
April 25th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Science has philosophical implications and philosophy has scientific implications. Why should there be an artificial dividing line between the two?
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 25, 2010 @ 7:57 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 6:58 am
So you believe life on Earth is explained best by panspermia?
Comment by don provan — April 26, 2010 @ 6:58 am
April 26th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Nope, guess again don. (But first try thinking about what makes life – "life".)
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 26, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
As I think you realize, at one time they were not strongly distinguished. Now they are. I would say that science's very close ties to empirical, experimental procedure are a key part of that distinction.
I do think people do recognize the interconnections. Within some domains, including physics / cosmology, there has been less hostility to scientists alluding to the larger philosophical meaning of, for example, the fine tuning of the universe or the fact that the universe had a beginning. In biology, the animosity to such thinking is much more intrenched.
I don't feel antagonistic to your desire for better integration. I feel less clear about what that could or should mean in practice.
However, I don't think there is any reason why an individual scientist should not bring their theistic perspective and their relationship with God to their work. As just one example, George Washington Carver did so and found it to be a great benefit.
Comment by eric — April 26, 2010 @ 10:49 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Third post is up in the Thomist Critics of ID series by Jay Richards: "Response to Michael Tkacz's Critique of ID"
Tkacz appears to miss the mark, both on his characterization of ID positions such as for Michael Behe, and more surprisingly on his characterization of Catholic and Thomist thinking regarding how God may act.
Comment by eric — April 26, 2010 @ 10:56 pm
April 27th, 2010 at 7:23 am
Sorry, I have no idea. Panspermia is the only theory I know of that says life on Earth came from life. Or "life".
Comment by don provan — April 27, 2010 @ 7:23 am
April 27th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
I don't pretend to know either eric. I feel that Aristotle's four causes (summed up by the questions: "what is it made of?", "what is its nature?", "where did it come from?", and "what is its purpose?") are a legitimate base for scientific inquiry.
I also feel that Aquinas' five proofs of God are sufficient and that no empirical "design detection" is needed. What I think would be more useful is insight into how God creates and his purposes in doing so. I think such things as "purpose" could be invaluable in, say, the medical field – for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases.
Fields of human design – such as engineering – could also benefit from a teleological view of nature. Once we embrace the idea that nature is the product of the mind of God – and not the product of random accidents – the designs in nature are seen in a different light.
But what I'm talking about is theological science – not design detection. I think that's the main point.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 27, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
April 27th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
So God is dead?
You didn't think about what I asked you to think about either don: What is the difference between "life" and "non-life"? Answer that and you'll be on your way.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 27, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
April 27th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Excellent article eric. I too have reservations about the "non-intervening" God it seems many Thomists champion.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 27, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
April 27th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
God is not life by any definition of "life" for which it is true "That life only comes from life is a metaphysical position that has repeatedly been verified by science."
If you asked me to think about that, I don't recall it, but I was only interested in what science has verified. There's simply no way you can include God in that class.
Comment by don provan — April 27, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
April 27th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
… if and only if one's only purpose is to collect sufficient proofs for God's existence.
You seem to still be implicitly assuming this is the only possible purpose for inferring the participation of intelligent agency, and that once this need is met, ID inferences are dispensable.
Did you see and consider my recent post on ID inferences in the open thread? Did that help at all?
Within science, it is not only reasonable but essential to be able to objectively distinguish cases where intelligent agency has been involved in the efficient cause of the object or effect in question. That need doesn't go away — even if we have all the proofs for God that we may need.
Comment by eric — April 27, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
April 27th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
eric wrote:
Of course it is the only purpose. ID luminaries have stressed multiple times that they can say nothing about the designer (except that the term should be spelled with a capital D).
You're prone to exaggerations, eric. Science has existed for centuries without* any theory of design detection and has apparently been doing fine. It's not essential.
*Even Phillip Johnson admits that there is no theory of ID at the moment, so I think it's safe to presume that we do not have a reliable method to detect design.
Comment by olegt — April 27, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
April 27th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Don't you consider critical thinking to be reliable?
Comment by chunkdz — April 27, 2010 @ 10:42 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 9:28 am
You are confusing the question of whether the distinction is essential (my point) with whether there is yet an established and accepted theory (your point). You are also missing the most relevant fact.
For centuries, the progress of science concerning natural objects has been devoted to studying those aspects of nature that are devoid of specified complexity and thus are readily explained by combinations of Law+Chance.
All earlier instances of specified complexity have been so obviously the artifacts of intelligent agents that no formal theory was needed. Until recently, no one was ever tempted to try to explain such artifacts through appeals to Law+Chance.
This doesn't mean the distinction was "not essential" as you suppose. It only means that the distinction was obvious and uncontested — until now.
It has only been in the last half century or so that we've discovered that living organisms are distinguished [from all other parts of nature] by their specified complexity. This is the first time where there is now a seriously contested case.
So far, the assumption that information-based life can be handled just like all other the other parts of nature (that do not have specified complexity) is failing miserably and persistently. It has descended into hopes for an undiscovered mystery mechanism that acts like an intelligent agent with foresight, but which cannot even be described.
Comment by eric — April 29, 2010 @ 9:28 am
April 29th, 2010 at 9:56 am
This is a perfect description of ID.
There are individuals of all stripes which hope for a mechanism with specific characteristics, but "within science" there is only a search fo a mechanism whose characteristics are currently unknown. While you may think there's some kind of bias against intelligent agents as that mechanism, the real problem is simply a dirth of explorable hypotheses about intelligent agents, mainly because the obvious ones, such as the literal Biblical story of Creation or directed pansperimia from Mars, have long since been ruled out (at least, based on what evidence we have so far).
Comment by don provan — April 29, 2010 @ 9:56 am
April 29th, 2010 at 10:13 am
eric wrote:
This guy cracks me up! Paley's watch is two centuries old and eric pretends that ID is somehow a new argument.
Comment by olegt — April 29, 2010 @ 10:13 am
April 29th, 2010 at 11:57 am
How do you know what God is and is not?
How do you know what life is and is not?
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 29, 2010 @ 11:57 am
April 29th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
That's the point, of course: we don't know what God is and is not, so it is beyond the scientific verification that you said was supporting evidence for it.
Are you now saying that science hasn't even confirmed that life always comes from life? I thought that confirmation was the basis of your position.
Comment by don provan — April 29, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Oh but we do know don. God can be discovered through reason alone – and not just that he exists, but also what he is and is not.
What I was asking though was: how do YOU know what God is and is not?
Misconstrue much don?
Again, I was asking how YOU know what life is and is not?
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 29, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 8:10 am
OK, if you don't grasp how critical the concept of "what WE know" is to scientific verification, there's no reason to continue this.
Comment by don provan — April 30, 2010 @ 8:10 am
April 30th, 2010 at 9:48 am
I sincerely have the impression that you used to be a more careful reader and thinker. Now you seem to be getting careless. (Perhaps just too hasty.)
Here again you're not taking notice of what I actually said. I didn't say that ID is "a new argument".
What I did say and do maintain is that formerly all objects displaying specified complexity (and particularly that subset of symbolic information) were recognized in an uncontested way as obviously the artifacts of intelligent agency.
What is new is the discovery within about the last half century that living organisms are distinguished [from the rest of nature] by their specified complexity. Nothing else in nature — the realm where Law+Chance explanation worked so very well for so very long — has this property, and particularly not the use of encoded symbolic information.
The old Law+Chance approach is failing against this case, and not surprisingly. This is the case where old intuitive assumptions, long taken for granted, need to be reexamined in the light of this new evidence that isn't going away and isn't yielding to the old paradigm.
It is similar to finding, contrary to the Newtonian model, that measuring the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the observer. The difference with that case is that all they needed was a new, improved model of the same old Law(+Chance) kind.
In the case of symbolic information, that isn't going to work, though some prefer to hold out in hope for the Something New undirected Law+Chance process that can do what we've only found designers with foresight able to do.
Comment by eric — April 30, 2010 @ 9:48 am
April 30th, 2010 at 10:32 am
eric wrote:
No, that's plain wrong, eric. That argument was already made by Paley in 1802. Here is a summary on Wikipedia.
You can find Paley's book on google if you wish.
Comment by olegt — April 30, 2010 @ 10:32 am
April 30th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
How could Paley make that argument when the internal workings of the cell were unknown to him?
Comment by ID guy — April 30, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Tell me don, do "we know" that life always comes from life yet? Or is the jury still out on that one?
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 30, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
I thought you were claiming it is true, and I was implicitly stipulating that it is.
Comment by don provan — April 30, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
OK, then we agree that the empirical evidence is conclusive – life only comes from life.
Elsewhere you made the claim that God is not life – by any definition for which the above is true. This is why I asked for your sources for the definitions of "God" and "life". Are you prepared to stipulate how you arrived at the conclusion that "God is not life"?
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 30, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 12:03 am
ID in the sense that life exhibits design, purpose, and complex structures is not new per se. Olegt is right in pointing out that Paley did have an argument from design. What some people seem to not realize is that the argument from design is the strong argument while the argument from "disteleology" or the argument a la Darwin that simple variation can produce highly adapted organisms is really the weak argument. It is astonishing to me that this could have ever been reversed given our current knowledge and the knowledge of any time since Darwin. The simple fact is that the argument from "disteleology" has never been shown through evidence while the argument from design is readily obvious. In fact the argument has only gotten stronger especially since the discovery of DNA, as I'm sure everyone knows. Eric has a very valid point when he mentions the specified complexity of DNA, genes, and proteins. This makes the argument from design rock solid as far as I'm concerned and I think as far as anyone who seriously considers the evidence should be, such as Flew.
Comment by Phaedros — May 1, 2010 @ 12:03 am
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:25 am
The link you provided was to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Even by the admission of the link you provided, you are pointing to an argument by "analogy". Those who aren't persuaded by it typically point out that it is an argument by analogy and that Paley's analogy is (supposedly) weak or poor.
My point is not wrong at all. My point is that the new development — which is clearly new — is to discover that there is no need for analogy. As I correctly pointed out, it is only in the last half century that we came to understand that the cell actually does contain, in a way that is distinct from all other nature, specified complexity and more particularly encoded symbolic information.
Are you really and seriously trying to claim that we've known that as a scientific observation since Paley's time? If not, you are not defeating my point, but rather confusing it with a point I didn't make. That would be a straw man argument.
Comment by eric — May 2, 2010 @ 9:25 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 2:03 pm
If you're suggesting there is such a definition and I'm just not aware of it, why don't you move the conversation along by supplying it? I have to admit, I wasn't expecting to have to justify the claim that God is beyond empirical verification, so I really need you help to see what I'm missing.
Comment by don provan — May 3, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
May 4th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Don Provan,
Who said we're talking about empirical verification of God?
My original claim:
The metaphysical case for God is also repeatedly verified by science (IOW, no empirical findings contradict it.)
One of the ways a metaphysical case is shown to be false is if it doesn't line up with the empirical findings of science.
Both "life only comes from life" and "God created the universe and everything in it" are sound metaphysical claims that do not run afoul of science.
This is why I asked for your definitions – since you made the claim that to believe "life comes from life" must somehow necessitate a belief that "life on Earth is explained best by panspermia".
What you seem to be trying to do here Don is pretend that empirical knowledge is the only "real" knowledge and that the only way to understand the world around us is through the prism of science.
Comment by Daniel Smith — May 4, 2010 @ 7:18 pm
May 4th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Oh, my bad. I thought we were speaking English. In that language, not contradicting something is not the same as verifying it. In addition, the English word "metaphysical" is defined to mean something that is outside the realm of empirical verification.
Now you're just being a jerk. You refused to explain what you meant, so I was forced to guess. I wasn't making any kind of claim.
I'm doing no such thing. You said you had empirical knowledge, but you don't. At no time have I suggested that empirical knowledge is in any way special. Feel free to offer some other knowledge for consideration, just don't call it "empirical verification" when it isn't.
Comment by don provan — May 4, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
May 5th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
You're right Don. I overstated. I should have said "the metaphysical claim that life only comes from life has never been contradicted by empirical evidence". You and I both agree that the empirical evidence for the claim is sound – but you are right: a metaphysical claim does not rely on empirical evidence for verification.
You're right again Don. A metaphysical claim that contradicts empirical findings may be no good – or it may still be good. This is because empirical knowledge is only as good as the latest evidence and is often overturned by newer findings, while metaphysical claims are based on reason and universal truths.
Comment by Daniel Smith — May 5, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
May 5th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Do you still think you have an empirical position and the upper hand?
If you restate the first sentence as you've suggested, then the rest no longer seems to follow. After all, "life comes from non-life" has never been contradicted by empirical evidence, either.
Comment by don provan — May 5, 2010 @ 9:28 pm
May 6th, 2010 at 8:48 am
It is contradicted every time life is observed coming from life.
Comment by Daniel Smith — May 6, 2010 @ 8:48 am
May 6th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Don,
What I should say is that the metaphysical view that life only comes from life (more correctly that "being only comes from being") is reinforced by the fact that life is only observed to come from life.
Comment by Daniel Smith — May 6, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
May 6th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
No, I'm sorry, that's simply not what "contradicted" means.
OK, we're officially going around in circles. You can say that, yes, but when you say that, the class "life" in that sentence does not include God. Science has never once observed life come from God, just as it has never once observed life come from non-life.
Comment by don provan — May 6, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
May 7th, 2010 at 9:11 am
contradict:
1. To assert or express the opposite of (a statement).
2. To deny the statement of. See Synonyms at deny.
3. To be contrary to; be inconsistent with.
Whenever life is observed to come from life it is contrary to and inconsistent with the statement that life comes from non-life.
Yes it does. It is in the first part of the sentence: "the metaphysical view that life only comes from life (more correctly that "being only comes from being")"
Comment by Daniel Smith — May 7, 2010 @ 9:11 am
May 7th, 2010 at 11:17 am
No, sorry. A negative finding is neutral, not inconsistent. I'm not clear how you can miss this, since this is exactly the same logic you're using to claim science's experience does not contradict your religious views.
I understand that you're trying to put God in that class. The point is that God isn't in the class of "life" that science has empirical evidence of life coming from.
Would it help if I point out that what science really has empirical support for is life coming from biological life? Does that help you see why your attempts to expand the empirically known class "life" to include anything you want to put in it is logically invalid?
Comment by don provan — May 7, 2010 @ 11:17 am
May 7th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
It's not only a negative finding. It's also a positive finding in the opposite direction. IOW, the position that life comes from non-life is not supported by any empirical evidence while the position that life only comes from life has overwhelming empirical support.
No Don, my claim is that empirical findings support and reinforce my position (though I backed off from the claim that they "verify" it).
That life is only observed to come from life does not support or reinforce the position that life comes from non-life.
I'm not claiming that God is "biological life" or that He is in the class science uses. I'm saying that the fact that life only comes from life supports and reinforces the idea that the source of all life is itself "living" (though not necessarily in the biological sense) as opposed to "non-living".
I'm not offering any kind of empirical proof for God Don. I'm saying that all the empirical evidence we have supports and reinforces the (already sound) metaphysical position that being only comes from being, that act is before potency, and that God is the source and sustainer of all that is.
Comment by Daniel Smith — May 7, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
May 10th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
That's the point: "life comes from life" only supports life coming from life in the biological sense, since that's the only sense in which it is a fact rather than an opinion.
Comment by don provan — May 10, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
May 10th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
We got to this point before, and I asked for your definition of "life" and "God" – to illustrate (from your perspective) how I was wrong to include God in the (non-scientific) class "life".
You made the statement (way back) that "God is not life". I just want to know how you arrived at that conclusive opinion.
I'm not asking for scientific definitions Don, I'm asking for your philosophical reasoning for excluding your definition of "God" from your definition of "life". If you're saying that "life" must be "biological", then that's fine – that's your reasoning. I'd ask then – what is it that makes some components of matter "alive" and others not? And – is there an immaterial component to "life"?
Comment by Daniel Smith — May 10, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
May 11th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I don't need to define those things. I only have to point out that empirical evidence doesn't — and can't — encompass the class "life" which includes the item "God".
I said God was not life in the sense life was used in the sentence, "That life only comes from life is a metaphysical position that has repeatedly been verified by science." But I suppose we shouldn't try to discuss that again, since you apparently think that "verify" means "doesn't contradict" when talking about your theory, and it means "provides examples that aren't 'in the opposite direction'" (where you get to define the direction, of course) when applied to other theories.
And I've told you repeatedly that it's because God, whatever He is, is not in any class about which anything can be "verified by science". I've tried to help you see this by restating "life comes from life" in a way that accurately reflect what science has really verified — life comes from biological life — but you keep missing the relevance of that restatement. We could restate what science has verified in any number of ways — "life comes from life through undirected physical processes", for example — but I have the feeling that would just confuse you more.
OK, I've tried enough and I'm just repeating myself. If you haven't gotten it yet, you never will.
Comment by don provan — May 11, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
May 13th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
don provan,
You seem to want to counter my attempts to show that the empirical evidence reinforces my metaphysical position by arguing that metaphysics is not empirical. I never said it was though. I even explicitly said that I was not trying to make an empirical case for God – yet you argue as if I am.
I'm also tired of repeating myself so I guess we're done here.
Comment by Daniel Smith — May 13, 2010 @ 12:09 pm