God and Science
by MikeGeneSince many ID critics not only think that science can be used to address the existence of God, but has actually discredited the existence of God, I thought I would check to see what science they are talking about. So I went over to PubMed, a database that includes over 17 million citations, and used the search string, "detect God," figuring that some scientist must have developed a method or instrument that attempted to detect the existence of God. I got six hits and here they are:
A new colorimetric method for determining the isomerization activity of sucrose isomerase.
Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007 Feb;71(2):583-6. Epub 2007 Feb 7.The effect of the layer structure on the activity of immobilized enzymes in ultrathin films.
J Colloid Interface Sci. 2006 Nov 1;303(1):326-31. Epub 2006 Jul 11.A conductive ormosil encapsulated with ferrocene conjugate and multiwall carbon nanotubes for biosensing application.
Biomaterials. 2006 Mar;27(7):1167-74. Epub 2005 Aug 24.Prussian Blue based screen printed biosensors with improved characteristics of long-term lifetime and pH stability.
Biosens Bioelectron. 2003 Mar;18(2-3):165-74.Detection of genotoxic effects of heavy metal contaminated soils with plant bioassays.
Mutat Res. 1998 Dec 3;420(1-3):37-48.Endogenous alkaloids in man. XXVI. Determination of the dopaminergic neurotoxin 1-trichloromethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-beta-carboline (TaClo) in biological samples using gas chromatography with selected ion monitoring.
J Chromatogr B Biomed Appl. 1996 Dec 13;687(2):337-48.
Unfortunately, the scientists here are detecting GOD, an acronym for glucose oxidase. Okay, so it doesn’t look good for those who believe scientists have been busy trying to test for the existence of God. Did I say existence? Let’s try searching with that one. This time I got eight whole citations when searching with "God’s existence."
The role of the medial prefrontal cortex in human religious activity.
Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(4):479-85. Review.The deChristianization of Christian hospital chaplaincy: some bioethics reflections on professionalization, ecumenization, and secularization.
Christ Bioeth. 2003 Apr;9(1):139-60.The violent adolescent: the urge to destroy versus the urge to feel alive.
Am J Psychoanal. 2002 Sep;62(3):237-53.The argument from design: what is at stake theologically?
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:154-68.[Know the ways? On the occasion of Hildegard's of Bingen 900th birthday]
Ber Wissenschaftsgesch. 1998 Dec;21(4):215-30. German.[Christian dimension of suffering]
Przegl Lek. 1999;56(7-8):544-7. Review. Polish.Family ethics in caring for newborns with impairments.
Health Prog. 1987 Jun;68(5):57-61.Abortion: why the arguments fail.
Hosp Prog. 1980 Jan;61(1):38-49.
Okay, I confess that I didn’t even bother to read the abstracts. Yet I’m willing to bet these papers don’t outline their methodology for detecting God’s existence nor provide any data that rules out the existence of God.
So where are these scientific experiments and studies that address the existence of God? If you search PubMed simply with "God," you do retrieve 2054 hits. My gut tells me that they are all a dry hole. But perhaps I am wrong and a critic can pull out the experiments that helped the researchers determine that God does not exist.
April 29th, 2007 at 10:44 pm |
Here is a related link.
Comment by Bradford — April 29, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 12:06 am |
Hello Mike,
How about this one:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physic...
Cool idea (IMO), but I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for. Mostly ’cause I think I saw this for the first time here, at TT. Also I have no idea if this has been/is being tested.
Interesting either way. Anybody have any updates?
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — April 30, 2007 @ 12:06 am
April 30th, 2007 at 12:09 am |
I wonder what Newton, Galileo, Maxwell and others would make of this sort of idiocy ?
Strangely those making such arguments seem to be basing all of their criticsms on Humes arguments that have long been known to be fallacious.
Not sure what this says about so called "critical thinkers" that they freely employ arguments that were known to be faulty in the day they were presented.
Though this might explain the whole Hackels Embryo's thing
Comment by thesciphishow — April 30, 2007 @ 12:09 am
April 30th, 2007 at 4:23 am |
Okay, so from what you have researched you have confirmed that there is no credible science-papers which address the existence or non-existence of a god (or gods).
What can we safely infer from this?
Here's my suggestion: Theological speculation is entirely irrelevant to the activity of science. Most scientists are simply not concerned with the detection of gods, for the simple reason that no practical application has ever been found for this super-natural knowledge.
Most scientists I know are also entirely sceptical of other super-natural phenomena, so please do not think that the science institutions are unfairly biased against your beliefs. This is why ouija-boards are considered less effective than, say experimentation as a means of validating theories.
Of course, if you had searched a theological articles database you would have found many articles speculating or purporting to disprove various aspects of contemporary natural philosophy. Theologians have the luxury of speculating on just about anything and have never been restrained by such things as a complete lack of evidence.
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 4:23 am
April 30th, 2007 at 7:05 am |
Hi Salim,
That the Dawkins-type ID critics don't understand science. They want to use science/evolution to declare that God does not exist, but it looks as if not one single controlled experiment was done to test the existence of God.
Comment by MikeGene — April 30, 2007 @ 7:05 am
April 30th, 2007 at 7:23 am |
Mike,
I'll bet if you search PubMed, you won't find any controlled studies testing for the existence of humans, apple trees or dragons. Does this render such questions unscientific?
Comment by keiths — April 30, 2007 @ 7:23 am
April 30th, 2007 at 7:30 am |
Hi keiths,
The whole point of science is to develop/use a methodology that addresses the unknown.
Comment by MikeGene — April 30, 2007 @ 7:30 am
April 30th, 2007 at 7:59 am |
Mike,
The existence of dragons used to be an unknown. Can you point me to the the controlled experiments that were done to establish their nonexistence as a scientific fact?
Comment by keiths — April 30, 2007 @ 7:59 am
April 30th, 2007 at 8:12 am |
Why presume an outcome in advance of a search?
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2007 @ 8:12 am
April 30th, 2007 at 9:22 am |
It started out as a parody, and keiths is trying to make a scientific argument out of it!
keiths, don't miss the point. It was in MikeGene's answer to Salim. Dawkins has said that the existence of God is a scientific one, and that the hypothesis has been tested and found false. If so, and if Dawkins is really representing science, he ought to have an article or two in hand to support his thesis. What he has instead is an opinion and a prejudice.
Critics complain that ID has not published much in peer-reviewed journals. I need not bother to look up the current count of such research–what counts as ID research can be disputed, so people will get different counts anyway–but regardless, the total is so much greater than the total (0) of peer-reviewed articles on Dawkins' hypothesis, the ratio can't even be computed!
Dawkins claims to be the spokesman for rationality and science done right. There's no evidence at all of science done right when he makes claims like this, though.
Comment by TomG — April 30, 2007 @ 9:22 am
April 30th, 2007 at 9:43 am |
Science:
http://www.livescience.com/hum...
Dawkins:
Child abuse
Comment by cody — April 30, 2007 @ 9:43 am
April 30th, 2007 at 10:19 am |
instead of saying "dragons dont exist", or in dawkins case he has often said "i dont need to know anything about christianity to know its not true, anymore than i need to know about fairyology to know fairies arent real" (pharaphrased), wouldnt it be more productive not to fall into such a vague and reductive approach? his statement on fairies and religion, at least to some point, shows that he is dogmatically not willing to search out more specific or complex answers to his "hypothethsis" other than "FALSE!" from the get go. i think this is demostarted wonderfully when dawkins/harris/dennet argue with atran: he is very specific and very scientific, while telling them that they are basically full of propaganda, and dont have much science behind them at all.
dragons did exist, and there is interesting anthropology research that has done a very interesting job giving specific and scientificly motivated research concerning the topic.
what are dawkins and harris argueing? that metaphysics has gone the way of the dodo, leaving science in its wake, or even lets say rationality in its wake?
dawkins and harris have often said that anything that is dogmatic is a form of religion, and that religion clings to dogma as a good thing. the first assertion is a plain form of propaganda. the second, dawkins and harris are unqualified to say anything about because they havent studied neither "fairies", nor "fairology". as ive asked before…is dogma beneficial in any regards? i say that yes, it can be, where as dawkins and harris believe, dogmatically as far as i can tell, that it cannot be good.
Comment by dantedanti — April 30, 2007 @ 10:19 am
April 30th, 2007 at 11:22 am |
That the Dawkins-type ID critics don't understand science. They want to use science/evolution to declare that God does not exist, but it looks as if not one single controlled experiment was done to test the existence of God.
I do not think anybody has claimed to be able to 100% disprove the existence of gods - for the simple reason that there are as many different concepts of what a god might be as there are people who can believe in them. Dawkins/Harris & Hitchins have put forwards some very credible evidence that shows the absurdity of god-belief. I'm sure that believers find this uncomfortable and offensive, but that is hardly surprising.
Furthermore, I'm sure that Dawkins, Harris and friends all know that one cannot prove a negative. They cannot disprove that gods exist any more than you can disprove the existence of unicorns, ghosts and leprechauns.
James Randi has famously performed a whole range of tests for supernatural phenomena. If Mr Randi can be believed then we have not ever had any reason to believe they exist. All of the people who claimed psychic powers turned out to be delusional or frauds. No supernatural phenomena has ever been proven to exist. We are still free to believe in the supernatural, but the foundation for this belief is nothing more than faith or desire.
Testing for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god would pose some obvious challenges: For example just how do you determine the nature of something that is by definition invisible and everywhere and has allegedly stated that it declines to be observed. How would you tell the difference between a god that is a real thing in our universe or a god that is purely a figment of a collective imagination? Can we differentiate this entity from other entities which we believe do not exist?
I think most non-theistic types would agree that the existence of supernatural things is at best unproven and at worst a completely redundant and failed hypothesis. Science has yet do document a single case of demon-possession, talking to dead-people or telepathy. It's safe to assume that along with all these other things for which we have absolutely no evidence, that gods do not exist, except of course in our boundless imaginations.
If mainstream science is able to explain a wide range of phenomena without needing to invoke the supernatural, then it is only fair to presume that the supernatural is utterly irrelevant to those material phenomena.
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 11:22 am
April 30th, 2007 at 11:59 am |
I find the conflation of polytheism and monotheism to be one of the more annoying atheist rhetorical tricks.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 30, 2007 @ 11:59 am
April 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm |
im not offended in any way by their questions (some of which are very good and interesting ones), nor their conclusions. i am however offended by their ignorance of philosophy, cultural theory, and anthropology and very much so by their use of propaganda and its acceptances so readily.
agreed.
Comment by dantedanti — April 30, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm |
I find the conflation of polytheism and monotheism to be one of the more annoying atheist rhetorical tricks.
I was not attempting to imply that polytheism or monotheism are the same thing.
I do believe that both are examples of supernatural belief. Also, we have to acknowledge that there are many different religious beliefs so one theists concept of god can be radically different to another. Compare for example the beliefs of liberal Christians with conservative Christians.
Given that their concepts of god are somewhat different, if one were to provide a rigorous disproof of the existence of god you would have to disprove the existence of all of these gods. This is clearly an absurd task.
It seems more sensible to just say, that in the absence of any evidence for supernatural phenomena, it is a pretty safe bet to assume that nothing supernatural exists, and this includes any kind of god.
For the reasons I stated earlier, it might be very hard to directly prove the existence of a god. According to most scriptures, one of the properties that most gods allegedly share is that they decline to be measured. I cannot think of an experiment that would prove the existence of a thing this elusive.
We could take an alternative approach, for example if we could show firm evidence of smaller super-natural phenomena exist. For example, if we could prove that ghosts exist (something that Richard Dawkins would deny exists) then we would show that there are serious flaws with materialistic philosophy. If you could refute the basis of materialism then we could open the door to other non-materialistic enquiry.
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm |
I cover that topic extensively on my blog.
Comment by mcromer — April 30, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 12:33 pm |
Furthermore on poly-vs-mono theism; Can you guys give me a reason why I (as an atheist) should be any more or less critical of polytheistic religions than monotheistic religions?
I'm sorry that you found my comments irksome. I find the the concept of the monotheistic Allah just as absurd as the quasi-polytheistic Christian Trinity and the obviously polytheistic Hindu Pantheon. For the record, I do not go in for some new-age philosophies which argue for the existence of things that are not quite gods, more like mystical forces.
When addressing matters of belief I think it is only fair to point out that most people do not believe in exactly the same thing that you believe. I was trying to address the diversity of god-belief that can be observed in Human nature.
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pm |
I cover that topic extensively on my blog.
I get great pleasure from reading about this sort of thing. Tonight I shall spend some time reading your blog. Would you care to point me to a specific article which provides evidence that refutes naturalism?
If you have concrete experimental proof of phenomena that cannot possibly be explained on purely materialistic grounds then you will have discovered a great thing. May I urge you to publish a scientific paper so that others can re-produce your experiments and see super-natural phenomena for themselves. You may also win the Randi foundation prize of $1M.
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 1:10 pm |
Hi, salimfadhley,
One thing I've been wondering about is the naturalistic explanation for why there is a universe. What is the naturalistic explanation?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 30, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 1:23 pm |
TomG wrote:
Tom,
Look at Mike's criterion:
Now make a couple of small changes and ask yourself if you still agree with it:
Comment by keiths — April 30, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm |
Where did I say anything about "super-natural"?
That is a useless concept in my book.
What I cover are experiments and natural history which refute reductionistic materialism.
Randi is a dishonest showman. See this for just one example.
No serious scientist studying controversial phenomena will have anything to do with him.
Comment by mcromer — April 30, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 1:40 pm |
One thing I've been wondering about is the naturalistic explanation for why there is a universe. What is the naturalistic explanation?
This is a superb question. And I have no idea why the universe exists… or even if there IS a reason why the universe exists. I know that physicists are getting closer and closer to understanding what the first few moments of our universe may have been like, but of course that does not answer the question of "why" the universe is as it is.
It may be that this is a question for which the answer is un-knowable. There seem to be many un-knowable things in science. For example we cannot simultaneously know the exact position and velocity of an electron. That does not mean to say that there is something mystical about the electron, only that the laws of physics prevent some kinds of observations from being made.
Materialists seem to think that we cannot possibly know the exact velocity and exact position of an electron, but if non-materialists could find a way to know this then it would certainly prove that knowledge acquired through non-materialistic means has value.
I'm sure you wouldn't have asked that question if you had not been on the verge of offering me a credible solution to this most baffling problem. If you can provide me with a non-materialistic explanation that can be validated and furthermore show that no materialistic solution will ever be able to answer it then that would be just great: I would encourage you to publish… the world needs your insight.
However… I do not think you would have done much harm to materialism - most scientists seem to enjoy philosophical banter, but put greater faith in experimentation than argumentation. If you really want to put a dent in materialism, I suggest you start small.
Any scientist could dismiss the notion that the origin of the universe HAD to be super-natural as an argument through ignorance. They could also point out that any statement you make about the origin of the universe is untestable and therefore not useful science.
What you need to find is a small re-producable experiment that shows the supernatural exists. For example, if you could show that that useful information was obtained from tarrot-cards or a ouija-board. If you know two people who claim to have a personal relationship with a deity then you could try passing a message between the two test-subjects via that deity.
Thanks
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 1:44 pm |
Biologists don't understand science. They want to use science/evolution to declare that dragons do not exist, but it looks as if not one single controlled experiment was done to test the existence of dragons.
I should not have let this one pass:
Could somebody point me to the evidence of dragon existence? I always believed that they are mythical, imaginary creatures like Unicorns and gods.
I'm sure this comment was intended as a joke, but in this forum one never can tell.
:-)
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm |
Actually quantum physics has demonstrated that there is something very mystical about electrons, and everything else: quantum entanglement.
In terms of what our scientific experiments show us, electrons are not even really entitities. Instead, what exists is measurements, and these measurements fit a pattern of rules. Because no actual entity could possibly display the behaviors that our quantum experiments show us are real.
Comment by mcromer — April 30, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pm |
You have my permission to disbelieve in both. What is annoying is acting like the belief in God is even remotely similar to belief in one or more of "the gods". Monotheism is not having one god and polytheism simply having a few more - the entire concept of what "a god" is is so vastly different from "God" that its hardly worth even comparing. A race of aliens substantially more powerful than ourselves might be indistinguishable from most pagan gods, but they would be no more like God than a grasshopper in my back yard.
So, it is absolutely silly to refer to "the Christian god" or "the Muslim god", as if we all have our own little patron diety in some polytheistic framewrok. That's not the way we understand ourselves, or our relationship to each others. We don't have separate gods, we all believe in God. We disagree in some serious ways in what he is like, but we're talking about the same thing.
For the purpose of these sorts of discussions, talking about whether God exists is often quite sufficient. Monotheists agree on the basic characteristics of what God is, even if we strongly disagree on what he is like. If you want to talk broader than "God", you can refer to the supernatural, but God and the gods are not the same thing. At all.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 30, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 2:59 pm |
Hi, salimfadhley,
I live and work in a world that is a paragon of logic, of cause and effect. For twenty-two years I was a troublehooter of electronic systems, and for the previous ten years I've been a programmer, writing and debugging code. I don't give in for bs or fancy. The very bedrock of my thought system postulates that anything that exists has a cause, and that includes this universe. I assign no characteristics to this cause. How could I possibly? But by the law of cause and effect, I postulate that the universe did not exist, and then it did. I have no problem with calling that cause God. My idea of God does not coincide with a Christian or a Muslum God, nor is it encapsulated by Budhism or by any other religion that I'm aware of. I try not to bound "God" in any way. I can postulate a cause to the universe, but I cannot empirically or even logically qualify that cause in any specific way. Personally, I consider it illogical and unreasonable to NOT think that the universe had a cause, or that it did not exist and then that it did.
Not trying to harm materialism…was simply asking a question that interests me. The only answer in your reply that was relevant to my question was in the first two paragraps, that you don't know why the universe exists or even if there is a reason, and that the answer to that question might be unknowable. Let me get a little more specific. Do you believe that the universe had a cause? That it did not exist, and then it did? Please don't read any more into this question then what it is literally asking you.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 30, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 3:13 pm |
Since most scientists think that science can't prove or disprove the existence of God I'm not surprised you didn't find anything.
Comment by Chris Hyland — April 30, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 3:27 pm |
Wouldn't this depend on what you consider "purely materialistic grounds" ?
Mario Beauregard is a neurobiologist that would contend that a materialistic approach to neurobiology is fundamentally incomplete and doesn't work and would advance as evidence of this neuro plasticisty and other things.
Now the commited materialist can wave their hands and appeal to magic like they normally do to cover over the gaps, so as to avoid conceding that materialism may not be a complete explanation.
Such dubious idiocy is par for the course it seems, yet no doubt you would claim that such promisory notes mean that materialism is not yet ruled out. But when can we expect such promisory notes to be cashed in ?
Comment by thesciphishow — April 30, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 3:52 pm |
Experimental results are way overrated. Certainly in this context, which seems to be altogether lacking, as Mike Gene argues (or parodies).
Traditional arguments for the existence of God are often quite personal (irreproducible), but also logical and moral (assuming those categories are not "personal") and traditional arguments to the non-existence of God have been likewise persoanl ("I pryaed for pudding…"), logical, and moral (see Hume, e.g.), and therefore quite immaterial LOL.
Needless to say, neither side has much of an argument.
But its not really the kind of conclusion that one can argued into accepting, is it?
Or maybe the very question goes beyond the very categories of our cognition ("arguments," such as they are)?
Comment by Rock — April 30, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pm |
Do you believe that the universe had a cause? That it did not exist, and then it did? Please don't read any more into this question then what it is literally asking you.
I do not think it is something I have the tools to speculate upon. The problem is that all the knowledge I have concerns things that have happened within this universe, and I do not know for certain that the "beginning" of the universe was a spesific moment in time, like a tick of a clock. I also do not know for certain if a universe is a thing that can have a cause in the same sense that the cause of a ball's motion was being thwacked by a bat.
I'm also afraid to invoke some kind of 3rd party as the creator of the universe, for the simple reason that you have stated above that if the universe requires a "cause" then the thing that causes the universe must also have a cause. This is not the time to re-hash the 1st cause argument. It has been formulated so many times far better than I ever could.
You have my permission to disbelieve in both. What is annoying is acting like the belief in God is even remotely similar to belief in one or more of "the gods". Monotheism is not having one god and polytheism simply having a few more - the entire concept of what "a god" is is so vastly different from "God" that its hardly worth even comparing. A race of aliens substantially more powerful than ourselves might be indistinguishable from most pagan gods, but they would be no more like God than a grasshopper in my back yard.
I simply do not see the difference, please help me.
Hindus have many gods, each of which is supposed to be some aspect of a supreme deity. Christians have a Trinity, which means that their concept of god has three aspects: A father, son and a spirit. Muslims claim that their god is utterly indivisible. Of course I have dispensed with some highly complex theological concepts in less than a paragraph. I know that some Christian sects utterly refute the notion of a Trinity, and others emphasize it.
Having never met aliens or gods of any cardinality I have no way of validating your statements. It seems like speculation to me. I'm sure that a Hindu believer would be able to offer up a very passionate apology for their own belief system.
So, it is absolutely silly to refer to "the Christian god" or "the Muslim god", as if we all have our own little patron diety in some polytheistic framewrok. That's not the way we understand ourselves, or our relationship to each others. We don't have separate gods, we all believe in God. We disagree in some serious ways in what he is like, but we're talking about the same thing.
Again, speaking of an outsider in this forum it is hard for me to reconcile the views of god that people of faith have. One would have to do mental gymnastics in order to imagine that Muslims, Catholics, Lutherians and Unitarians are all talking about the same deity. When believers say contradictory things about the "one god", is it because some of them are mis-informed, or perhaps all of them are mis-informed?
You are completely wrong to suggest that I imagine the "Christian God" to be a "patron deity". This notion would be utterly foreign to me, for the simple reason that I do not believe that god(s), or any kind of super-natural phenomena exist.
Actually I do believe in the existence of gods, but in a purely an imaginary sense. I do not think that it is possible to say anything objective about any god. The only knowledge we can have about a god is that which is "revealed". I am personally at a loss to tell the difference between revelation and fiction.
I do think that gods exist in our imagination. A god can exist in exactly the same sense as a unicorn or Sherlock Holmes does. The funny thing about unicorns and that great detective is we all know more or less what they are like even though we have never met one.
I think it is important to qualify exactly what we mean when we say that we think something does or does not exist… do you agree?
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pm |
Needless to say, neither side has much of an argument.
Which, going back to my original comment is precisely why science is not interested in this god stuff. Knowledge of god does not help us understand anything in the scientific domain.
:-)
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 4:39 pm |
That's the point of Mike's initial post. That many who claim to be in the domain of science speak very confidently regarding God, making it out to seem as if science has proven God to be nonexistent.
Also, why do you say "god stuff"? You know precisely what the issue at hand is, yet you frame it in a disparaging context. You seem overly passionate about the nonexistence of God…. why so much passion in something you are so sure of to be nonexistent?
Sure it does. It explains why the laws of the universe behave the way they do. Science can't tell us why they have the values they do. The fact that you accept the findings of science show that you also accept the validity of knowledge that is not immediately derived by science - knowledge that transcends science.
Comment by Doug — April 30, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 5:08 pm |
salimfadhley wrote:
Well, whaddayaknow and, indeed, you don't say?
What about the hypothesis that grass is green—what do most non-theistic types say about that? Is the grass itself green, or is it just that it appears green to conscious observers under certain conditions? Et cetera.
Oh, and while you're at it, what is a conscious observer anyway, and what is a 'rational inference' made by such an observer? I've never actually seen my sister's consciousness, nor her observership, nor her inferences, rational or otherwise. When I look at my sister all I see are shapes and colors. Yet I'm led to believe that she possesses consciousness, is an observer, and sometimes (if all too rarely) makes rational inferences. However, I've never touched those things. Like God and numbers, they don't seem to be made of atoms or of matter in general. Does this mean they're not real, and that I should simply say that what I call 'my sister' is really just some intermittently appearing shapes and colors in my visual field?
Oh, talking of which, those don't seem to be made of atoms either. They're more like, you know, qualia.
Incidentally, the theistic hypothesis explains a lot. For instance, it provides a reason for the unbelievably ordered low entropy state of the universe at the Big Bang and the fine-tuned nature of the cosmological constant, for the fact that there are such phenomena as reason, morality, religious and aesthetic experience, and for the fact that science is possible and succesful.
Why is it safe to assume that? Let's say that there is no demon-possession, no communication with the dead, and no telepathic communication. Why would it then be safe to assume that theism is false? I don't see how the falsity of theism would be made more probable by the non-reality of those aforementioned phenomena. In fact, it strikes me that to think so would be a case of egregiously bad reasoning, unworthy of a 'bright'.
I can explain lots of things without invoking the supernatural. I can also explain lots of things without invoking gravity. For example, I can explain why Japan surrendered to America in 1945 and why some women got pregnant soon after, without mentioning gravity. Not even once.
But, as a wise man once said, so what? Does that mean gravity is not real?
Declining to be measured is hardly a criterion for being real. How does one measure a provably unprovable 'Godel sentence'? How does one measure the taste of Scotch or what an orgasm feels like? And, 1) if one could measure such things, would the 'measurements' provide knowledge of how Scotch tastes or how orgasms feel to someone who had never tasted Scotch or had an orgasm? And 2) If one could not measure them, would that mean there is no such thing as the taste of Scotch or the way an orgasm feels?
'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town' So said Daniel Dennett, well known atheist philosopher, in an interview with the New Statesman some months ago.
Dennett’s claim assumes that all facts are physical facts (or reducible to physical facts). But how could science—the discovery and explanation of physical facts—demonstrate that there are no nonphysical facts? If there were any such facts, science would be singularly ill-equipped to detect them. Hence asking for ‘scientific proof’ of nonphysical facts is like a blind man demanding that the existence of visual sensations be proven by taste, smell, touch, or sound.
Of course the central fact which grounds and mediates anyone’s access to any fact whatsoever is the fact of consciousness. And the central observation we can make about the fact of consciousness is that it’s unlike any physical fact we know. Indeed, consciousness, through which we encounter whole realms of the nonphysical such as rationality, morality, aesthetics, and meaning, is *intrinsically* unlike anything else in the known physical universe, a fact reflected in physics textbooks which purport to explain everything known about the universe but say nothing, far less explain anything, about consciousness.
Dennett knows this and it drives him crazy which is why he wrote a book pretentiously and portentously entitled, CONSCIOUSNESS EXPLAINED. For my sins I once had to read this book and was rather relieved to find that what I thought of Dennett’s work was shared by the eminent philosopher of mind, Ned Block, who penned a famous review of the book under the heading ‘Consciousness Ignored’, for that is what Dennett did. Dennett never got over the shock of finding that other philosophers did not agree that he had solved the mind-body problem.
Within a few short years, top Oxford philosophers of mind Galen Strawson and Colin McGinn were staking out positions that left Dennett spluttering with barely concealed fury at their inability to recognize him as one of the all-time philosophical greats—positions indeed which challenge to the root the quoted claim with which I began my remarks about Dennett.
His position in philosophy of mind having been relegated to the ‘extreme nutty’ end of the spectrum, Dennett in his latest book has turned his attention to his real target, religion. His method is the transparently lame one of preying on the public confusion between science and scientism–the latter being little more than the dogmatic prejudice of the blind man who insists that there are no such things as visual sensations because he can’t touch, taste, smell or hear them.
Unfortunately, the way British journalism is hellbent on lionizing critics of religious belief, this fact, and its explanation, is unlikely to be given a proper hearing.
Comment by stunney — April 30, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 5:12 pm |
Well I guess based on this reasoning given we have no evidence for the existence of the mind, it is reasonable to conclude they don't exist.
I guess it would explain the reasoning of Harris, Dawkins and others.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 30, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 5:27 pm |
That's the point of Mike's initial post. That many who claim to be in the domain of science speak very confidently regarding God, making it out to seem as if science has proven God to be nonexistent.
And my point was that he has misunderstood their message. Sure, no scientists have disproved the existence of God, on the other hand the god is a wholly redundant hypothesis. There is no field of science I know of that posits the existence of god or any other super-natural entity in order to explain phenomena.
It's not as if science has disproved the existence of god… science has simply outgrown god. It's an idea that science no longer needs, and has been shrugged off along with other out-dated concepts.
Also, why do you say "god stuff"? You know precisely what the issue at hand is, yet you frame it in a disparaging context. You seem overly passionate about the nonexistence of God…. why so much passion in something you are so sure of to be nonexistent?
Why should it matter if I am "disparaging" about god (singular) or gods (multiple) or any other imaginary thing? Something which does not exist cannot be offended. The phrase "god stuff" is intended to mean not just your judeo-christian concept of god, but the general idea of god or gods as understood by all theists.
I'm not passionate about the non-existance of anything, I am passionate about what you believe, which I find utterly fascinating. I'm also interested in a wide range of topics which I also consider to have no basis in fact. I'm a big fan of all kinds of esoterica, none of which I personally believe in. For the record I do not believe in Sasquatch, UFOs and Chemtrails, but I love to read about them.
Sure it does. It explains why the laws of the universe behave the way they do. Science can't tell us why they have the values they do. The fact that you accept the findings of science show that you also accept the validity of knowledge that is not immediately derived by science - knowledge that transcends science.
So just how EXACTLY is this knowledge useful? If God exists or does not exist would this change the way we learn about physics, biology, computer-science?
Other than in the study of "Intelligent Design" and Baraminology, are there any areas of study that do not make any sense at all outside a theistic world-view?
Does faith have applications in Aeronautics or the design of surgical procedure? Have the principles of biology ever been revealed in sacred scripture? Has any prophet advanced our knowledge of computability theory?
Of course the answer to these three absurd questions is no. A belief in god does not help anything other than a purely theological study.
What I am driving at is that the knowledge your religion purports to give science is practically useless to science. It is of no value because it is neither material nor germane to the process of science.
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 5:31 pm |
Hi, salilmfadhley,
No argument here that the idea of infinite causes is difficult to envision. Infinity is a difficult concept to grasp even mathematically, since it stands for no number, and to apply the concept to causes does not in any way shed a clearer light on the question that I posed. But I do accept a progression of causes that led to this universe. Or to put it another way, why suppose that the magic (a first cause) was the direct antecedent of this universe? In my thinking processes, a first cause is magic, and should not be possible. But there is a universe, and so I say that it must have been caused. But infinity is no number, which does not translate to physical entities, which are necessarily finite, since they can be counted. An infinite progression of causes is a difficult concept to embrace. When taken to its extremes, it begins to approach an absurdity. Yet, as I said, at the bedrock of my thought system there is a postulate that says every effect had a cause. This is why, at least several times a day, I remind myself that the fact that there even IS a universe is absurd.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 30, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm |
Well I guess based on this reasoning given we have no evidence for the existence of the mind, it is reasonable to conclude they don't exist. I guess it would explain the reasoning of Harris, Dawkins and others.
I'm sure you are making a joke here, and not crude criticism of the mental faculties of Mr Dawkins and Harris, but it is worth addressing the issue of what we can find evidence for:
The existence of the mind or soul is a tricky issue, but there are plenty of phenomena that cannot exist according to contemporary science which could be tested objectivly. If shown to exist, these phenomena would put a major dent in the dogma of materialism.
By the way, I'm listening to your Swinburn interview. It's interesting stuff… I've been listening to your show since episode one or two.
:-)
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pm |
salimfadhley wrote:
Yawn.
Yes, it would. For the simple reason, among others, that there wouldn't be any computer scientists if God didn't exist.
Now, if you're asking why one should expect science to be possible and successful, the theistic hypothesis explains this better than naturalism can. If naturalism is true, there'd be no reason to expect the universe to be rationally intelligible and enduringly so. There'd be no reason to expect the laws of physics not to change from one day to the next. How can the state of the universe today impersonally control the way it's going to be tomorrow? Impersonal matter controls the future, does it? Sounds like a magical rendition of the Matterdidit Chorus.
Theism explains why we should expect the universe to be that way.
I also like it when atheists object to the concept of a theistic creator on the ground that it 'violates causality'; and then in the next breath say, 'the universe/multiverse has no cause'. Which means that we have a big effect with no cause; as if that's not a 'violation of causality'.
Comment by stunney — April 30, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 6:00 pm |
Yeah it was a joke, although I do find Dawkins and Harris pretty clueless in when they criticse religion.
The existence of qualia and the failure to account for the subjective nature of experience should put a dent in the dogma until they actually manage to make good on the promise to account for these things.
Thanks and I hope you enjoy it. I've got interviews with PZ Meyers and Charles Townes coming up on science and religion, I hope you like those as well, and if there is anything I can do to make the show better for you, feel free to email me with suggestions.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 30, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 6:34 pm |
salimfadhley:
So Doug and other believers do not exist? You can't be that obtuse.
What phoney verbiage. You're like most EAs; craving the attention they get with the juvenile routine about God not existing.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 6:37 pm |
Hi JoeG,
You wrote…
Note that MikeGene did NOT claim Dawkins said "the hypothesis has been tested and found false." You did.
This is shield-bashing at its best. ID is somehow under attack because Dawkin's challenges NOMA and says the existance of God is ripe for scientific study.
1. Does "ID"="God" or not?
2. Do you accept NOMA or not?
These are the basic questions both sides of the Culture War use as weapons against the other side. Here is my thought-provoking suggestion…
Figure out (and declare) your stand before questioning others.
For me, I can accept that ID science is not about God (here is my ID proposal), but it is obvious the ID Movement is. As for NOMA, I believe we are observing its inevitable collapse. Both sides are trying to claim the one, mutual OMA Truth.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not construed as an agreement that the About Us statement, "We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 30, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 6:38 pm |
stunney:
Good point. The universe has existed for a finite time. The cause of its origin was… and the cause of that was… ad infinitum. BTW, I responded to your comment in the other thread.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 6:41 pm |
Hi Salim,
My Cosmological Physical Incompleteness Theorem (from 1996) can be found here (see part one "Hawking's Error")
Last time I spoke to Mr. Randi (1997) he treated me with utter contempt. He completely refused to respond to my pleas for critical (skeptical/scientific) analysis regarding my 1996 article (above) closing with the following; "You are just a religious nut, I have no time for religious nuts. Go away!"
It was at this time (1997) that I began to think that something was very seriously wrong in orthodox science. Physical incompleteness is a consequence of general relativity. General relativity is science. General relativity is not religion. General relativity, like it or not, is based upon "concrete experimental (and observational) proof." The supporting relativity was produced by relativist Frank Tipler and published in 1979 in the journal Nature.
Comment by William Brookfield — April 30, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 6:44 pm |
Yes, it would. For the simple reason, among others, that there wouldn't be any computer scientists if God didn't exist.
This is a joke right?
It's easy for people with very different frames of reference to miss each other's jokes! if it's not a joke, then it's a very silly statement.
I'm a computer scientist myself. In the years I spent at university I had to study a lot of books. Mainly these were electronic and mathematical texts. They concerned themselves with topics such as what is computable and how one designs algorythms to solve real-world problems. None of the set-texts were religious in nature.
We did study Noam Chomsky's theories of languages. We studied the History of computing. We learnt the theories of Turing and Djikstra. We did not study the bible.
Since graduating I have seen many examples of what I call "Faith-based programming". Does that count?
Now, if you're asking why one should expect science to be possible and successful, the theistic hypothesis explains this better than naturalism can. If naturalism is true, there'd be no reason to expect the universe to be rationally intelligible and enduringly so. There'd be no reason to expect the laws of physics not to change from one day to the next.
I'm pretty sure that all of the above is just wild and unfounded speculation, or to put it another way… theology. But if you know of any research that proves that a god is responsible for maintaining the consistency of physical laws, I would be keen to read it.
So you are suggesting that only the existence of a god can account for any kind of consistency in the known universe? Can you state a basis for this theory? How do you know that in the absence of a god the laws of physics would change? What natural process accounts for the "drift" of these natural laws were god not locking them down? What process does god use to immobilize these natural laws?
This is a pretty weak argument for the existence of God. It's a slightly updated version of "The fact that the sun rises in the morning is proof of god" argument, which did not credibly survive the rennaisance.
How can the state of the universe today impersonally control the way it's going to be tomorrow? Impersonal matter controls the future, does it? Sounds like a magical rendition of the Matterdidit Chorus.
I do not understand the argument you are trying to make here: It seems that you are suggesting that you are suggesting that the thing responsible for all change in the universe is something other than the normal consequences of the laws of physics. How about you come out and say what you believe.
Your theories interest me. They are perhaps the most fascinating theories of this thread so far, and I want to read more of them, but…
… I have to go to bed now. I'd appreciate knowing what SciPhi thinks of this argument? I will check in on this thread in the morning. As a suggestion for your show, I'd love to see your take on Lutherian philosophy.
:-)
:-)
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 6:55 pm |
My Cosmological Physical Incompleteness Theorem (from 1996) can be found here (see part one "Hawking's Error")
William,
Wouldn't that be exciting if we discovered a major error in Hawking's theories… I lack the mathematical skill to truly understand what Hawking has done, or as the case may be, done-wrong.
Your paper does not resemble any physics paper I have ever read, for starters there does not seem to be any mathematics at all in it at all. Is this because you are attempting to overcome the limiting materialistic dogma of modern physics?
Have you considered presenting this paper to the Discovery Institute? They are known to be more open-minded about this sort of thing.
Comment by salimfadhley — April 30, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 7:56 pm |
I just happened to get this solicitation from Amazon today:
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
I particularly like this comment:
After reading, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, my friend, a self-proclaimed atheist, said he now believes there is a God. …
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — April 30, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 9:37 pm |
Salimfadhley:
This is a joke right?
I don't think it is. God is a necessary being, without whom no contingent existents (you, me, rocks, computer scientists) could exist. The ground of all being, that makes the existence of anything else possible. If that is what Stunney's referring to (and I think it is), he's treading theologically orthodox and well-argued ground. To refute the existence of God put in that way, you'd need to put your philosophical boots on. You'd need to show the notion of necessary existence as somehow incoherent. Which places you right into a debate from Anselm and Aquinas to Findlay and Hartshorne.
The argument is very useful, because it moves away the God question from any kind of naive empiricism. The idea that the existence of God is somehow empirically confirmable or falsifiable. But there's no way to empirically falsify metaphysical statements - whether the existence of God, or the validity of materialism, dualism, panpsychism, whatever. All are, as philosophical viewpoints, perfectly in accord with the scientific world as we know it.
Earlier on in the thread, you asked M Cromer: Would you care to point me to a specific article which provides evidence that refutes naturalism?. As per the above, I do not think it can be empirically done. But naturalism (as metaphysical naturalism/materialism) has been shown to be self-refuting by Popper ("The Open Universe" and the first part of his book co-written by Eccles "The Self and its Brain"), Nagel ("The Last Word") and others. Of course, these are not experimental falsifications. Rather, they show that the philosophy is contradictory at some point and dubiously coherent. And that's the line of attack to take with metaphysical statements, including theism.
A way out of course would be to regard any empirically unsolveable question as inherently senseless, and to dismiss metaphysics tout court on that ground. But that answer would run into problems of its own.
Comment by MerlijnDeSmit — April 30, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 9:39 pm |
I cannot speak to the Hindus, as I don't understand them terribly well. But as far as most paganism of antiquity and modern tribalism, the gods are essentially like us, only comparably more powerful. It's the relationship between a grasshopper and us. These beings can do things that seem limitless, but they have their own wars, conflicts, limitations, etc.
Not so with God. This is the unmoved mover at the root of all reality. All things that exist are contingent on his being. He is the first cause from which all causes come from. He is the only thing that did not begin to exist, for he simply IS. When someone says "God" - this is what they are talking about.
Of course, they talk about a great deal more. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Platonists, and any number of others have a great many opinions about just what God is like. Many of these are irreconcilable. But it's like a group of people stranded on a desert island talking about New York city. Some may have been there long ago, some may have only seen pictures. They might have a great many opinions on what the city is like - they might argue about it. Some may be more right than others. But it would be misleading to talk of all the different "New York Cities" - for they all agree that it is a single city.
Furthermore, say the people also talk about cars - and they remember hondas, acuras, toyatas, fords, etc - many different kinds, all existing together in the mass of life that is NYC. Some may not believe some cars existed, some may conflate some types with others. But it would be even sillier to talk about how they all have cars - "hondas, acuras, toyotas, and new york cities".
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 30, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 10:02 pm |
Hi Keiths,
Indeed. Which goes to show that science is not the only way to acquire knowledge. Hmmm. Is it still raining out there. Hold on……why yep, it is. Did I just do science? If so, has someone watered something down or is that just the rain?
Are you trying to argue that the scientific method is superfluous to science? That experiments are superfluous to the scientific method? That a good control is superfluous to an experiment?
After returning to this thread after a long day’s work, I’m still left with my question:
Chris writes, “Since most scientists think that science can't prove or disprove the existence of God I'm not surprised you didn't find anything.” I agree. But I’m not the one arguing that science has proved or disproved the existence of God.
Comment by MikeGene — April 30, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 10:24 pm |
stunney:
Stupid. Dennett is one of the most respected and influential philosophers in the field. The fact that Ned Block or others might disagree with him means zilch, disagreeing is what philosophers do. And, more importantly than his position vis-a-vis other philosophers (who frankly aren't all that important as a class), Dennett is the philosopher of mind most in tune with practicing scientists — he listens to them, and vice versa.
How does the presence of a great meddler in the sky make the universe more predictable? I've heard this argument before and it never makes any sense to me, even less so than other arguments for theism. It seems to be an effort to equate atheism with randomness and theism with order, as if the only way the universe could be ordered is if there is some Guy making the rules. But the thrust of science (particularly evolutionary biology) is to show how order can emerge on its own. This is not necessarily easy to understand, but the problem is that the theistic explanation is not an explanation at all, since it just pushes the question of order and complexity down a level.
The page you cite from Jaki is an argument that Christianity was necessary for science to develop. That's an interesting thesis (though hardly original), but it says nothing at all about the truth of religion. We evolved from fish but that doesn't mean that fish deserve the same respect that humans do.
Comment by mtraven — April 30, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 10:31 pm |
Keiths: The existence of dragons used to be an unknown. Can you point me to the the controlled experiments that were done to establish their nonexistence as a scientific fact?
The lesson seems to be that science is superfluous to logic by definition. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
drag·on
NOUN:
A mythical monster traditionally represented as a gigantic reptile having a lion's claws, the tail of a serpent, wings, and a scaly skin.
Keiths asks for experimental evidence establishing the non-existence of something that is defined as a mythical monster. IOW, demonstrate empirical evidence that a myth (as defined by English language convention) does not exist. Atheists are so very clever though. What follows will be an analogy to God who every atheist knows is a myth too. After all atheism is based on reason not blind faith in the English language.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 10:34 pm |
.
I guess it depends on how you define what is natural vs super natural. If natural is defined by that which is confined to space, time and matter we do have evidence of supernatural phenomena. Its callled the big bang.
It does not follow that because the universe requires a cause then that which caused the universe must also have a cause
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — April 30, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 10:39 pm |
MerlijnDeSmit:
He's treading water if you ask me. If you define God as a necessary being, then God exists by definition. That type of argument can't really demonstrate anything about whether God exists in reality, and it says nothing about any characteristics of God that make him interesting to religious folk.
Comment by mtraven — April 30, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 10:50 pm |
salimfadhley wrote:
Not half as silly as the statement that you would exist if God did not. Like, go on, explain to me how.
You can start with explaining the origin of the laws of physics and the origin of their being tuned for rationally and morally conscious life.
Then, once you've got that done, you can try answering Stephen Hawking's questions:
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
…The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"
Wow, that's amazing. Congratulations.
Wow, that's truly awesome. Well done.
Count for what? That you call certain phenomena 'faith-based programming'? Yes, I suppose it counts for that.
There's a lot of research. And in over 2000 years of the theistic hypothesis, no better explanation of the consistency of physical laws has been verified.
A recent competitor known as the Multiverse hypothesis has unfortunately posited an infinite number of unobservable universes—-thus violating Ockham's Razor in probably the most spectacular way in the history of humanity. Theism is more parsimonious; it just posits one reality to explain not only the consistency of physical reality, but also the existence of finite minds endowed with the ability to understand physics, plus the existence of moral, religious, and aesthetic experience.
Since you obviously like reading and have an inquiring mind, you might enjoy this paper: Universe or Multiverse? A Theistic Perspective
.
Also, since you're interested in physical laws, why not read Nancy Cartwright's paper, No God, No Laws at this link:
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/cart...
Cartwright is the Chair of LSE's Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, and a world renowned expert on the concept of natural or physical laws, as you'll see if you browse her list of publications at the link on her name I've provided.
I already provided a link and my own brief summary of the basic argument. If you want to read more about it, you can look at the books on Jaki's bibliography.
I have.
Your theories bore me to tears,
Sleep tight. Sweet dreams.
But you're right, the yawn factor is becoming overpowering. Zzzzzz….
Comment by stunney — April 30, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 11:20 pm |
MerlijnDeSmit wrote:
It already did. When the logical positivists proposed that all statements which are neither analytic nor empirically testable are meaningless, it wasn't long before people noticed that that statement isn't analytic or empirically testable. Hence, if it's true, it's, er, meaningless.
I guess that's the trouble with universal quantifers.
And to think they were called logical positivists.
O. The Iron Knee.
Not that I'm suggesting any 'bright' would ever make a blunder like that.
Nose Iree.
PS–Thanks, Bradford, I did read your response on van Inwagen's contention that human rationality has not had enough time to evolve from whatever our evolutionary precursors had to being able to do what it can do now. I found your answer helpful.
Comment by stunney — April 30, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 11:24 pm |
I can't speak to demon possession. But science has certainly examined the other two phenomena you cited.
Here are a whole set of research studies demonstrating telepathy from one just one researcher. Many others are available online from other researchers.
And here is a triple-blind study demonstrating the ability of certain mediums to convey information using anomalous communications, purportedly from deceased individuals. Again, there is a rich history of scientific studies of mediumship, with many of the studies showing knowledge transfer beyond any materialist mechanism.
Comment by mcromer — April 30, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
May 1st, 2007 at 12:41 am |
Respected and influential by whose standards ? He is probably one of the best know outside the field of the philosophy of mind as a philosopher of mind, but that just points to him being a good populariser.
It doens't mean Zilch. If lots of the other philosophers in the field disagree with you, perhaps you are missing something.
Oh I seriously doubt that is true. I'm sure he does talk to them, but I doubt he has the time of day for neuroscientists like Mario Beauregard that ascribe to a non-materialist form of neurobiology.
As for "it not being important what other philosophers think". Actually this is really important. If those in the field and most qualified to judge the quality of the work think it is no good then it probably isn't. You are basically advancing the line that a snake oil salesman advances.
Because God is not the "great meddler in the sky" as you suggest, but provides a rational ordering principle to the universe. It should be surprising that we can make sense of the universe and that it yeilds to predictable quantifiable results.
Ok, but you've already admited above that you don't care what qualified experts in a field think so i'm not going to put much stock in your confusion.
That makes for a nice strawman, but it is deeper and subtler than that. Nothing we know about the laws of physics suggest the universe should be understandable, it just is. That is weird, although the weirdness is obviously lost on you.
Good luck with that. You realise Smolin's ideas in this regard have fallen on some hard times right ?
I can see why you think Dennett such a genius and don't think expert opinion is worth anything.
In a materialist worldview, the answer is yes. They all deserve none if we don't feel like it.
Comment by thesciphishow — May 1, 2007 @ 12:41 am
May 1st, 2007 at 12:43 am |
Actually I did an interview with journalist Denyse O'Leary who is writing a book with neuroscientist Mario Beuregard and she commented that there is evidence for this sort of thing, it just functions at a low level. Certianly at a much lower level than the TV clowns you see doing it for entertainment value.
Anyway, if you want me to notify when the interview becomes available shoot me an email to thesciphishow@gmail.com
Comment by thesciphishow — May 1, 2007 @ 12:43 am
May 1st, 2007 at 1:00 am |
mtraven wrote:
I've said this before:
1. For natural selection to work at all, it must work upon some domain.
2. To identify any domain whatsoever in the first place, science must find order of some kind pertaining to that domain.
3. Hence, every domain upon which natural selection is to operate must already be ordered in some way.
4. Hence, natural selection cannot be the sole explanation of order in nature, unless one posits an infinite unobservable or an infinity of unobservables upon which natural selection operates, which defeats the purpose of relying on natural selection in the first place, which was to explain phenomena without positing anything infinite and/or unobservable.
Some order, at some level of scientific analysis, must be primitive. It can't all be generated by natural selection. Or else, one must posit an infinity of some kind, which by definition must be physically unobservable by finite scientists.
Now a word about Ockham’s Razor.
The Ockham’s Razor principle says, 'Don't multiply entities beyond necessity.' Ok, to explain the perceived order of the universe, the proponents of a multiverse posit trillions upon trillions of additional entities—additional universes, or additional universe-regions (beyond the limits of what we observe). Theists, posit one additional entity. So prima facie theism is more ontologically economical.
Notice that both sides see the positing of something beyond what we observe as being necessary to explain the order inherent in what we do observe. Theists hold that because that order is intrinsically intelligible to mathematical reason, and because mathematical reason is essentially an attribute of rational mind, inference to an ultimately mind-like reality is more probable than either a materialist or Platonist alternative. But notice that all three worldviews posit something invisible and infinite to explain perceived order:
1) God
or
2) A Platonic Mathematical Realm (which must contain at least as infinite a number of abstract entities as mathematics itself)
or
3) A Realm of Universes or Universe-Regions with no fixed or determinable upper limit on their number
As between these three alternatives, Ockham's Razor either cannot by itself decide since there are serious countability issues with all three, or else favors theism. (Aquinas has technical reasons to do with God not belonging to a genus or species and with God's existence being identical with God's essence, for not regarding God as a being or an entity, and therefore not being strictly speaking a countable type of reality.)
My argument in this respect in purely defensive rather than positive; that is, my argument has been not to rely on Ockham's Razor, but simply to reject the claim that it favors the non-theistic alternatives. Because it does not! In other words, if you're going to appeal to Ockham, there's no reason to think that theism does badly in that regard. On the contrary. But my argument actually doesn't rely on it, it simply says all three worldviews are either on a par, Ockham-wise, or, if anything, theism is better, Ockham-wise.
Theism also does a better job in my view because it's better suited to account for consciousness, rationality, morality, aesthetics, and religious experience. A materialist multiverse can't account for any of that if materialism in the philosophy of mind is false. I am persuaded that it is false for reasons advanced by the likes of Saul Kripke and David Chalmers . And I prefer theism to Platonism since there's no good Platonist theory of causation, whereas we know that there are causally active minds.
So theism, as an abductive inference , that is, an inference to a single transcendent mind as being the best explanation for cosmic order as well the existence of consciousness, reason, morality, aesthetic value, religious experience and spirituality, etc, strikes me as at least as, indeed more plausible than either a mysterious realm of impersonal Platonic mathematical laws and equations, or the apotheosis of meaningless, purposeless ontological extravagance represented by the Multiverse.
But notice that all three notions—God, the Platonic Realm, and the Multiverse—are notions of an unobservable infinite.
Natural selection can't avoid it any more than theism or Platonism.
Comment by stunney — May 1, 2007 @ 1:00 am
May 1st, 2007 at 1:35 am |
mtraven wrote:
Given the philosophical ineptitude of lots of scientists, this may not be a good thing.
McGinn, who is no theist but rather a naturalist, thinks the 'research program' of giving a neuroscientific reduction of consciousness is a blind alley. It may be better if some of the scientists talking to Dennett spent more time trying to grasp McGinn's arguments. Or Kripke's, which have been around for over 35 years.
A sensation of heat is not essential to what heat is. But a sensation of pain is essential to what pain is. Take away a sensation of heat and there will still be heat. Take away the sensation of pain and you will have taken away pain.
The basic metaphysical point is this: one can in many contexts make a distinction between what something is—the real nature of a thing—and how it appears to us. But in the case of pain-states, or other states whose nature essentially involve consciousness, there just is no distinction to be drawn between the real nature of such states and how such states appear to us (or to other sentient creatures). In these cases, reality and appearance are one and the same thing.
To take Kripke's example, if one leaves out of a list of pain's essential, constitutive properties—the properties that go to make something actually BE pain—the phenomenal property of how pain FEELS, then one would be leaving out the crucial, most essential property pain has. If some state S doesn't feel painful, S just is not a state of pain.
Another example is color and color-sensations. Blue light = electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength. But a state S is not a blue-sensation state if it lacks the phenomenal property of appearing-blue, because the reality of a blue-sensation state and how a blue-sensation appears to phenomenal consciousness are one and the same thing. Take away the blue-appearing, and you've taken away the blue-sensation itself. Yet light of the relevant wavelength of radiation could easily remain, filling a given space around a person's brain. (But perhaps the person is blind, or sleeping, or wearing goggles that prevent blue-sensations being triggered by the ambient blue light.)
Oh, here's something I just came across: 41 arguments for God.
Years ago, I attended lectures by Plantinga given at Oxford based on these notes: TWO DOZEN (OR SO) THEISTIC ARGUMENTS
I think he actually presented 26.
Comment by stunney — May 1, 2007 @ 1:35 am
May 1st, 2007 at 2:21 am |
sciphi, you don't seem to understand my points. First, Dennett is not marginal to his field, that is bullshit stunney is putting out. The fact that some philosophers disagree with him means nothing (if they all disagreed, that would be different, but that's hardly the case). Second, even if he was at the fringes of philosophy, that doesn't much matter, since philosophy itself is a marginal profession these days, compared to science (if you doubt me, imagine what would happen if all the philosophers suddenly disappeared from the world, as opposed to all the scientists, or other accountants for that matter). And Dennett is well connected to the sciences (and again, the fact that he might not have coffee with your particular nutball neuroscientist means nothing).
Comment by mtraven — May 1, 2007 @ 2:21 am
May 1st, 2007 at 3:15 am |
Mike asks:
No, Mike, I'm disputing your claim that you can distinguish scientific questions from unscientific questions by asking "Has a controlled experiment been done to test this?" You wrote:
Whether dragons exist is surely a scientific question, and one that we have answered to our satisfaction. This remains true whether or not anyone has ever run a controlled experiment to test for the existence of dragons.
And surely you don't think that a question becomes scientific only after an experiment is run, do you? Was the age of moon rocks an unscientific question in the 1940's, but not in the 1970's, simply because dating experiments had been done by then on lunar samples?
Cosmologists can't rerun the Big Bang, holding some parameters constant while varying others. Does that mean cosmology is not a science?
Note that Dawkins himself is quite aware that God could be scientifically undetectable, if he chose not to reveal Himself:
Lastly, note that a paper doesn't need to mention God by name to have bearing on His existence. For example, every radiometric dating paper which concludes that a rock is millions or billions of years old, and every astronomical paper which establishes interstellar and intergalactic distances in the millions and billions of light-years, helps to build a decisive case against the existence of a non-deceitful YEC God.
Comment by keiths — May 1, 2007 @ 3:15 am
May 1st, 2007 at 3:36 am |
stunney wrote:
stunney,
How does theism give you a reason to expect the laws of physics to remain constant from day to day? Why couldn't an omnipotent God change them at will?
Comment by keiths — May 1, 2007 @ 3:36 am
May 1st, 2007 at 4:10 am |
salimfadhley wrote:
thesciphishow responded:
SciPhi,
Why do you think that the evidence for telepathy is on a par with the evidence for the existence of minds?
Off topic — you asked for feedback on The Sci Phi Show, so I have a suggestion. You've done interviews with a lot of big names, but a visitor to your site wouldn't know that from looking at your home page. (In fact, I didn't know it the first few times I visited).
How about adding a "Best of the Sci Phi Show" sidebar to your homepage, listing 20 or so of the big names, each with a link to the interview you did with that person? That will get people's