Reasonable Acknowledgements
by BradfordGordy Slack wrote What neo-creationists get right, an article in which he attempts to set aside his gut reactions and dispassionately assess some points made by the opposition. From the article:
First, I have to agree with the ID crowd that there are some very big (and frankly exciting) questions that should keep evolutionists humble. While there is important work going on in the area of biogenesis, for instance, I think it's fair to say that science is still in the dark about this fundamental question. It's hard to draw conclusions about the significance of what we don't know. Still, I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close. I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.
Slack acknowledges that there is an element of faith connected with his views about life's origin. Believing in what is not empirically documented is not a phenomenon confined to one group of people.
Second, IDers also argue that the cell is far more complex than Darwin could have imagined 149 years ago when he published On the Origin of Species. There is much more explaining to do than those who came before us could have predicted. Sure, we also know a lot more about natural selection and evolution, including the horizontal transfer of portions of genomes from one species to another. But scientists still have much to learn about the process of evolution if they are to fully explain the phenomenon. Again, I have faith that science will complete that picture, but I suspect there will be some big surprises. Will one of them be that an intelligent being designed life? I doubt it. Even if someone found compelling evidence for a designer, for us materialists, it would just push the ultimate question down the road a bit. If a Smart One designed life, what is the material explanation for its existence?
This is also a helpful acknowledgement. There are philosophical differences among people sharing good intentions. Gordy Slack notes that he views issues through a materialistic lens.
The third noteworthy point IDers make has its roots, paradoxically, in a kind of psychological empiricism. Millions of people believe they directly experience the reality of a Creator every day, and to them it seems like nonsense to insist that He does not exist. Unless they are lying, God's existence is to them an observable fact. Denying it would be like insisting that my love for my children was an illusion created by neurotransmitters. I can't imagine a scientific argument in the world that could convince me that I didn't really love my children. And if there were such an argument, I have to admit I'd be reluctant to accept it, however compelling it appeared on paper. I have too much respect for my own experience.
Stuffing atheism down the throats of others is no more palatable than forcing religion down one's throat. As Joy has observed, dualing metaphysics does not win converts. Using neuroscience, as both a prop for materialism and a basis for denying spirituality, is a scientific non-starter.
Which leads me to a final concession to my ID foes: When they say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers, they're right. A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas. I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didn't know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science. They're still correct when they say evolution happens. But I'm afraid they're wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology. Many of them are best described as zealots. Ideological zeal isn't incompatible with good science; its coincidence with a theory proves nothing about that theory's explanatory power.
Contrary to the Gone with the Wind meme, no side has cornered the market on ignorant zealots.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Ha! An interesting read, Bradford. Especially that last one.
Not that I'm an expert on evolutionary biology, but I've really enjoyed bumping into atheists and self-proclaimed skeptics who are adamantly certain evolution (which, of course, I believe in) is correct, yet are unbelievably ignorant of the fundamentals. I still enjoy having it told to me that the cambrian explosion was a creationist myth.
Comment by nullasalus — June 22, 2008 @ 12:00 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 am
This is how I see it:
It's not just being reluctant to accept it, it's also that if this were to occur, the power of subjective experience would call the whole "objective" approach into serious question.
Anyway, Gordy Slack seems like a reasonable guy. Maybe someday he'll stumble across the DM.
Comment by MikeGene — June 22, 2008 @ 12:11 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 am
Gordy Slack wrote:
Gordy is right about this. I've met many people who accept evolution without understanding why it is correct, and who don't question it at all. I think this is a mistake, for all the same reasons I've been mentioning lately on this blog.
One small mitigating factor is that none of us has time to master all of science. In the areas we don't personally study, we have a choice of either remaining agnostic or of accepting the scientific consensus when it is strong, as it is for evolution. Thus it's not entirely irrational for someone to accept evolution without understanding it.
However, I would say that the basics of evolution, including the concepts that Gordy mentions (adaptive radiation, genetic drift, and natural selection) are easy enough to understand that no person who aspires to scientific literacy really has an excuse for not learning them.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 12:32 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 am
Good topic Bradford. In particular I found the following passage from Slack's article to be quite interesting:
Personally I have a problem with people who try to introduce metaphysical faith into the natural sciences. The study of science should be approached from an objective, fair-minded empirical perspective. Skepticism and agnosticism are the kinds of things that should be welcome in science.
Faith is fine, but it belongs in theology, philosophy or religion.
Slack should be commended for at least being somewhat forth right and honest. However, he needs to take that honesty one step further and admit, starting with himself, that his "faith" is based first and foremost on a priori naturalistic assumptions. What reason do we have to believing that those assumptions are provable or true?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 22, 2008 @ 12:37 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 am
here is my favorite quote:
This was exactly my point on the last open thread. I'm glad to see someone on the other side understands the implications of the sensus divinitatis.
I think this could be an area of productive scientific research if we could just get past the assumption of atheism that has gripped science for the last century or so.
Here is the rest of the paragraph
Now you know why so many folks reject the interpretation of Darwinism put forth by Dawkins and co and why ID is not going away. It has nothing to do with lack of education or religious brainwashing.
In this case it's all about observed facts and which theory best explains them. ID explains the sensus divinitatis and Darwinism tries desperately to explain it away.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 7:48 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
fifth monarchy man wrote:
Fifth,
You're missing a couple of key points here:
1. Slack is not a believer. He's not saying you're right to trust the sensus divinitatis; he's saying he understands why you do — that denying it would feel the same to you as denying his love for his children would feel to him.
2. The difference between the sensus divinitatis and love is that the SD supposedly senses a truth about the outside world — the existence of God. To love is to experience feelings of love internally. It says nothing about the outside world.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 9:42 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
Robin
I did not say he was a believer only that he understands the real power of knowledge gained by the SD.
Agreed but Love for ones children is a real thing. And when I experience my children's love for me I have new and valuable information about the outside world. I would not embrase a theory that explained this love as an illusion created by neurotransmitters either
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 10:35 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:43 am
robin:
I had to look up 'sensus divinatatis' (not big on Calvin here). Your characterization reveals a misconception, I think. Just as critics keep telling us that intelligent agency in the design of life must be exterior, here you insist that empirical experience of the divine must also be exterior. Yet of all the senses designed to give us information about the exterior world (if there is one, and that's fairly questionable), not one of them equates to this sensus divinatatis. It's not sight, sound, smell, taste or texture.
You seem to understand love as an interior emotion. Why would you assume that an innate apprehension of divinity isn't also interior?
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 10:43 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 am
Morpheus: What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about your senses, what you feel, taste, smell, or see, then all you're talking about are electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
Comment by MikeGene — June 22, 2008 @ 10:50 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Mike Gene:
All claims to objectivity involve inherently subjective perceptions and interpretations of perceptions. Epistemological differences account for differing perceptions of truth.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Mike:
in this case I mean something like
Not imaginary existing as fact, rather than as a product of dreams or the imagination
Yes but we assume that the things we observe with our senses are real things. Our brains compel us to
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
JOHN_A_DESGNER:
Perhaps you're right if you have a doctrinal approach in mind but I think it is impossible for humans to function without extending beliefs beyond the point of reliable sensory data. Such data can be inconclusive and humans need to act in spite of insufficient data.
Slack does merit commendation but you are correct in identifying naturalism as the basis for his faith.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
fifth monarchy man wrote:
Absolutely, but why insist that a physical brain cannot experience love?
Experiencing love is different from loving. We're talking about the latter here.
Nor would I. Love is a real feeling, even if it is (to vastly oversimplify) created by neurotransmitters.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
fmm:
You've zeroed in on why views, based on empirical data, have limited capacity to sway opinions. People are guided by what they consider to be real. Love is real. Internal experiences are real. In one sense they are the most real things of all because all objective data must be filtered through subjective mental processing.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Joy asks:
Love and the sensus divinitatis are both interior, but God is not (assuming he exists). The SD, though it is an interior "sense", is presumed by folks like fmm to tell us something about the outside world (that God exists). When we feel ourselves loving, on the other hand, that feeling is only telling us about our internal state.
Perhaps this analogy will help. If I feel hungry, my feeling is a reflection of my brain state. It may also be a secondary reflection of low glycogen stores in my body, or even of a shortage of food in the village where I live, but the brain state is primary. As with other sensations, hunger can be produced by electrical stimulation of the appropriate part of the brain. So my hunger sensation itself really only tells me something about my brain state.
Now suppose that I have the sensation of being stared at (Ã la Rupert Sheldrake). The sensation is clearly interior, and presumably reflects my brain state, but (if Sheldrake is right) it is telling me that someone is staring at me — a fact about the outside world. Someone else can confirm this by looking around to see whether anyone is staring at me.
In this example hunger is analogous to love, and the sensation of being stared at is analogous to the sensus divinitatis.
The difference is that others can determine whether someone is staring at me by using their vision. In the case of the SD, it is impossible for others to confirm the correctness of my feeling via their "standard" senses.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
robin:
A feeling of loving can be manifested by observable behavior. In fact this lies at the core of Christianity. Christ said you will know my followers by their fruits and that love is the greatest commandment. Internal experiences can manifest evidence of what is exterior to the mind.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Joy
At the risk of moving from what I believe can be a purely scientific discussion here are some articles that explain why the SD can be important for forming true beliefs about the world outside us.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Bradford:
Just to clarify a little of what I was trying to say. I was thinking of "faith" in a global sense. From what I quoted from his article it appears to me that Slack is using faith in a global sense. I think empirical science is very limited in what it can tell us about the universe globally. However, it can drop us some tantalizing clues that can legitimately be the subjects of exploration for both theology and philosophy.
I have no problem with using faith in a practical everyday sense. For example, I have made some financial decisions based on my belief that I'll still have a job 3 years from now. Obviously, you don't need to be theological, philosophical or religious to practice that kind of faith.
Scientists also use a kind of practical faith in their work. They have hunches and follow clues in the belief that those hunches and clues may lead to a knew discovery or breakthrough. Some philosophers of science even talk about what they describe as tenacity in the way some scientist pursue their educated guesses and hunches. I have no problem with any of this.
What I do have a problem with is when people like Slack conflate what they believe about the world (metaphysical naturalism) with natural science. In other words, natural science does not equal metaphysical naturalism. One does not have to be a metaphysical naturalist to do good science or be a good scientist.
The irony is that Slack sees the danger of conflating certain kinds of religious beliefs, but doesn't see the danger of conflating his own personal philosophical beliefs with natural science. IMO opinion that kind of faith can be even more damaging to science than anything that religion could ever do. Of course it really is not a case of can be or will be, the sad truth is that science has already been corrupted by philosophical world views which are often as dogmatic as some of the worlds worst religions.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 22, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
robin:
Why? I've always heard that this God is a "personal God" with personal relationships, apprehended by interior means. That doesn't mean I can't perceive the presence of God in people and things 'other' than me, but that doesn't make God exterior to me. IMO.
fmm:
If we are to reduce reality - as some here wish us to do - to brain states, there is no difference between interior and exterior. In fact of the matter, that may be the objective physical truth too, big or little 't'.
But let's face it… I'm a freak of nature, a full-fledged synesthete. Nobody's ever going to convince me of the universality of their so-circumspect divisions and cubbyholes and weird filing systems. My brain states aren't much like other people's brain states, so I'm not inclined to believe that other people's brain states must in some way imprison my own. You'll have this.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Joy,
That second quote is from fifth monarchy man, not me.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Thanks, edited to attribute.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Joy wrote:
Huh? Who are the 'some' who said reality consisted of nothing but brain states?
Nothing about synesthesia suggests that it's anything but physical.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Robin
Actually all they can determine is that someone appears to be staring at me. IOW they can see them looking in my direction etc.
The fact is that the vision of others might be misleading in this regard. Perhaps the supposed "starer" is blind so that he only appears to be staring at me and in fact sees nothing. or Perhaps the "starer" can see around coners so that even though he does not appear to be staring at me he is
When it's all is said and done we are left just a probabilistic guess as to whether someone is are staring at me or not.
When my feeling is "God exists" there are tons of ways to confirm (your word) its correctness via your common senses and reason as well as your own SD.
In the end however we are left with just a probabilistic guess just like we have for any other sense.
But suppose I have detected God's existence via the SD I can then confirm (again your word) the correctness of my other senses as well as my reasoning with it.
When I look at the bacterial flagellum and it appears designed I can confirm my inference with the SD. I have sensed that there is a designer therefore I can say with more confidence that the design I see is not merely apparent design therefore the burden of proof is shifted to the skeptic to prove my common sense inference wrong.
And when I'm confronted with a worldview that says there is no evidence of a designer I can rightfully be skeptical because in Slacks' words I have too much respect for my own experience.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Robin:
That's not the point the point is that just because you don't have a particular sense does not make it less real
Joy
Exactly!!! my experience trumps the skeptic's attempt to explain it away every time.
Unless I've seen convincing proof that I've been mislead by my senses I will continue to trust them. If I didn't I could not function in life
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 22, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
robin:
Metaphysical eliminative materialists. You'll find them poking around here in shadows here and there.
I didn't say it wasn't physical. What a strange leap on your part. Where does it come from, pray tell>
Oh, and while you're at it, can you explain that "exterior god" thing too, since I asked nicely? Even Taoists and Buddhists accept that separation is the primary illusion. It makes more sense to me that the external world is illusion (real enough FAPP to deal with, though) than the idea that the internal world (consciousness itself) is illusion.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
fmm:
I hear you. But I also am acutely aware of the fact that I may be receiving more and/or different information from the environment than others are. I learned that long before I started school. Fortunately, synesthesia is strong in my family, so I got good counseling. Never insist that others are "stupid" for not seeing (hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling) what you do. THEY are 'normal', you are not.
So I learned early on to be very careful both of WHAT I perceived, and how I communicate what I perceived. It's not absolute skepticism, it's sort of like standing off to the side of your own mind's representative model of the outside world, and picking its pieces-parts to examine them in more detail. You'd be surprised at how quickly that can be done in real-time, and there are times when it can be safely put aside in trust of that "Indian Night Vision" that'll get you down the mountain fast and well away from that bear or cougar's sharp claws.
Heck, you even learn how to discriminate the 'extra' information and segregate it AS 'extra' if need be. There can be issues with its mere presence (you can't make it not be there), but if it's all you know, you do get used to it. Why, you can even learn how to shield yourself from other people's excess 'extras' at will.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
How do you know that you are actually sensing a designer, and not just some vague "divinity" How do you know that the "designer" you are sensing is the designer of of the flagellum? How do you know that the "designer" you are sensing has the ability to move atoms and molecules into positions that they couldn't reach by means of natural chemistry? (Which is, after all, what "intelligent design" has to mean, if it means anything at all.)
Comment by John Wendt — June 22, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
robin: "When we feel ourselves loving, on the other hand, that feeling is only telling us about our internal state."
if love were real the feeling would tell us about the objective value of the beloved. while love is an emotion it is caused by objective realities — when properly functioning good objective realities… feelings are ways of gaining knowledge about the objective world much like reason is… i feel repulsed by some monstrously evil action because such actions are really wrong and ought not be done… or i feel love for someone because of the real or potential goodness of the person. if love is merely in the mind of the beholder, as you suggest, it is not real but rather some sort of fiction — fictions are still, of course, in my mind…
robin: "my hunger sensation itself really only tells me something about my brain state"
hunger is primarily a motivational feeling to get nutrition that animals need to survive - it's primary function is to keep us alive. humans can feel hungry for other reason too - many eating disorders stem from a psychological motivation to eat but that is not the primary (or proper) role hunger is meant to have … if a scientist monkeyed with my brain to make be feel hungry it would not be a real or genuine (but an illusory) feeling - but a feeling nonetheless for that… just as if he made me have the experience of seeing angles when there were no angels around i'd be haveing an illusory experience — but still an experience, of course…
feelings (like love or hunger) tell us about objective realities when functioning well just like reason does — if they don't then like reason (in such a case) it would be an illusion/malfunction/disorder/a-monkeying-scientist.. etc…
Comment by de_nacisse — June 22, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Where is this notion that "God is only external" come from? The Bible teaches that God is omnipresent - not "omnipresent except for inside your body". It even says that God dwells within us, those that accept Him:
Ephesians 2:22 "And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit".
1 Cor 6:19 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you?" (referring to misuse of our physical bodies)
among others. God does not just exist in the world outside us, He is everywhere at everytime. Conclusions that "He is exterior" are incorrect. If His Spirit dwells within us, as is written, what stops us sensing Him within us?
Comment by Avonwatches — June 22, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 am
de_nacisse wrote:
Not true. It is possible to love someone or something that is not objectively real.
For the sake of argument, let me assume that you are a typical Christian (though the argument works as well for any other kind of theism). As a Christian, you do not believe that the Hindu god Krishna is real. Yet the love and adoration felt toward Krishna by his devotees are equal to those felt by Christians toward Jesus.
As a Christian, would you argue that your love is 'real', but the Hindu's is not? That smacks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Comment by robin — June 23, 2008 @ 1:40 am
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 am
John Wendt
First of all I want to say you ask some excellent questions.
I guess it would depend on the particular observation.
I for one have had two kinds of experiences one in which I've sensed a being of great power and majesty and one in which I am awestruck by the wisdom of said being as creator.
In the first case I would have no knowledge that said deity is a designer but I would assume he had the power to design if he chose. In the second case that God is a designer is explicit in the observation.
I don't know for sure that is unless my SD observes him while I'm looking at the BF. I just know that there is a prospective designer that is available to accomplish this inferred design
In my first type of experience the assumed abilities of God is what I sensed these abilities would include all kinds of things above the pay grade of natural chemistry
I would not say that ID would have meaning if it could prove that design is simply more likely than natural chemistry.
It does not have to prove that natural chemistry is unable even in principle to accomplish the design we see.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 7:32 am
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 am
The word "real" is subject to equivocation. I don't doubt you have the experience, but that doesn't make it objective. Consider de_nacisse's direct (and apparently unconscious) equivocation.
De_nacisse is drawing an equivalence between "real" and "objective". Having done so, the statement is false. Loving your wife, finding her the most beautiful and 'lovable' person in the world is *not* an objective statement. Saying everyone else is blind to her beauty may be true"”but that does not make it objective. Quite the contrary.
As Frank Michael Murphy could show (instead of just saying so), there is a relationship between his sense and other aspects of the phenomenal world that his family can experience. For instance, he could communicate to his family that he hears the cat in the next room, and then open the door so that they could see the cat. By this, and many such empirical predictions, he could show his family that his sense of hearing reveals information about objects and phenomena *independent of his individual thought*.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 8:19 am
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
robin,
the objective realities would be the value or the goodness of the thing or person - irrespective of the persons or things reality… you can love some fictional character… assuming there is some objective value such a character portrays… I'm not committed to the view that fictional characters can't exemplify goodness or value… in fact, I think Mickey Mouse is an example of many good things so a kind of love seem appropriate and real enough….
Zachriel,
"Loving your wife, finding her the most beautiful and 'lovable' person in the world is *not* an objective statement."
saying such a thing would be false so obviously not objective. while will does play an important role in love it doesn't make anyone more or less lovable in an objective sense (I never claimed it did)…. but saying your wife is loveable is a true and objective statement about the worth and value of persons - if someone disagrees they are mistaken…
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
It's a statement about the husband's opinion. It can't be false if that is what he feels.
An objective claim has to concern properties that are independent of the individual mind.
Saying everyone else is blind to her beauty may be true"”but that does not make it objective.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Zachriel,
if it is a statement about the objective worth of his wife (which is what love is about), it can be false even if that is what he feels. opinions and feelings can be mistaken… unless you mean that he is of a certain opinion (his wife is the greatest) then that he holds that opinion can't be false… but i don't see the relevance of that. if he is of the opinion that the earth is flat it also can't be wrong that that is what he believes…. so?
yes, like value and worth…
I don't really know what you mean to say here… if everyone is blinded to seeing a chair in the middle of the room it is still an objective fact that there is a chair in the middle of the room… if everyone else is blind to her being lovable - it is still an objective fact that she is lovable — whether she is beautiful i don't know…
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Value and worth are subjective evaluations. They are not independent of the individual mind, but vary widely between observers.
It may be true that there is a ghost in the middle of the room, but to constitute an objective fact requires being able to detect the phenomena in a manner independent of the observer.
objective, of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
subjective, characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
You changed the claim. The one he finds *most* lovable. While another man may find her completely unlovable. And another who thinks his mistress is the *most* lovable. These are clearly matters of subjective opinion.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
like you love charitable actions and i love vicious actions… you love your wife cause she is beautiful and i love mine cause she is a serial killer… subjective indeed…
Zachriel,
so the roundness of the earth was not an objective fact until we were able to know/detect it? and it is not an objective fact that i have some illness (cancer, say) if i live at a time and place that lacks the means of detecting it? well, fine, i guess, but value and worth are still objective facts … everyone detects and lives by them.
no, i claim that one (being most lovable) is subjective (and false, too) but being lovable is objective (and true)
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
So you're saying there are no differences in lovability. That one can't love something more than another, or more than anything else. And a man who feels he loves one woman more than any other woman is holding a false belief. That seems contrary to ordinary human experience, even the ordinary use of language.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
well, there are subjective elements in love. my choices determine who I actually do love and my personality may determine who I love. and things like place and time determine who I will love etc… but being lovable and who I love or how much i love them are different things; the first, i claim, is objective truth about persons or good things the second is subjective and determined by things like choice, place, birth etc…
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Hey Zach:
I thought you said my argument needed no more refutation
There are two related issues here hearing's values to young frank and it's value to his deaf kin. What his deaf family thinks has no bearing on whether hearing is objective and valuable to FFM
If FFM wants to show the reality and value of hearing to others there are lots of ways he can do that but he will never be able to prove he can hear. The same goes with Joy's synesthesia or the SD
That's one way he could go about it but it would not prove he is hearing the cat. Perhaps he is allergic to cats and can sense them by the discomfort he feels when they are around.
In the end nothing empirical could prove to his family that he has a sense they know nothing of. Every single empirical observation could be explained away in the same way the cat observation could. That is if his kin had sufficient motivation to deny the reality of hearing or its value.
When all is said and done the only way to verify beyond all question someone "hears" a cat through the door is to hear it yourself.
The same goes with the SD and synesthesia
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
It doesn't. I had hoped you would have thought about it since last we spoke.
Yes, you already explained Young Frank's self-centered attitude.
Odd, then, that most deaf people (excluding Frank's family whom he apparently keeps locked away) are fully aware that others have a sense of hearing. According to your reasoning, the deaf should reject the objective existence of sound and a sense of hearing. Likewise, everyone else should reject the objective existence of ultraviolet light.
Your concept of objectivity is vacuous.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I thought, perhaps, we were using somewhat different meanings of the word "to love" and "lovable". We can presumably define "love" in such a manner (e.g. behaviorally) that we can then objectively say that people love, and that there are particular traits that tend to invoke love in others. From the original post:
But this is definitely being used to mean a subjective response. Slack loves his children. He would certainly call them lovable. But other people may think they are brats. That's the nature of subjective evaluations. You may want to clarify your claims to avoid any unintentional equivocation.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Zach
Yet here we are. Why is that?
And your point is? Most folks that haven't directly experienced God are fully aware that some of us have. It's only the hard cases like yourself that dispute the testimony of friends and neighbors in matters like this.
Not at all the existence of sound and ultraviolet light can be inferred (not sensed) by other means. Just like the existence of God.
The existences of sound and of hearing are two very different things. As are the existence of God and the SD. I think a lot of your confusion is the result of you confounding the two categories
Hearing's objective existence depends primarily on the existence of a reality outside of the mind of the hearer (Sound). Likewise the SD's objective existence depends primarily on the objective existence of a reality out side the mind of the person making the observation (God)
If I wanted to demonstrate to a doubting deaf man that hearing is real the best way is to demonstrate that sound is real. Once you accept the reality of sound hearing is a no brainer. A hearing man on the other hand needs no such demonstration he knows that sound is real.
Demonstrations of God's existence are valuable to those who haven't experienced him but not necessary for someone who has. In that case his mind compels him to accept the objective reality of his experience.
That is unless or until his brain and or his senses have been proven to be defective.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Zach:
Slack is not arguing with those who think his children are unlovable he is arguing with those who say his love for them is an illusion. This is not a subjective evaluation it is a question of objective fact.
I think the equivocation in this case is in your mind.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I'm curious. These are the exact sort of experiences commonly described by people taking drugs like LSD and DMT. Do you think these drugs are actually increasing the real sensus divinitatis or do you think these drugs merely create a fake perception of SD?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 23, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Todd:
If I was a blind man hell bent on denying the existence of sight I would say the same sorts of things about those who claimed to see things. To those with no experience of a particular sense it's descriptions can sound like hallucinations.
If I wanted to I could say Joy's synesthesia sounds like a bad trip. That would just illustrate my own ignorance and draw laughter or pity from those who have experienced it
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:58 pm
So in other words despite both experiences having the exact same description you "just know" that your SD is real while the drug trip is merely a hallucination?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 23, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Zachriel,
Slack himself may think his children are brats - that wouldn't make them unlovable, of course. so i don't get the point… if others thought his children were unlovable that would be to call Slacks love of them an illusion - if they are unlovable he can't love them… or if someone thought his emotions of love were just caused by some sort of reaction in his brain and not some value or worth of his children that would also make love of them unreal — just as if my perception of my children were caused just by a reaction in my brain and not by my children themselves it would be an illusory perception…
Comment by de_nacisse — June 23, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I answered that directly. I do try to give the benefit of the doubt, so I can only assume you don't read very well.
Again, you don't read well. I did not dispute the testimony. I only disputed whether it can be considered objective.
Then, he is not arguing with me.
I pointed to two different uses of the terms, the typical way that Slack was using it to refer to a subjective experience, the other as a clearly defined objective phenomena.
A blind man can determine that what others call sight reveals knowledge about the objective world. You repeatedly claim the same for sensus divinitatis, but never provide any justification for your claim. You just repeat it over and over again.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
If you cut your finger, you may very well know the pain is caused by damaged nerves and tissue. That doesn't mean the pain is an illusion.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Todd:
Yes, the same way you know your vision is real unless or until your brain and or your senses have been proven to be defective.
You can't help it your mind compels you to do so.
Zach:
Actually Slack was refering to an objective phenomena and you mistook him to be refering to a subjective experience.
I don't justify my claim that my vision provides knowledge about the objective world either. I don't need to I've experienced it. The burden of proof is on you in this regard.
It's my sense we are talking about after all and you are in the position of a the blind man claiming that my vision is not real.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Slack said it was not an illusion. He never used the word "objective".
Perhaps it doesn't.
In any case, I will note your refusal to support your assertions.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
fifth, have you ever seen a real flagellum in an actual cell? I strongly suspect that all you've really seen is idealized, schematic representations of a flagellum (not "the" flagellum, there's a lot of variation). Biologists refer to these as "cartoons", to emphasize that they are simplified for pedagogic purposes. This article has some actual electron micrographs, and more-realistic cartoons.
Your argument seems to boil down to "I get religious feelings when I look at a simplified abstraction of a flagellum, therefore the God of the Hebrew scriptures has all the abilities that are necessary to create the universe simply by speaking."
So why should this mean anything to me?
Comment by John Wendt — June 23, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
ZAch:
Spoken like a true Cartesian. Perhaps I'm a brain in a vat.
Funny how it always comes to the denial of all sense derived knowledge from folks on your side.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
John
No, at least not in close detail. That's one reason I said I don't know for sure it was designed I can only infer.
That's not my argument at all I've said next to nothing about the flagellum only that the SD can support a design inference.
I'm not saying it should
I'm saying that your puny attempts to explain how there is no designer can never hope to convince me and the millions of folks like me who know otherwise because we have experienced him. That's why ID is not going away
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
That is not my position"”as I have repeatedly stated.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Zach
from the encarta dictionary
Objective………… based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
illusion……. a false idea, conception, or belief about somebody or something
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 23, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
As has been pointed out multiple times, this simply isn't true. Our external senses can be independently verified by other people, even those who lack a particular sense. Yet people experience SD and describe it exactly the way one would describe a drug trip but you simply assert these two seemingly identical brain states are simply different without explaining why or how.
But as has been mentioned, it is possible to objectively support that our vision is telling multiple people the same thing. For example, while it might be impossible to describe color to someone who has never seen you can explain it as being analogous to texture which they can feel. Metaphors can also be used, "red" looks like heat feels, "blue" looks like cold feels, etc. Through the common application of language shared understanding is achieved which provides the blind man evidence that sight really exists. And yet somehow we apparently cannot use language to describe SD because when we do the descriptions are identical to drug trips which are, according to you, apparently just hallucinations.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 23, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
June 24th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Equivocation. We've been using a specific definition of objective, one appropriate to the discussion. In your own words,
So we can add equivocation to strawman, ignoring counterarguments, and refusal to support your claims. Anything else?
"”
By the way, your dictionary defines fact as "something that can shown to be true".
Comment by Zachriel — June 24, 2008 @ 7:25 am
June 24th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Todd:
The exact same thing happens with the SD. My tradition calls it testing the spirits. We verify whether information that a person receives through the SD matches what we know about God from other means. For example suppose I claim to sense that God is a bungling inept imbecile. Other folks even folks who have never experienced God at all can compare my testimony with the evidence of the designer's wisdom all around us for example in the carbon cycle.
Or I could claim that I senses that God could never become a man other people even people who never experienced God directly could test this claim against the evidence of the incarnation. This kind of thing happens all the time.
What I can't do is prove that I have a particular sense any sense (vision or the SD) to someone who is hell-bent on denying it.
Once again If Joy described her unique sense to us it would sound like a hallucination this is evidence of our ignorance and not her problem. For a good exercise pretend you have synesthesia. How would you explain it to some one who knows nothing of the sense?
Ok the SD in analogous to the feeling you get when you intuitively know that your answer is right in math. Do you know more than you did before?
Ok
God feels like love and power and grace and justice do you know more than you did before?
If you want more descriptions of the SD why not stop by your local prayer meeting we share this kind of information all the time
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 24, 2008 @ 7:34 am
June 24th, 2008 at 9:26 am
FMM responds above to a question:
fMRI and QEEG studies indicate that this is not the case. Those having spiritual experiences in which they sense the divine are not in the same brain state as those who are having hallucinations, delusions, or dreams. Their brain states resemble those of people encountering an objective presence.
Comment by Pez — June 24, 2008 @ 9:26 am
June 24th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Hi Zachriel. I have not read every comment in the thread but would add this:
We must allow as a logical possibility that sensus divinitatus is linked to physical evidence allowing for an objective interpretation of at least aspects of it. For example, if a large group of people is so affected they can display behavioral evidence of it. Pez brought up a good point. Hallucinations, delusions, and dreams can be marked by specific neural evidence associated with such phenomenon. If a sensus divinitatus experience is not marked by such evidence then one would be able to fashion an argument that the experience is traced to an exterior influence and not the product of one's imagination. All the more so if the physical evidence is consistent with that shown by interactions between individuals and their exterior environment.
Comment by Bradford — June 24, 2008 @ 11:26 am
June 25th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Here is a little something that "ditto's" what Pez mentioned above:
In their book, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul, Mario Beuregard and Denyse O'Leary argue that materialist and reductionistic explanations for the existence of the mind and spiritual experiences are presently at a standstill.
For example, they refute the hypothesis put forward by some materialistically biased neuroscientists that Religious, Spiritual and Mystical Experiences or, RSME's (what we have been referring to in this thread as SD"˜s) are associated with the temporal lobe of the brain–the so called God switch.
In particular, Beuregards study of Carmelite Nuns using fMRI and QEEG technology demonstrated that neural correlates for these experiences were not isolated to the temporal lobes. "Our"¦data," writes Beuregard, "suggest that RSME's are complex and multidimensional and mediated by a number of brain regions implicated in perception, cognition, emotion, body representation, and self-consciousness." (p 272)
Other studies have reached similar conclusions.
For example, Andrew Newberg, a university of Pennsylvania radiologist writes in his book, Why God Won't Go Away:
I find it curious that those that have been representing the naturalistic or materialistic side in this thread have quoted no studies. They have only given us speculation and interpretations based on those speculations. In other words they have faithfully followed the "party line." It would be nice someday to meet a so called skeptic who actually thinks for himself. That would be both interesting and challenging.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 25, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Hey all,
Although I assume that the Carmelite Nuns are experiencing the same phenomena I have. I have been reluctant to bring up Beuregard's study because I'm afraid that skeptics could claim that the altered brain states are only the result of the intense meditation involved.
The fact is that for me and I would assume most folks who have experienced God it happens in a much more spontaneous manner. God just shows up. Though this does not change the reality of the experience at all it does make it harder to duplicate in the lab.
I wonder has any one compared the nuns' experience to someone skilled at deep meditation but who does not report experiencing the divine?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 26, 2008 @ 7:26 am
June 26th, 2008 at 8:09 am
That would (which you should certainly know, of course) be completely immaterial to my point. We can presume that people who have similar experiences have similar brain states. What we know objectively is that the Carmelite Nuns say they have had particular sensations that they attribute to communion with God.
Even if you accept that the Carmelite Nuns could be having a true experience of the Divine, it does not represent objective evidence. Unless you can demonstrate predictable empirical implications of these sensations"”independent from the individual mind"”then it is still subjective, by definition.
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2008 @ 8:09 am
June 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Zach:
Predictable empirical implication number one
Every time God wishes to comminute his presence similar brain states will be present
Predictable empirical implication number two:
As Bradford points out when God is experienced through the SD predictable behavioral patterns will result in the observer.
let the science begin
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 26, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
fmm:
And evidence can be objective in nature without being experimentally derived. Consider this comment from O'Leary's blog:
Personally, I think that if a person genuinely becomes more loving and caring toward others and maintains that change over a number of years, that is powerful testimony that they encountered a spiritual reality.
This is why people trust their own thoughts and observations in spite of what materialists would like them to believe. A subjective experience can manifest behavior that is objectively perceived. When one's personal behavior is changed and positvely impacts those around them, powerful evidence for a subjective motivating cause is present.
Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
That's not evidence. That's what you're trying to demonstrate. Restating your desired conclusion doesn't make it evidence.
Your claim is that this particular experience is objective evidence of the spiritual realm. You have only pointed to evidence that the brain is involved in the experience. You haven't shown that this sense provides any information that can be confirmed by objective means.
That's not the issue. Fifth monarchy man insists that the spiritual sense is objective evidence. I have no argument that people have religious experiences.
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
bradford
I think it's important to remember that even though all experience is subjective a sense like the SD (or vision) can be objective because they reference an objective truth and produce objective effects.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 26, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Fifth Monarchy Man wrote:
The skeptics are going to come to that conclusion regardless whether or not you cited Beuregard's study. Indeed they came to that conclusion before you even brought up the subject of SD's or RSME's (Beuregard's term.)
BTW Beuregard made very modest claims in regards to his study. He only claimed that he refuted the idea that profound religious experiences were associated with the brains frontal lobes and therefore somehow associated with epileptic seizures etc. In other words, Beuregard refuted ( quite successfully in my opinion) the so called pathological model of religion popularized by Freud and others. It is apparent that many of the critics in this thread have been throwing out similar ideas with absolutely no scientific evidence to back up their claims. Obviously they have been motivated more by a very anti-religious ideology than science, claims to the contrary.
That is why I find it very ironic when Zachriel challenges you by arguing that you, me or other theists lack any evidence. Where is the evidence for his world view? What is his world view, anyway that unconscious matter somehow gave rise consciousness and mind? Somehow we are all here as a result of some lucky accident? How exactly did that happen? Does he know? Does anyone know? It so strange these guy's are never able to back up these kinds of claims with any kind of real evidence. It seems to me that to believe what they believe requires something of a leap of faith. Frankly, too much faith for a rational thinking person like me.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 26, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Again, after dozens of posts, across multiple threads, and repeated corrections; that is not my position. Fifth monarchy man claims that sensus divinitatis provides *objective* evidence. My position is that sensus divinitatis is subjective, not objective.
And rightly so.
We are not trying to relate brain states to mind states. It is presumed (based on previous studies) that similar reported mind states have similar brain states. This relates the brain and mind, much like the experience of beauty, anger, sorrow, or other subjective or personal experiences. This does not demonstrate that these subjective experiences are objective evidence of the spiritual world, anger waves or the existence of the aesthetic as an objective phenomena.
To show that sensus divinitatis provides objective evidence, you would have to be able to make empirical predictions independent of the individual mind. This does not mean that subjective experience can't be persuasive. Paul's encounter on the road to Damascus was sufficient to change his perspective in a fundamental way.
"”
Beauty is truth.
Comment by Zachriel — June 27, 2008 @ 8:17 am
June 27th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Just thought I'd put in a note here: I am Mario Beauregard's co-author on The Spiritual Brain (Harper One 2007).
What mario found about the nuns was
1. Spiritual experiences are complex, not simple. That rules out many materialist hypotheses around the "God glitch."
2. There really is an altered state of consciousness in which the person is conscious but generates brain waves characteristic of unconsciousness. So people who say that they entered an altered state of consciousness are not lying or confabulating (at least there is no reason to assume so, absent evidence).
3. We look at research around people whose lives change dramatically after spiritual experiences. Life change is not easy, and it is reasonable to think that something accounts for it.
Mario's research does not prove that there is a God or that people definitely contact a reality outside themseves during a spiritual experience.
Some people would not believe that even if they experienced it.
His research does, however, show that that is a reasonable thing to believe.
I keep up with all these subjects and many other relevant ones at The Mindful Hack.
Comment by Denyse — June 27, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Cool! Denyse posting on TT.
Hope to see you here more often, Denyse.
Comment by Doug — June 27, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
June 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Denyse said…
Yeah. One of the participating profs in the UA Consciousness Studies course was Alwin Scott [R.I.P.], a rather smart and quite personable physicist who didn't believe a word of any of it. In one session he was asked about the accident that confined him to a wheel chair for the rest of his life, since he admitted readily that he experienced a dramatic OOB when the accident happened, and witnessed the whole thing from