The Carry-Over Thread…
by JoyThis thread is to serve as a place to continue the very interesting discussions that have gone on for more than 300 comments in the Evidence, ID and God thread. Because Mesk suggested a new thread, and because it takes forever for me to refresh that too-long page.
To begin, I am re-posting Mesk's last post to me, so that it will be here for me to respond to. Enjoy! §;o)
March 21st, 2007 at 10:18 am
Mesk commented on the other thread at 7:42 pm on March 20, 2007:
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument from majority beliefs (and in fact there was a recent post advocating philosophical majoritarianism on one of my favourite blogs, Overcoming Bias). It's a reasonable default stance in the absence of compelling first-person knowledge of a subject; I certainly rely on the argument from scientific consensus (a more "elite" version of majoritarianism
) on a daily basis.
However, I'm unsure about the value of using this argument for a subject which is subject to extreme, non-objective bias, such as religious belief (or politics for that matter). The literature suggests that the vast majority of people are almost completely non-reflective about their religious beliefs, and instead simply adopt the majority view in their community, since adopting this view provides strong social benefits that must be viewed as a major source of bias. In addition, there are some basic quirks of the human brain (such as an overactive tendency to impute agency) that would be expected to increase the probability of adoption of religious beliefs regardless of their truth-value.
So while I acknowledge that the widespread nature of religious beliefs does count as a point in favour of some religious beliefs being true, I think it should be regarded as pretty weak evidence at best.
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2007 @ 10:18 am
March 21st, 2007 at 10:19 am
Mesk:
I did not say the 'authority of majority' is evidence for truth value of religion or politics. Raevmo said to stunney:
"It's just too bad that it is false." "False" applied to belief in what is called the "Holy Spirit." Which is not defined as religion, but is a spiritual aspect of God said to infuse the mind/body of human beings - a direct connection. Other traditions would name it something else.
I asked Raevmo how he "knows" stunney's statement is "false," which he turned around to ask me how I know the opposite (even though I did not assert that I knew the opposite). Mere evasion. My answer:
"Empiricism. Direct experience."
Raevmo then likened this direct experience to dreams and drug-induced hallucinations. Which is not only a terrible excuse for insult, but dismisses the evidence out of hand without rational examination. Even the hardest of hard core atheist scientists admit there's something that people do experience, and that it has the convincing qualities attributed to it by experiencers. Most just shrug and claim it must be a 'mind-quirk' that evolved for its supposed survival value.
Rejection of empirical evidence for the existence and operation of a spiritual 'force' in human beings serves no purpose for science or humanity. It merely serves to stroke the ego of the individual who rejects the direct experience of others. It could never be expected to override the actual, direct experience of this 'force' in any human being who ever lived and experienced it.
So in this instance the demographics DO establish the existence of the phenomenon. It doesn't establish mechanics or tell us precisely what it *is*, but that isn't necessary for establishing existence. Raevmo might just as easily claim that it doesn't hurt to birth a baby, because he's never experienced pain while doing that (and in fact can't do that). Waving away the direct experience and first person testimony of every female human who ever lived and birthed a baby. Who in their right mind would believe him?
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2007 @ 10:19 am
March 21st, 2007 at 10:54 am
Joy, how do you know I am not a woman, or that I haven't given birth?
But how do you know it is "immaterial" or the "holy spirit" what you have experienced, and that it is not simply stuff happening in your brain?
Btw, a flat earth used to have the demographic advantage too.
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 10:54 am
March 21st, 2007 at 11:06 am
Too clever Raevmo. But it's a legend. The earth was known to be round even in ancient history. The flat earth, Columbus thing is another story. Get more imaginative. It's not even a good one liner.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 11:06 am
March 21st, 2007 at 11:07 am
Flat earth was an inference on the best evidence available at the time (when it was assumed to be flat, by whoever assumed it to be so).
It's not readily inferred that when you are standing in an open area that the ground curves under.
Also, what was that demographic advantage of a flat earth?
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 11:07 am
March 21st, 2007 at 11:20 am
Joy,
As an agnostic, I don't have much trouble rejecting the literal content systems of any revealed religion. But, I find it much harder to reject the reported claims of experience with a spiritual force or person. These kinds of claims don't fall into the category of believing in a flat earth or Zeus or whatever. Their power comes in the nature of the change induced in the people who experience them. I understand that we can't know beyond doubt concerning the reality of these claims. But, I think it unwise to dismiss them. They are real evidence which demand investigation. For me, I think they refer to something real.
Comment by bj — March 21, 2007 @ 11:20 am
March 21st, 2007 at 11:25 am
Raevmo:
Of course, I do not. Nor did you write that it doesn't hurt to have a baby. That is an analogy to how silly it is to claim that other people's direct experience - empirical knowledge - doesn't count for establishing the existence of a phenomenon experienced by a majority of human beings.
It is "immaterial" because it is not a 'thing' that is made of matter and exists independently of the experience of the person who does the experiencing. Perhaps you believe that thoughts and inspiration and aesthetic appreciations and pain and such are physically material 'things' that independently exist (like a tree exists independently of me and my mind). But that is not supported by science or common knowledge of experience.
It's called the "Holy Spirit" in our culture because that's what it was named by experiencers who lived a long time ago and we haven't given it a different name. How do you know a dream is a dream, other than to recognize the name someone gave to this phenomenon long before you were born? You could of course call it a bajiingo, but no one else would know what you were talking about.
When was that, exactly?
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2007 @ 11:25 am
March 21st, 2007 at 11:30 am
I'm sorry you didn't like it. I am aware that some ancient Greeks already knew the earth was approximately spherical and that they even calculated its circumference to a remarkable degree of accuracy. But that's not the point - the point is that most people (i.e. the demographically dominant group) believed the earth to be flat. I've heard it even says so in the Bible, although I haven't verified this. Of course there have been many more believes which once had a demographic edge, but which have ultimately been dismissed.
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 11:30 am
March 21st, 2007 at 11:38 am
The point of the demographics is missed. It is not that a majority is a determinant of truth. Even democracies are not founded on this principle. It should give pause though when huge numbers of people from all different cultures and all different historic periods have common experiences and testimonies. It is no guarator of accuracy but a counter explanation based on hallucinations or illusions for a group of this magnitude is implausible.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 11:38 am
March 21st, 2007 at 11:38 am
bj:
Well, "reality" is tricky in this situation, per Raevmo's insistence that it's just biophotons firing in neurons. That's surely real enough to be taken seriously as a genuine experiential phenomenon! And it seems very strange to me that anyone believes that attributing an experience to biophotons firing in neurons makes it NOT real! EVERYTHING we experience can be reduced to biophotons firing in our brains! If they didn't fire, we wouldn't be able to experience anything.
It just seems entirely obvious to me that you can't demand empirical evidence with one hand, and reject it with the other. That's irrational in the extreme. That said, the real mystery of this particular class of experience is that it is so universally perceived by experiencers as 'other' than themselves.
Our brains are really very adept at discriminating between 'self' and 'other' in their own processes. This is mysterious in the same way that the hardwiring to enable Out-Of-Body experience is mysterious. The consciousness that is perceiving from outside the body 'knows' itself *as* itself, and also 'knows' it's somewhere else! We can't just blanket entire classes of direct experience as illusion if we aren't willing to class all direct experience as illusion. In which case we can go ahead and de-fund science because it's just an exercise in terminal solipsism.
I'd be willing to bet there's not a working scientist in this country who'd be willing to go that route. §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2007 @ 11:38 am
March 21st, 2007 at 11:47 am
Are the experiences and testimonies from different cultures really all that similar? Where's the evidence for that? I bet that visions of a nice-looking white guy with a beard are far less common in certain parts of the worlds than others.
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 11:47 am
March 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
As I understand it, out-of-body experiences are indeed quite common (~10%) and fairly independent of cultural background, although more frequent among students (wikipedia). Some scientists compare them to experiencing phantom limbs, also fairly weird experiences but not very mysterious anymore. I read about some tests where doctors would suspend boards from the cealing above hospital beds with messages on top of the board (facing the cealing). Apparently, so far none of the OBE-ers has been able to report back on the content of those messages. That suggests to me that these experiences are likely to be hallucinations. But I could be wrong.
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Santa Claus is not as popular in other parts of the world. I could say that visions of life arising are not common either. Nor is evidence for it. Why are you so focussed on the theology of others?
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
To all,
For what it is worth, it has been my experience that when a large group of people, even a majority, "know" something is true but can't explain why, it is a sure sign of group-think propagating falsehood.
As far as a large group for people providing evidence of "something". I find it very compelling evidence that even with 2 Billion Christians and 1.3 Billion Muslims working at it there isn't a compelling reason for me to embrace either or both religions.
If you can't defend your opinons and/or beliefs on their own merit, they are not worth having, IMO.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
TP, noone said the views could not be defended on other grounds but why bother? Believe what you want.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
What about a mentally handicapped person who is very devout with their beliefs?
At the church I attend there are numerous mentally challenged people that come to the services and believe very strongly in the teachings of the Church.
It certainly seems to provide them some great benefit, you should just see their passion for it (and this is a Catholic Church…. where the attendents are usually noted because of their dis-passionate worshipping.).
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Can you point to other examples (aside from religious belief) that you have experienced in which a large group of people 'know' something to be true but can't explain it… then this being a sure sign of group-think propagating falsehood?
I don't know why you would be putting that much value on groupthink. It's a phenonema (if it is) that is very hard to test empirically.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
TP, this kind of statement could be easily turned on you. I'll have to keep this and some other remarks filed away for future use.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pm
TP:
Actually, that is not the issue. The issue is that a large group of people have experienced something that they explain in culturally-specific ways. Because the experience crosses cultures, are you saying the experience itself is political? Or are you just trying to dismiss others' experience because they explain it from within certain cultural worldviews?
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Raevmo:
Why, this one's so well known in popular culture there's even a Wikipedia exposition about it.
Or, if you were actually interested, you could always go to the [modern] source.
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Groupthink is primarily decisioned based. A decision needs to be made and in order to maintain group cohesiveness members of the group supposedly shed their ability to think rationally and critically. So they 'blindly' go along with the group.
Which might explain certain things like the one outsider in a classroom of confederates (like-minded with the experimenter), who goes along with the confederates and states that a shorter line is actually longer than a longer line that is drawn on a chalkboard in front of the class. However, even in this study only about 50% of the 'outsiders' agreed with the confederates incorrect claim that the shorter line was longer than the longer line.
And, how does this relate to one who comes to Christianity, Judaism…etc? The impact on groupthink would only be relevant when that person is already a part of that group, and when a decision is in need of being made.
The history of the Catholic Church shows that groupthink must not even have that much power over members of a group. Certainly didn't impress the leaders of the Protestant Revolution…. or even the subsequent revolutions with in those denominations (heck, just look at all of the Presbyterian divisions…. there's almost one every month).
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I don't think accounts of experiencing the Holy Spirit really apply here. It tends to be somewhat rare, occurs unpredictably and is notoriously difficult to transmit. The large group Joy mentions is not a unified group, but rather a large number of people over a long period of time, separated from one another, and of any and all religions or no religion.
Comment by onething — March 21, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Hi Bradford and Doug,
Bradford wrote…
Thank You. However, I choose to believe what I can understand and defend regardless of what I want to be true.
Doug wrote…
Very good, Doug. Yes, there is some tangable benefits in unjustified beliefs. Obtaining other people's sympathies is one. And yes, it is easier for some to actually believe instead of pretending belief.
So I concede, there are some survival benefits in holding onto unjustifiable beliefs. In the future, I will modify my statement to make it clearer that it is based on my personal ethical standards as opposed to just "IMO".
Doug asked…
I have plenty of personal, anadotical evidence of groupthink situations. Enough that it requires practically a daily check to ensure we are making good buisness decisions for good reasons, not wishful thinking.
Specific examples on a larger scale get touchy because of group loyality (patriotism and religious obedience) and a tendency to revise history after the fact. However, since you asked for a specific example, I give you the recent war in Iraq. From day one, we knew the situation was untenuable (Kurds, Sunnis and Shites) yet a majority of Americans backed the conflict even though noone had a good explaination of how we were going to deal with the obvious problem. I am amazed at how many people are "surprised" at today's reality.
Bradford wrote…
Please do :wink:.
If you haven't figured it out by now, I enjoy being challenged.
That is why I participate in blogs/newsgroups where people don't agree with me.
Provoking Thought
(including my own)
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Hi Thought Provoker,
Could you define 'unjustified beliefs'?
I want to argue against this, but I would like to know what you mean by that 1st, before I make the assumption.
Again, if you could explain. We are discussing this topic on the backdrop of believing as long as one has reasons…. opposed to just believing because the group believes.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Hi Thought Provoker,
From my experience this is what most Christians do, myself included.
There are consequences that my beliefs entail…. and those consequences 'keep me in-line'. There are many times where I would prefer evidence to contradict my beliefs - because of certain actions I would like to engage in, behaviors that I still kind of fall back on at times, reactions that I would like to follow through on towards others (however, even before becoming a Christian I would feel bad when I acted out on these, but I still did it. Short term reward vs. Long term reward - short almost always won out).
One of the reasons why I maintain with my beliefs is because they will be true regardless of how I personally feel about them.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Hi Doug,
"Unjustified" = not justified.
This is different than unjustifiable. Would "unexplained" have been a better word choice?
The situation you setup was one where "a mentally handicapped person" couldn't understand or articulate a reason for his/her devout belief.
Let me warn you. This is discussion is obviously treading into areas the some (maybe you) find sensitive. It is not my intent to harm you or your sensibilities. Nor, do I want to dissuade you from your beliefs.
I am being intentionally provocative with the intent to test my own beliefs. If others gain from this exchange, so much the better.
Provoking Thought
(hopefully not provoking anger)
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
mtraven wrote:
A little historical background may be useful.
Godel himself thoroughly rejected materialist accounts of the nature of mathematical knowledge. He was a mathematical Platonist as was Frege (the founder of the formal logic of arithmetic). Godel was a member of the Vienna Circle which was dominated by the logical positivists. He set out to prove they were wrong about math knowledge.
And he did. He proved two celebrated incompleteness theorems.
This sealed the fate of Hilbert's program, but it did more than that.
Some people have wondered whether one can infer from Godel's theorems that the human mind is not a computer. I make no such claim, because of course any given human mind may be inconsistent and thus Godel's theorems would not apply. Penrose argued in The Emperor's New Mind that the Godel result proved that the mind is not a computer. That is, I admit, not something one can derive from Godel without additional assumptions. Like Penrose, I think those additional assumptions are certainly very plausible.
But that's not what I've been arguing here. Here's what I've been arguing here:
What Godel proved is something about the nature of mathematical truth. Its nature is non-material in the Platonic sense, contrary to the Vienna Circle's understanding of math truth. What Godel proved is that there are mathematical truths which we can see are true just by understanding them but which are not mechanically provable in finite number of steps.
Now if you are a Platonist about mathematical truth which you should be given that Godel proved you ought to be ("The truths themselves are not material and we can prove that is so, and look, behold, I have now done so"–signed, K. Godel) and you still want to call yourself a naturalist, that's fine. There are many people (Penrose being one, I think), who go that route—they just expand the notion of naturalism to include the Platonic nature of mathematics.
So, mtraven, it's not that the human mind is infinite, it's that mathematical truth is infinite. But, the human mind can know mathematical truths without having to prove them—you and I know 65 + 1 is 66 without having to mechanically churn out a proof, just because we understand the statement. What Godel showed is simply that there are truths in math which a computer can't 'know' are true because a computer can only 'know' something by mechanically proving it.
If a computer was conscious, inconsistent, and could know that 65+1 is 66 just by understanding it, then it would be what we call a person. But we use the term 'computer' to mean something that can only 'know' that 65+1 is 66 by mechanically proving it. Clearly we can know truths without having to mechanically prove them. I know my name, I know 2+2 =4, I know Bush is the president. Do I know these things by mechanically proving each statement?
Of fuckingcourse not!
Godel's theorems don't prevent a human mind from knowing anything. Human minds may not be consistent and so the theorems may not apply to human minds. And if you want to say the human mind is a computer, you can—And that's ok because it is likely to be the case that any given human mind is inconsistent and not subject to the Godelian result.
But what you can't say is that human knowing of simple math truths is the result of a purely mechanical proof in a finite number of steps. Just go into 3rd a grade classroom if you don't believe me.
And if you like, you can think of Godel as proving that
1. 3rd graders can know math truths without having to mechanically prove them whereas a computer can only know such truths by doing so,
and
2. there are truths that human minds can understand and see must be true but which are unprovable by any possible fiinite computation.
Please, please, please read Goldstein's book, Incompleteness. It will help you a lot and it's an easy and enjoyable book, and not very long.
Comment by stunney — March 21, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I think it's good to have my beliefs tested. I need reasons for believing in them. I'm curious with what you have to say. I'm certainly nowhere near the level of many of you on this board; but I believe I can hold my own and I'm learning in the process.
I don't know if they don't understand the reason for why they believe. Maybe they understand very well. But it's the issue of whether someone who doesn't believe their beliefs would grill the mentally handicapped person to provide a reason that would sit well with someone like you - who doesn't believe.
Because I know at least some of the reasons they would give, because I've been around and in converstations with people who are in this state. They believe that Jesus loves them, they believe that they can feel it. They might not be of the highest intellectual level - but they aren't fools.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Thanks for clearing that up. Yeah, I was assuming you meant unjustifiable. Unexplained is a better choice, IMO.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Stunney, you keep bringing up the 65+1=66 example, as a "mathematical truth" that humans can "see" to be true. However, all you are doing is giving a *definition* of the number 66. This is simply a way of constructing the natural numbers. Can't you come up with a more interesting unprovable true statement that we can all "see" to be true?
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 4:26 pm
onething:
Thank you, onething. You do seem to get the gist, and I am not known as the best when it comes to getting a point across!
If it were a single group of people in a certain place at a certain time, then of course the whole "mass hypnosis" or "mass hallucination" suppositions (they're not theories, they're dismissals of evidence) come into play. And have some psychological validity.
As do the culturally-colored descriptions people separated in time and space have a certain level of dismissibility. *As* what their cultural colorings describe them to be. Thus NDE experiencers who see Jesus in the light, or dearly departed relatives, or pearly gates, or the seventh ring of Hell, or 17 virgins, or… have to be understood as the coloring the cultural milieu gives to the descriptions OF the experience. This doesn't make the experience itself not 'real', it just adds qualifiers and disqualifiers to the analysis.
In the many mystical traditions, ALL descriptions of the experience are considered to be metaphoric, allegorical, mythologized or in some other way translated through the experiencer's communicative tools in admittedly inadequate terms. Yet the universal nature of the core experience argues most effectively AGAINST dismissing that experience. Materialists try to avoid getting this deep into the underlying nature of the metaphysical systems engaged in this duel, but here it is.
My support for ID isn't religious. I can still believe what I believe - and know what I know - regardless of science's approval. I just really think there's more going on than just matter doing matter things, and I don't think causation is near as random as the EAs want it to be. No matter what the 'result' of any generationally current theoretic may be, it should account for as much observable reality to be of some real use to us. All.
I'll die one of these days, so will everybody else participating here. The next generations (I'm on my third) will still be faced with challenges and they'll have to deal with them just as we have to deal with ours. The only thing I as 'Madame Joi' the fortune-teller would confidently predict is that they'll still be arguing about metaphysics after my grandchildren have died of old age. Nothing metaphysical will be settled in this forum, I promise!
None of which matters a whit to what's true [however provisionally] about life on planet earth. That's science's business, and it can't afford to support "orthodoxies." We don't know enough about anything yet for that sort of rot! §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
stunney:
Not.
You don't really seem to understand the nature what Godel proved. He proved something about formal systems, but its implications for philosophy of mathematics or mind are not proved in the same sense — quite obviously, they can't be. This is very analagous to the scientism you have chided me for. Science can't prove truths about philosophy (let's say), but mathematics can't prove truths about metaphysics for similar reasons. Godel might have thought his proof supported Platonism, but that's quite different from having proved it.
The evidence for this is that all mathematicians accept the validity of Godel's theorem as it applies to mathematics, but not all are Platonists or believe that AI is impossible. To try to slide the meaning of "proof" from mathematics to metaphysics is intellectually dishonest.
Thanks for being patronizing! I don't think I'm the one who needs help.
Comment by mtraven — March 21, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I just wanted to echo this as well.
I'm religious (Catholic), but if there's one sentiment I have heard over and over from Catholic intellectuals (professors in biochemistry, molecular/cell biology - theologians and philosophers at Catholic colleges and Universities) was NOT to bother with ID.
As a matter of fact, I'm usually weary of mentioning the fact that I'm interested in ID when talking to Catholics who are either priests, theologians, scientists/professors who are also very devout with their Catholic beliefs.
If anything, I feel like I am going against the tide of my religious foundation when I'm focusing on ID.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Hi Joy,
I wrote…
"For what it is worth, it has been my experience that when a large group of people, even a majority, "know" something is true but can't explain why, it is a sure sign of group-think propagating falsehood."
You responded…
I am sorry Joy, but it looks to me like you are combining multiple things here. There are plenty of religious people with no cultural differences from me should be able to explain it so I understand, but can't or won't.
And philosophy has plenty of candidates for universal truths like the inalienable right to life, liberty and property. That's a philosopher's job. I don't dimiss "Perennial Philosophy" any more or less than other philosophical efforts.
As for experiences. Children from many cultures experience night-terrors and fear unseen monsters. You need to put experiences in context. During the infamous H.G.Wells radio broadcasts people experienced a martain attack (saw smoke and fire, smelled gas even claimed to see actual machines).
With the correct frame of mind even you or I could "experience" just about anything. I believe you are astute enough to notice how many religious rituals have the effect of getting people into just such a frame of mind.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Could this be used to explain the scientist's trust in the rationality of the universe, the ability of the mind/brain to comprehend that rationality, the belief that the fundamental forces & constants are consistent spacially and temporally?
They know these to be true but can't explain them.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Hi, Thought Provoker,
I'm a little leary of that particular cosmological analogy, and it distresses me that one of the great minds of today is supposing something like that. A simple but honest "we don't know yet" would not be as exciting an answer, perhaps, but at least such an answer wouldn't leave me wondering if I'm being flim-flammed to read all about it in his next book.
I have a problem with matter coming from nothing as well, unfortunately. Logic tells me that, based on the past, there is a good chance that there are particles which we have not even detected yet, and so assertions of matter coming from non-matter or from nothing only make me think that there are smaller, undetectable bits of matter still waiting to be discovered. Plus, even if matter can be shown to pop into existance out of nothing, it would still in fact be popping into existance from within the context of this universe, which is full of matter.
What I do believe in is causality. I have no doubts about that whatsover. So I have no choice but to assign a cause to the universe. I have no idea what it is, or what its properties, characteristics, abilities, purposes, etc., are. For want of a word, I can call this cause "God". However, now I have to ask myself what caused this God? Well, obeying the law of causality, I have to assign a cause to God. God's God, so to speak. This never ends…literally. There cannot be a first cause. A first cause would violate the law of causality. And I believe in causality. This is sort of like Zeno's paradox where one could never cross a room to touch the far wall because before you could move any distance whatsoever, half that distance would have to be moved, but before you could move to that distance, half that distance must be crossed, but before…and so on forever. Ironically, this sort of infinite regression seems to me to be a way to get out of the pickle and still maintain a logical foundation from which to proceed with my investigations.
If the law of causality means that anything that exists has a cause, then this universe had a cause. And since every cause has an antecedent cause, a beginning cannot logically be reached.
I can't say that this completely satisfies me, but I've dealt with it in the only way that I can without violating my self-imposed constraint of causality. Infinity by its very nature is maddening, even more so when you consider that whole branches of mathematics are built upon the postulate of there being an infinite number of points between the end points of any line segment, while points themselves are postulated as "that which has no part".
I just wanted to see what the materialistic take on this issue was. I'm fairly familiar with the religious views.
Thanks.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 21, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Hi All,
So we are back to…
Then what is the scientific basis for presuming an intelligent designer if it has nothing to do with a desire to believe in God?
First, why not a more scientifically modest "process"
Be it "Topological Geometro Dynamics" or whatever Dembski uses when he needs non-religious cover?
Second, why Intelligent as opposed to purposeful or even conscience?
I think we can have a lively discussion about natural processes in a timeless, multi-dimensional frame of reference.
That would be non-religious.
That would be scientific.
Mike Gene has indicated that he feels this wouldn't be as popular of a topic as standard ID subjects.
He may be right.
But if you unbiasedly think for yourselves, you probably know the reason this might be true.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Specified sequences of nucleic acids correlating to function and translated in accordance with a specified coding convention. What is your reason for believing that unspecified forces produced this outcome other than a desire to not believe in God?
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
TP:
Huh. I don't do religious rituals, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I do attend funerals and weddings (in a variety of homes, landscapes, churches, synagogues and mosques). A priest said Mass for my son, after our memorial service on the beach. I went, but I didn't take communion. Only 4 of the hundred or so people were Catholic. 5, if you count the priest.
Not a one of us was hypnotized. I don't recall being converted. Or even touched by the "Holy Spirit." I think I did mumble an "amen" or two, though I didn't know the liturgy. I cry whether it's a wedding or a funeral, so that's not particularly telling. I have been to church more than a few times in my half-century plus. I do not recall ever encountering the "Holy Spirit" in a church, or even a Sunday School classroom. I did encounter glossolalia once in a transitional Sunday School. I figured it was some form of epilepsy.
I am some form of deist. I think I've made that clear, along with my holding to a certain tradition, for any of several possible self-serving reasons I've offered. But I am familiar with others, and with those who have none. We all get along fine in real life. This belief that there is "More" does perhaps color my loyalties in the case of ID. But that's tenuous, given that I am not a fundamentalist Christian by anybody's measure - including the several preachers and theologians I know. If I really believed that ID is all about religion (or one version of religion), I could not support it. So that's not what I believe.
I do believe a telic approach to biology would help solve some serious issues that randomness on the origin end doesn't even address. I believe it's not unreasonable to think of life itself as telic in nature, and designed accordingly. We might learn a lot by focusing how life goes right. So far it's generally been focused on what goes wrong. We have a few human genome sequences. We do not know what's a 'norm'. In the human prion gene alone there are at least 42 different variants abroad in the population, and this directly affects susceptibility to TSE diseases.
Things are complex enough beneath the NDS umbrella at this point in time for us to be looking at different approaches to incoming knowledge. The evidence fairly begs for that much. I really think that science will itself follow the evidence where it most usefully leads, and that no matter what they end up calling it, it'll look a lot like ID. Such is the way of things scientific.
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Hi Bradford,
My comment was to those who ascribe to the statement "My support for ID isn't religious.".
Do you ascribe to the same statement?
If you do, then the burden of proof is on you. Not me.
However, I do contend that any support I offer for ID isn't religious.
You might ask what support I offer. Well, I find the idea of an internally consistent universe whose purpose is to be internally consistent a very compelling ID alternative.
You see if time is just another dimension then retrocausuality is a possibility. And, I as stated before, it appears that in this universe if it can happen, it does.
Therefore, a front-loaded universe inherently tailored by the needs of the "future" is a possiblity and could be said to be purposeful.
I can understand this.
I can defend this.
So, what is your proposal?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Hi TP,
I don't know why you make it so difficult to understand.
I believe in God…. I believe that God revealed Himself to his creation.
I believe that Jesus is who he said he was.
Why does it have to be that if I believe that ID might be correct (provide a more accurate picture of reality) I'm believing that off of my religious beliefs? Ken Miller, Stephen Barr, Francis Collins, Polkinghorne, Freeman Dyson have similar theological beliefs to those of mine…. and they don't believe ID to provide a more accurate picture of reality.
TP,
I'm getting tired of hearing you saying this. As if I (or whoever else on this board you lodge this critique to) don't actually think for myself - but you - in coming to your beliefs- do. I thought for myself when I came to Christianity back in 2004.
You want to believe that groupthink plays such a powerful role in this….. but no one else was there with me to help 'think me along' when I came to the beliefs I now hold.
I was by myself, being guided along by Jesus.
Being all concerned about:
Well 'maybe you' might find some of the comments too sensative as well.
Please focus on your disclaimer for abit.
Because I'm not the one who falls back on concerning myself whether others are 'unbiasedly thinking for themselves'.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Hi Joy,
I appreciate you explaining your background.
I think we agree more than we disgree. Although you seem to have more sympathy for religion than I.
Excuse me if it appeared I was getting too personal. I was trying to stay focused on people in general, not you personally.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I do not have any burden insofar as my motives are concerned. As for where I impute ID, I've been through that many times over in this blog.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Brad:
What do you mean by "specified" Specified by what or whom?
I could say the same thing about any kind of chemical reaction, but somehow it doesn't really clarify anything: Specified combinations of protons and neutrons surrounded by a specified number of electrons, correlating to chemical reacticity in accordance with a specified coding convention, aka the periodic table.
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Those chemical reactions are following laws of chemical reactivity. Radical reactions, nucleophilic, electrophilic reactions.
You think that this level of explanation can account for sequences of nucleic acids?
Please do explain.
Again, following laws of what is allowed by strong nuclear force, electronegativity. This doesn't account for what Bradford is addressing.
Specified amount of protons and neutrons? What about the various isotopes…. losing a degree of the specification you're mentioning.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pm
TP:
Um… because my belief in him/her/it/them isn't dependent upon what science says today?
The only intelligent designer of life that I propose is life. That doesn't address OOL, and it doesn't negate evolution. And it has nothing to do with gods/God. Those questions are metaphysical, thus not within science's constrained parameters to answer.
Wasn't it me who introduced those frames of reference? This thread (and its originator) include "god" in the title. The discussion has been about evidence, and the arbitrary rejection of evidence. And why that happens.
Do you even recognize that it does happen?
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:54 pm
The problem is that information is not defined in terms of laws of physical attraction. It is defined by its compatible information processor.
Comment by CJYman — March 21, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 5:56 pm
RE: my last post.
Just adding on to what Doug wrote.
Comment by CJYman — March 21, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Doug:
I think you're missing my point, I should have explained more clearly. My question was: why did Brad use, um specifically, the word "specified" for sequences of nucleid acids?
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Hi Doug,
Excuse me if I pushed too hard.
You asked…
If the reason that Ken Miller, Stephen Barr, et al give for what they believe is because God would do it that way, it is religious. Their opinions are undoubably influenced by their religious beliefs.
Please note that I challenged you to defend a particular ID concept (Intelligent Designer) not ID in general. I then went on to provide an ID alternative.
Believe in ID all you want, but if you have a problem coming up with a scientific reason for "Intelligent Designer" as opposed to "Intelligent Process", then I suggest you might consider the possibility that your beliefs are influencing your scientific perspective.
A reasonable complaint/observation. I am here because I know I am subject to my own biases, just like everyone else. You obviously take some comfort in being around like-thinking people or you would be over at Panda's Thumb. I just don't want you to be too comfortable.
hmmm, I wouldn't call the post you are referring to falling back in the slightest. With some justification, it could be called an in-your-face challenge.
Do you honestly think no one in the blog is interested in using ID as support/confirmation for their belief in God (not you of course)?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Because not every sequence of nitrogen bases will yield a functional protein. And the function of many proteins are tightly dependent on their 3D confirmation.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:12 pm
You cannot say the same about any chemical reaction. Biochemical reactions have relevance insofar as they promote or detract from fitness. Fitness is a function of the specified order of nucleotides in DNA. Scramble their order and you forfeit function. An organism perishes. You still have DNA. It did not lose its chemical properties. It lost its encoding capacity.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Brad:
You keep on saying "specified". Isn't it enough to say "Fitness is a function of the order of nucleotides in DNA."
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Hi Joy,
I wrote…
I think we can have a lively discussion about natural processes in a timeless, multi-dimensional frame of reference.
Yes, that is why I think you are a very intelligent and forward-thinking individual. You and I think alike.
Yes, I think biased rejection of evidence happens.
Do you think biased accepting of evidence also happens?
(Ok, maybe we don't agree on everything)
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Hey TP,
Just a thought, but can you truly disassociate "designer" from "intelligence?" If an intelligence is defined as an information processor, thus causing cells to be described as intelligent, then intelligence must come from a system which processes information, which thus constitutes the designer. In this case, the cell is the designer of proteins, etc.
The following is why there is a difference between intelligence and consciousness. If Paul Davies' hypothesis, that consciousness may be a result of quantum occurrences, is correct then consciousness may be described as quantum intelligence. (If consciousness does indeed process quantum information)
Thus consciousness is intelligent, but not all intelligence is necessarily conscious, as non-quantum information would be processed differently than quantum information. As such, that's the reason why the AI in my computer game is intelligent for its purposes, yet I have no reason to believe it is actually conscious.
Oh ya, and TP, are you of the NOMA camp re: science and religion. (ie: religious ideas, as a fact, can not be verified scientifically). Of course this leaves us with no choice but to explain every religious concept scientifically. Just an ironic observation.
I'm also a little curious as to how you define God, science, and religion … just to make sure we are on the same playing field.
Comment by CJYman — March 21, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
TP:
I've just gotta ask… So what? People will tend to follow their worldview if they can. It was clear decades before the 'New Atheists' got angry because of 9-11 that evolutionary biology is theologically challenging. Its adherents have grown ever bolder in asserting authoritarian tendencies, against religions and religious believers.
That was reason enough for me to take a look at this Grand Debate. Whenever self-styled 'scientists' (you never know on the internet) or science-groupies have to assert blatant falsehoods in 'defense' of science, I've just gotta take a closer look. I was appalled by the sheer weight of rust on biology's scientific scaffolding! THAT is a 'threat' to science, not me or anything I believe about gods/God.
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Say it any way you wish. The sequential order of nucleotides is not causally derived from "laws of chemical reactivity."
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Brad:
Why not? The sequential order of nucleotides in any of your genes is causally derived from the order in your parents and the combined effects of recombination and mutation, all of which are the result of (admittedly rather complex) chemical reactions (and other physical interactions).
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Great. Now that you have that down pat explain the origin of the initial functional genome.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I might be misunderstanding you here; but these aforementioned scientists believe in pursuing biology you focus on material causes…. are you saying that these opinions are influenced by their religious beliefs?
I have religious beliefs. Experiences on a personal level that are very real to me. I read support and critiques for Christianity and I think that the support is stronger than the critiques. I have read the Bible which has provided further support for my religious beliefs.
My following of ID is a different pursuit - it is elucidating the universe from another direction. I feel that the two approaches are converging.
If ID were to fail as a scientific enterprise (or a general epistemic enterprise) I would be able to move on. To shake the foundations of my religious beliefs would require something other than ID failing.
So, why should I ditch a personal Designer in place of an impersonal Process? Why should I completely separate the two approaches?
One is telling me one thing of the universe…. the other is coming at it from a different direction.
And that's why you say that I don't think for myself when you don't know me or how I actually think? I don't tell you how you think…. or try to make your thoughts seem to be a product of anything else but a genuine interest in the topic at hand.
Challenging me to think for myself?…. again, you don't know me nor know how I think. You don't know how I came to my beliefs, nor why I maintain them. I don't waive away your comments by making the claims that you do. I don't generalize you with any other atheist/agnostic/deist/whatever out there.
Do I think ID can support my belief in God? Certainly.
I pointed to the scientists above (2 who were Catholic - like myself) to show that my belief in God isn't contingent ID. And that my interest in ID isn't a product of my belief in God.
The two may converge…. but one may be shown to be fatally flawed, it can fall by the wayside but to shake my belief in God will take something else.
Comment by Doug — March 21, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 7:14 pm
mtraven wrote:
Hi mtraven. I now see that you're being idiotic. I don't think you are an idiot, but you are being idiotic. And I will now prove that….
You stated: "He proved something about formal systems, but its implications for philosophy of mathematics or mind are not proved "
MATHEMATICS IS A FORMAL SYSTEM.
The truths of arithmetic are mathematical truths.
Hence they are formal truths–their truth, one might say, derives from their mathematical form.
So if you understand the mathematical form of a particular arithmetical truth, then you can see its truth. So I see that, say, '65 + 1 = 66' is a true statement, even without ever having ever previously, or now, mechanically proving it.
I can see it's a true statement because, in virtue of
education, I understand its mathematical form.
Godel proved that the truths of arithmetic are such that they cannot all be mechanically proven in a finite series of computations using the axioms of arithmetic.
But math professors can look at a Godel-type statement in arithmetic and see it's true, without having to mechanically prove it. A computer can't do that. It must use mechanical process to prove each and every truth of arithmetic.
But, to repeat myself, Godel proved that the truths of arithmetic are such that they cannot all be mechanically proven in a finite series of computations using the axioms of arithmetic.
But there are an infinite number of such truths.
So, if that's not a Platonic view of mathematical truth, tell me what the fuck you would count as such a view?
Comment by stunney — March 21, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Brad:
Why should I be able to explain something that the best scientists in the field can't explain yet? Is that why you used the word "specified" We don't know the OOL, so it must have been "specified" by someone?
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Hi AnaxagorasRules,
I probably should have left this alone, but I couldn't. It is a sign of desparation to suggest inappropriate financial motivations for Stephen Hawking. However, in the event that you are honestly interested…
1. Stephen Hawking provides mathematical models and explainations that are consistent with each other and observations. Here is a link to many of his public lectures. Here is a link to his most recent lecture. These transcripts are understandable, convincing and free.
2. Please realize that E=MC2 implies the matter is energy and visa versa. Science has quit looking for smaller and smaller particles. Plainly speaking, matter is as insubstantial as light.
3. If one can think outside of 3+1 dimensions (including time), it is understandable how asking what happened before the beginning of time is very much like asking what is South of the South Pole. Even though both questions are paridoxical in nature, neither requires the supernatural to come to the rescue.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 7:51 pm
The term specified was used because it fits. Don't hide in ignorance to avoid what, for you, is an unpleasant conclusion. It cannot be explained because those attempting to do so exclude the most logical possibility. When order correlating to functional specificity is a minute subset of the total possible number of configurations random reactions can be ruled out.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I have to agree with mtraven that stunney (who btw does seem to lose his temper quite easily) doesn't understand Goedel's theorems. If I understand it correctly, Goedel constructed a clever self-referencing statement X along the lines of "X cannot be proven true". If X can be proven true, then arithmetic is inconsistent, and if it cannot then the statement is true, in which case there are unprovable theorems. Therefore, consistent formal systems imply (infinitely many) unprovable true statements, given their axiomas. Now, it took Goedel quite a finite proof to show this (coding his clever statement in the language of arithmetic), far from "seeing" it. A proof which btw can be constructed by a computer. The general rule seems to be: for a given list of axiomas, there are unprovable truths, but there also exists a larger list of axiomas in which those lower-level truths can be proved. Ad infinitum. How this proves the superiority of the human mind over mathematics is anyone's guess. Only proofs which consist of a finite number of steps are accepted by mathematics journals as far as I know. Proof by "seeing" is not acceptable.
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Hi Bradford,
This is another one I should have left alone, but I am feeling frisky today.
I have yet to see where you impute ID.
This is old news.
I have been looking for your position since I joined Telic Thoughts.
You have explained over and over why you believe what you believe. But, other than a form of GodDidIt, I have no idea what you propose as a model for how the many living things came to be on this planet.
Could you provide a link?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Brad:
I said it cannot be explained *yet*. You seem to be a bit impatient. Why not give those scientists some more time to find out how OOL could have happened without input of a designer? Those scientists have a very good reason to exclude what according to you is (I assume) the most logical possibility, the designer. If they didn't they would be out of a job. Let me ask you: if those scientists do discover a chemical pathway which could lead to primordial cells, would you give up on the idea of a designer?
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 8:10 pm
You have explained over and over why you believe what you believe. But, other than a form of GodDidIt, I have no idea what you propose as a model for how the many living things came to be on this planet.
Tell you what TP. Study a particular genome at your local data bank. Observe the exact sequencing associated with protein encoding genes, promotor regions, regulatory genes and much more and then tell yourself SelectionDoneIt. Don't bother to think about how a genome came about in the first place. Just assume unidentifed causes suffice- as long as ID is not associated with them.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 8:19 pm
That's a statement of faith.
Good point. Keep spinning in circles but keep your job.
I'd give up the association of intelligence and purpose with causality based on sequence specificity. If reactions leading to the formation of nucleic acids show a pattern of randomness with respect to functional sequence order are you willing to consider a causal alternative?
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Thanks for chiming in Raevmo, you have things right. I'm getting a little tired of stunney's blustering, especially since he obviously is reasonably bright.
As I've said before, the interpretation of Godel's theorems is an open question. Many smart people think it has no consequences at all for machine intelligence, while others think it prohibits it. It would be nice to have actual discussion about this, but insults, patronization, and weaving away from the hard questions doesn't make for a productive dialog.
Comment by mtraven — March 21, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 9:06 pm
You certainly needed back-up, that's for sure. Did you have to call for it on some atheist net?
Talk about projection!
Coming to Raevmo, the first part of what he said was on the right lines. But then he spoiled it:
This is the old bait-switch technique. Say something sensible, and then slip in some utter nonsense and attribute it to your opponent.
At no point did I ever claim, not even suggest, the 'superiority of the human mind over mathematics' (whatever that phrase is supposed to mean). Indeed, such a view, insofar as it's even coherent and can be stated sensibly, is the exact opposite of mathematical Platonism. So how that's supposed to be raevmo supporting you against what I had argued is—given that I never argued for that view—how shall I say, a mystery. Maybe it does so by magic, eh?
More crap from raevmo—because it makes it seem that I had claimed that seeing or understanding the truth is a form of proof, when in fact I never claimed such a thing—never once—or that humans can prove by seeing that a statement is true. All I claimed was humans can know a statement is a math truth without having to go through a proof. Talk about comically mangling my argument!
This is why raevmo didn't like the 65+1=66 example. It's a truth. Most people never prove it's a truth. Most people know it's truth. Most people never perform a proof of it.
The contortions you've got yourself into, mtraven, indicate that you're a fundie. And one can't productively reason with a fundie.
I expected better of you. But it's clear you're little more than a fundie, who's become even more of a fundie in the face of numerous howlers of yours being pointed out by me.
Comment by stunney — March 21, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Hi CJYman,
You wrote…
It is nice to see someone else trying to establish definitions up front.
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'tel-&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations b : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
2 : mental acuteness
I would define "information processor" as a computer. A designer would be a specialised computer. A computer that takes information and creates a design.
I don't think either of our definitions are a perfect match, but at least we might be communicating.
BTW, if we are using your definition (and possibly mine), would you agree that Earth's biomass (all living things taken as a whole) is intelligent even under standard evolutionary theory?
Does this mean you would agree that it is possible to think of Earth's biomass as being intelligent regardless of whether or not a consciousness was/is involved?
Was this a question or an observation?
Either way, I wouldn't overly fight a NOMA label. I do separate the philosophical from the scientific. But not for the purpose of protecting either. It is more as an attempt to remain sane.
I don't try to define "God". It is too important to try to figure out what other people mean by that word.
To me, "science" is the pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge being generally useful information for understanding the universe we preceive.
To me, "religion" is the pursuit/belief of Truth. I realize this isn't a universally accepted definition. Some consider religion a system of necessary moral values. I have a different system for that and title it "ethics".
I am interested in your answers and where you go with this.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
stunney:
All you're saying is (x)+1=(x+1). It's not really a theorem, but an axioma. You should come up with better examples. Can you see if this is true: every even number is the sum of two prime numbers?
Comment by Raevmo — March 21, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
But I think it is appropriate to consider ID alternatives. You know like those Dembski calls "telic organizing principles in nature" (link).
You see if you accept Stephen Hawking's model of the universe, retrocausality is quite possible and this is how information could get front-loaded into the OOL and the evolutionary process in general.
This could provide a scientific explaination for observations made on both sides of the question. The earth could be 4.5 Billion years old, common desent could have been "designed" into the system along with "the exact sequencing associated with protein encoding genes, promotor regions, regulatory genes and much more…" including the Bacterial Flagellum.
What do you think?
Rejoice. It is an ID alternative we all can embrace.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 21, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 10:56 pm
me:
stunney:
Gee. Bend over backwards to try to concede that your opponent might have a point, and what do you get in return? Abuse and bluster. Oh well.
For the record, you haven't pointed out a single "howler" made by me, since I actually know what I am talking about. But feel free to enjoy your victory in your own mind.
Comment by mtraven — March 21, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Hi Joy,
I asked
"Do you honestly think no one in the blog is interested in using ID as support/confirmation for their belief in God (not you of course)?"
You asked…
Joy, from my point of view it is "your side" that trying to change the Status Quo. Of course, the religious side is claiming persecution and rightousness, just like they accused that pagan Hypatia of Alexandria for trying to force her will on them.
Sorry, but pointing to the "rust on biology's scientific scaffolding" doesn't make a convincing argument that scienists are the aggressors here. Just the opposite, you sound like someone who wants to change science for its own good.
As for the "New Atheists". I am sorry and please excuse the worn expression, but that dog won't hunt. Literally. Can you hear it now? "We don't believe in God, We don't believe in the afterlife, but we will sacifice all for our non-god and our non-reward".
Yea, right.
Sorry, but being an atheist is pretty uninspiring especially in the face of rightousne