The Folly of Crews and Coyne
by MikeGeneFrederick Crews, a retired professor of literature, has written a book called Follies Of The Wise. Jerry Coyne suspends his critical thinking skills in order to give it a glowing review .
From reading the review, it is difficult to tell where Crews ends and Coyne begins. So I will just assume they are on the same page. Let us consider the intellectual folly.
Coyne, who is representing Crews, writes:
But religion is not completely separable from science. Virtually all religions make improbable claims that are in principle empirically testable, and thus within the domain of science: Mary, in Catholic teaching, was bodily taken to heaven, while Muhammad rode up on a white horse; and Jesus (born of a virgin) came back from the dead.
The key two words in that last long sentence were "in principle." Now, notice the subtle shift, as Crews and Coyne are going to engage in some sleight of hand:
None of these claims has been corroborated, and while science would never accept them as true without evidence, religion does.
When it comes to corroboration and evidence, we need more than something that is "in principle empirically testable." We need something that is empirically testable in practice. To claim that something is testable in principle is an admission that no test has been done in practice. Thus, a claim that is empirically testable only in principle is a claim that has merely the potential of falling within the domain of science. It does not actually fall within the domain of science until it can be empirically tested in practice.
By admitting these religious claims can only be tested "in principle," Coyne and Crews acknowledge that no testing has been done. No test, no evidence. No evidence, no corroboration. Thus, when they complain about the lack of evidence and corroboration, it is important to remember these are not the negative results of hundreds of carefully designed experiments. An experiment that can only be done in the imaginary realm of the "in principle" is, of course, not going to provide any real-world evidence or corroboration. Thus, the sleight of hand.
So what is it that these two scholars actually want? Let's take the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. While Coyne and Crews want to use science to judge this claim as being without evidence or corroboration, neither one has lifted a finger to use science to investigate this claim. What would such scientific corroboration look like? Does Coyne expect Christians to abandon this belief until scientists invent time travel to secretly secure tissue samples from Mary, Jesus, and the entire human male population? Are we supposed to find evidence that a certain percent of virgin human females will spontaneously become pregnant, such that the virgin birth would be some rare genetic condition?
If Coyne and Crews want to bring this miracle claim into the realm of science, they need to tell us what type of scientific data, obtainable through actual empirical testing, would corroborate the miracle and explain why this data would corroborate this claim. Until then, their claim "Virtually all religions make improbable claims that are in principle empirically testable, and thus within the domain of science" is false and misleading.
September 16th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Uh-oh!! Gene duplication!
Comment by mb — September 16, 2006 @ 11:20 am
September 16th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
(Mike Gene accidentally double-posted this blog this morning. Hence the comment.)
Comment by mb — September 16, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
September 17th, 2006 at 2:46 am
Mike
Evidence does not have to be direct observation and in fact you have touched on what might be evidence in your posting "Are we supposed to find evidence that a certain percent of virgin human females will spontaneously become pregnant". If such a thing were to be discovered then that would be highly relevant. In fact no one has ever reported a corroborated instance of virgin birth and while we understand in detail how conception works. We have no idea how a virgin birth might work.
I am not sure what you are arguing. Do you want to say that religion is completely separable from science? And that this is because religious facts such as the virgin birth happened so long ago they cannot be corroborated in practice? This would confine miracles to times and places where they cannot be corroborated. Do you really mean this?
Comment by Mark Frank — September 17, 2006 @ 2:46 am
September 17th, 2006 at 6:08 am
I can't speak for Coyne and Crews, but I think Christians should abandon their belief in the virgin birth of Christ for the following reasons:
1. Folks in Jesus' time thought that a virgin birth would constitute a miracle.
2. Modern science has never documented a (human) virgin birth, so a virgin birth today would also be considered a miracle by most people.
3. Miracles are reported today, but they have never been corroborated by science. There is always a prosaic explanation.
4. Miracles were reported back then.
Given those facts, the question becomes, which of the following is more likely?
1) a genuine miracle happened, and Jesus was born of a virgin; or
2) virgin births don't happen today, and they didn't happen back then, but at some point someone attached the idea of a virgin birth to Jesus. It is just one more of the many false reports of miracles through the ages, both within and without the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The second option is overwhelmingly more likely.
What about Biblical corroboration of the virgin birth? First of all, the remarkable assertion of Jesus' virgin birth is only made in two of the four Gospels, Matthew and Luke. Why would Mark and John neglect to mention such an amazing occurrence? Secondly, why should the Bible in general be trusted, given the large number of contradictions and inconsistencies it contains?
As far as I'm concerned, the proper question is "Why would anyone accept the story of the virgin birth?"
Comment by keiths — September 17, 2006 @ 6:08 am
September 17th, 2006 at 9:02 am
keiths,
Because the Bible says it occurred, and because Christians believe in God and believe the Bible is His Word and know that God is trustworthy? Because Jesus claimed, and proved Himself to be, God, and if He had a human father, He would not have been God? Because if Jesus was conceived as any other person was and is, He also would have inherited a sinful nature and would have been in need of salvation Himself? I take it you don't understand much about Christianity.
Comment by Douglas — September 17, 2006 @ 9:02 am
September 17th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Mark Frank Says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 17, 2006 @ 10:00 am
September 17th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Hi Mark,
You write:
But this is not the fulcrum of the dispute. Evidence is not synonymous with science, yet Coyne and Crews argue that the virgin birth falls within the domain of science.
A miracle, by definition, exists as a singularity, where God intervenes in the natural world in a way that violates the "laws of nature." Are you saying that miracles need to conform to the laws of nature?
If science is to judge, then when it comes to corroboration and evidence, we need more than something that is "in principle empirically testable." We need something that is empirically testable in practice. To claim that something is testable in principle is an admission that no test has been done in practice. Thus, a claim that is empirically testable only in principle is a claim that has merely the potential of falling within the domain of science. It does not actually fall within the domain of science until it can be empirically tested in practice.
The only way that science can "corroborate" a miracle is to adopt and endorse the "god-of-the-gaps" approach. The ID debate has taught us that such an approach violates the essence of science. Thus, science cannot ever corroborate a miracle.
Comment by MikeGene — September 17, 2006 @ 10:16 am
September 17th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Hi keiths,
You write:
If Jesus was indeed born of a virgin, then all of your points would still apply. You seem to be saying that Christians need to reject belief in the virgin birth because it isn't the most likely explanation. Well, unless someone personally experiences the miracle, that will always be the case with such reports. Thus, this doesn't help us get to the truth of the matter.
Of course, if modern science had documented cases of human virgin births, the virgin birth would not be a miracle. And this is where people run into trouble when they use science to pass judgment on religion. If such judgment is to be passed, one has to understand the thinking of that religion and the meaning of that miracle. For example, the virgin birth of Jesus is not some whimsical display of divine power. Nor is it a miracle that services the isolated need of some individual. From the biblical perspective, miracles were never called miracles "“ they were known as signs. The miracle comes with a message that, like all messages, is highly context dependent.
As Douglas will tell you, the virgin birth represents the divine entry into our reality. If God is not going to continually incarnate in people across time, then why expect the virgin birth to be repeatable?
Finally, as for the most likely explanation that is supported by evidence, again, the ID debate informs us. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen various ID proponents criticized and ridiculed for trying to prop up their faith in God with scientific evidence. The standard criticism is that this demonstrates the weakness of their faith. Are people telling me that this same criticism no longer applies when it comes to Christians seeking out science to "prop up" their belief in the virgin birth?
Comment by MikeGene — September 17, 2006 @ 10:34 am
September 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Mike
Let's get this clear.
Some miracles, e.g. virgin birth, could be corroborated in principle but can't in practice. You seem to accept this.
If this means anything at all, it entails that while these miracles took place at a time and a location that makes it impossible to corroborate them; but the same event, i.e. virgin birth, could have taken place in circumstances where it could be corroborated (e.g. in public, under controlled conditions).
Two questions:
Would it then cease to be a miracle?
If you still consider it a miracle under these circumstances why it is that all miracles happen to take place in circumstances where they can't be corroborated?
Mark
Comment by Mark Frank — September 17, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
September 17th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
All events that contravene natural laws would be considered miraculous.
If you still consider it a miracle under these circumstances why it is that all miracles happen to take place in circumstances where they can't be corroborated?
How do you corroborate a past event that contravened natural Laws? What is possible is observing it but that requires being at the right time and place. Explaining it is a different problem.
Comment by Bradford — September 17, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
September 17th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Mark Franks,
It is not true that "all miracles happen to take place in circumstances where they can't be corroborated" - only some do, and then only in the sense that they can't be "scientifically" corroborated, although they can be reasonably and justifiably corrobated to the degree of eliminating any naturalistic explanation.
Comment by Douglas — September 17, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
September 17th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
RogerRabbitt,
If the virgin birth was a case of parthenogenesis, then Jesus was female. I'm no expert, but I suspect this scenario is theologically problematic.
Comment by Mesk — September 17, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
September 17th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Let's not forget that the virgin birth isn't the only event thought to have occured at a time that makes it impossible to corroborate. The ateleological origin of life is also something that supposedly took place before the origin of scientific observers. And just like failure to observe modern-day virgin birth can be explained (e.g. Mike's "context dependent sign"), so can the failure to observe modern-day spontaneous generation of "proto-lifeforms" be explained ("the conditions aren't right", "the process takes too long", etc.).
Of course, Mike's point about the virgin birth can be applied to the origin of life as well: All of these objections could be raised, even if life did arise ateleologically. But believers in various un-evidenced events shouldn't take offense if some of us choose to remain unbelievers.
Comment by Krauze — September 17, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
September 17th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Just because you have a "thing" against cross-dressing deities, doesn't mean we all do.
But seriously, the point was more along the lines of the problems of virgin births in general, which another poster said we had no clue about, but which in reality could indeed possibly occur in nature. This is not near so problematic as materialist abiogenesis, for example, which many folks don't a priori rule out.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 17, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
September 17th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Hi Mark,
You write:
Topics such as 'evidence' and 'corroboration' are certainly worthy of pursuit, but the issue raised by Coyne, Crews, Dawkins, and others, is that science is the authority that determines the veracity of all miracle claims. In this case, we'd be dealing with the one-time event of Jesus being born of a virgin as a sign of divine entry into our reality. How could science ever possibly corroborate such a thing with "controlled conditions?" Are we talking time travel? Controlled conditions are only relevant when dealing with regularities and the laws of nature.
The only thing that science could, in principle, find is something that happened that is not explainable by our current understanding of natural law. Science could not corroborate the miracle in the sense that religious people understand the miracle. In fact, as I noted, science rejects the "god-of-the-gaps" approach and would be obligated to seek out some naturalistic explanation for the virgin birth, citing its track record of success in the past. Is Coyne and Dawkins willing to make the "god-of-the-gaps" approach part of science, abandoning the search for naturalistic explanations while invoking supernatural causation simply because we can't currently explain some phenomena (virgin birth) with naturalistic explanations?
Comment by MikeGene — September 17, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
September 17th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Sure, parthenogenesis is pretty common in nature. But (1) parthenogenesis really can't explain the virgin birth of a male child, and (2) why is it even necessary to find a naturalistic explanation for this? I thought the whole point of the virgin birth was that it was a miracle.
Krauze's point is a valid one: what we perceive as a reasonable probability will depend on our prior beliefs. I personally see abiogenesis as probably true and the virgin birth as unlikely, but I accept that these internal probability calculations are not based on hard science. If I happened to be a Christian, my probability calculations would be different - even if I had access to precisely the same evidence that I have now.
Comment by Mesk — September 17, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
September 18th, 2006 at 1:06 am
I have the reverse view of Mesk but see his statement as fair and reasonable. There is much subjectivity connected with our "calculations" but it is helpful to be at least honest enough to acknowledge that many of our views have something other than an empirical basis.
Comment by Bradford — September 18, 2006 @ 1:06 am
September 18th, 2006 at 1:49 am
Mike - it seems to me then that you are saying that miracles cannot be corroborated by science in principle.
Incidentally I absolutely agree that science can and should reject a god-of-the-gaps approach.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 18, 2006 @ 1:49 am
September 18th, 2006 at 5:46 am
Yes, but why accept the Bible as God's word?
You're mistaking my disagreements with Christianity for a misunderstanding of Christianity.
Because Jesus claimed, and proved Himself to be, God, and if He had a human father, He would not have been God? Because if Jesus was conceived as any other person was and is, He also would have inherited a sinful nature and would have been in need of salvation Himself? I take it you don't understand much about Christianity.
Comment by keiths — September 18, 2006 @ 5:46 am
September 18th, 2006 at 5:47 am
Oops. Ignore the last paragraph of my comment above. It was a cut-and-paste error.
Comment by keiths — September 18, 2006 @ 5:47 am
September 18th, 2006 at 6:12 am
Mike,
Everyone should reject belief in highly improbable things which are not supported by the evidence. Does this mean that we might reject a genuine miracle? Sure. But as imperfect humans, we can never be right 100% of the time. We have to choose a method that maximizes our probability of correctness.
Besides, if God wants us to know about miracles he performs, he can make their effects obvious and available to everyone. If the virgin birth really occurred, and if it really mattered to God that we believe in it, he would have found a way to make its truth obvious to all of us. The fact that he didn't, and doesn't, suggests that either the miracle didn't happen (most likely), or that it did, but God simply doesn't care whether we believe it (far less likely).
I wouldn't expect miracles, including the virgin birth, to be repeatable. But why give more credence to a report of a fantastically unlikely event, simply because I don't expect it to happen again?
Science shouldn't be used as a tool for "propping up" anything but the truth.
Comment by keiths — September 18, 2006 @ 6:12 am
September 20th, 2006 at 8:14 am
There is an erroneous presumption in this. The virgin birth was but one of many miracles described as occuring during the life of Jesus. Many were performed before many people. Not everyone who witnessed a miracle responded as you suggest they would. We have a tendency to believe that which we choose to believe. We also use our reasoning to rationalize the correctness of whatever beliefs we hold.
Comment by Bradford — September 20, 2006 @ 8:14 am
September 20th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Bradford wrote…
This is the aspect of the ID/Darwin debate that I am interested in. I want to understand how others "rationalize the correctness of whatever beliefs" they hold. Rationalization of religious beliefs is difficult to understand because, either directly or indirectly, it is claimed "God transcends logic". However, most ID proponents disavow appealing to either omnipotent beings or illogical logic.
That is why I don't focus on the evidence too much. My focus is understanding who has beliefs that are internally consistent. If someone believes an original cell was designed and front-loaded with everything needed to create the diversity of life on earth, that is fine. It is illogical for that person to then turn around and argue against any form of common descent.
Throwing darts at other people's beliefs is easy. It is also meaningless if either side lacks an internally consistent belief. It is cowardess to have an internally consistent belief but intentionally withhold it while throwing darts at others.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 20, 2006 @ 11:40 am
September 20th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Who claims this?
Comment by Bradford — September 20, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Bradford asks…
The first time I heard it directly stated was from some kid sitting next to me in 11th grade social studies class. I probably have heard it quoted to me at least a half of dozen more times since then (call it 30 years).
This statement shows up mostly when we get to the point of testing the consistency in the logic of religious beliefs. During adolescence it was exploring things like "Can God crate a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?" to Saint Augustine's logical ramifications of assuming an omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe (predestination and origin of evil).
While many attempts are made to explain away logical inconsistencies like those posed by Saint Augustine, they mostly boil down to faith trumps logic. Even Saint Augustine himself ended up making that explaination. I suspect that if he hadn't the "Saint" title wouldn't have occurred after his death.
I have learned that if, and when, a religious argument gets to the point of faith trumping logic, it is time to stop arguing. This has happened so often that I pretty much quit arguing about religious based issues like creationism.
Isn't it a good thing that ID isn't religious based? Which begs a question…
"Why are you interested in who claims God transcends logic?"
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 20, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
The claim is, as I suspected after reading your explanation, a trivial one.
Comment by Bradford — September 20, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Bradford wrote…
While I agree it should be a trivial, unimportant issue for a discussion of Intelligent Design, it was far from a trivial issue for Saint Augustine.
After reviewing the thread, it appears that the discussion was tip-toeing around how religious belief could color the perception of evidence. My point is that that a biased perception of the evidence is one thing, a first, a primary step, is to check the internal consistency of your logic. Does the logic work even if all of your assumptions about the data are correct?
For example, Bradford, in the other thread you stated…
Great! So what logically follows from that? Wouldn't a process that propagates design down to the descendents have to exist? Color the evidence any way you want, want are the logical conclusions of your beliefs? Do you say earth's organisms descended from the first cell? Did this occur via natural processes?
One of the canned answers goes something like "Evolutionists guess, we don't".
It is a very subtle faith-trumps-logic argument, but that is what it is.
Is your belief based on logical consistency or is it based on faith that some day, some how your beliefs will be vindicated?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 20, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
TP:
I'm curious, TP, is it your position that logic trumps faith? If so, why?
If you'd like some heady reading on this and related subjects, you might get hold of Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga.
Comment by DonaldM — September 20, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Great! So what logically follows from that?
What logically follows from the thread you took that quote from is that life is the result of intelligent design. Until I get past the origins issue with admissions from anti-IDers, that are independent of their own philosophically motivated views, we can go no further. Anti-IDers have their own metaphysical logical framework that determines their outlook on data. Until they are able to acknowledge this, square one is the focus.
Comment by Bradford — September 20, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
DonaldM asked…
Excellent questions!
Seriously, this goes directly to the heart of the matter. Please note I said "it is time to stop arguing" implying nothing about who won or lost. If logic doesn't trump faith then it is pointless to try to use logic to argue about faith.
I have nothing against faith. I will keep an eye out for Warranted Christian Belief but I am not optimistic that it will convince me of anything beyond what I already understand and accept.
I enjoy debating. In the context of a debate, logic trumps all by definition (at least by what I mean by the term "debate"). My personal beliefs are… personal. That is that they probably don't fall into any well-defined catagory. Some people would call me agnostic, most would call me an atheist. While I would gladly present my beliefs to you, I would expect you would find them either uninteresting or frustrating or both.
To directly answer your questions…
Philosophically, I do not believe logic trumps faith or visa versa,
However, I do believe logic trumps faith in a debate on a topic that is supposed to be purely scientific and not philosophical.
I believe I have already explained why.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 20, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Bradford wrote…
Do you consider me an Anti-IDer?
I have already said "Great!". I accept this as a valid assumption for you to make.
If you are going to wait for every Anti-IDer to say the same thing, you are going to be at square one for a very long time. I think there are some people at the talk.origins newsgroup that would rather lose an arm than give up the consession I just made.
In short…
If you have a logically consistent belief, please share it, otherwise, you appear to be someone just throwing darts from the sidelines with a convenient excuse for not getting into the game.
Provoking Debate
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 20, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
If you have a logically consistent belief, please share it, otherwise, you appear to be someone just throwing darts from the sidelines with a convenient excuse for not getting into the game.
Comment by Bradford — September 20, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Thought Provoker added an endblock and wrote…
Bradford wrote…
Granted, you are very skilled at dart throwing I have nothing to say because there is nothing to say. As a debater, I see no point in the complex arguing that you and Smokey are engaging in. Attacking the Status Quo without a plan is as effective as complaining about the weather.
I will worry about defending the Status Quo, when I know what I am defending against. At this point, you have only tentatively offered your version of biogenesis.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 20, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
You're revealing your bias. I've suggested opening up options that are not presently considered. Viable variation from the outset is an assumption, not a belief grounded in solid data. Recent data indicates the size of a minimally functional genome is too large to allow for stochastic causes and despite continued plying, natural selection criteria has not been introduced as a way of indicating how incrementalism leads to a minimal genome. The alternative intelligent inference is clear.
Comment by Bradford — September 20, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
After an overly complicated explaination, Bradford wrote…
Good, then you shouldn't mind articulating that clearly inferred alternative.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 20, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
My problem with Crews' argument comes sooner than his argument against miracles. It starts at:
Sorry, but ID theory doesn't embrace any deities, clashing or otherwise. It merely believes that certain objects or phenomena in the biological world are best explained by intelligent design.
Comment by Bilbo — September 20, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
September 21st, 2006 at 9:57 pm
TP writes:
Its my observation that most such debates aren't about faith per se but about facts that undergird or inform it. By way of example only (not intended to start some new debate), Christians ground their faith in what they take to be actual historical events: the resurrection of Jesus, the virgin brith, Christ's teaching and ministry while one earth, etc etc. Debates over these matters aren't debates about raw faith, but over what the evidences of history, historical documents, and so forth actuall show.
So to your point, I'm not sure what a debate or argument about a matter of faith would actually entail.
Don't bet on it. I've yet to see anyone mount a sustained refutation of Plantinga, though some attempts have been made. His logic and reasoning are impeccable and he makes a compelling case for his thesis. Give a whirl.
Comment by DonaldM — September 21, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
September 21st, 2006 at 10:10 pm
TP
Why would only 'religious belief' color the preception of evidence? If one is a philosophical naturalist, don't you think that would 'color' thier perception of evidence? Evidence is one of those terms that gets misconstued a lot. One might say "there's no evidence that God exists". Now, do they mean that they've examined all the evidence and concluded that nothing gives evidence for the existence of God? Or do they mean that there isn't anything they take to be evidence for God's existence? Or do they mean there simply is no actual evidence of any kind for God's existence? Or do they mean it is logically impossible for there to be actual evidence for God's existence? Or…fill in the blank.
The point is that no one looks at evidence in an intellectual vacuum. Evidence in the form of data or observation of phenomenon is assigned evidentiary status by the observer based on other bits of background knowledge she might have, and that often includes beliefs that one holds or takes to be true. She might believe that naturalism is true, for example, so that would indeed color the way she sees the evidence.
Comment by DonaldM — September 21, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
September 21st, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Hi Keiths,
You write:
This sounds good when stated in general, vague terms. But what happens when the same claim becomes more specific? "Supported by evidence" becomes "other people should have been born of virgins." That's hardly a very convincing argument against the existence of a miracle.
As for the rest, yes people can get into philosophical and apologetic arguments about these issues. But you are missing the point. Crews and others want to use Science as the authority to determine whether miracles have occurred. They have failed to make their case. On the contrary, they seem to be changing the very essence and definitions of science just to make an anti-religious point.
Comment by MikeGene — September 21, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
September 21st, 2006 at 11:16 pm
DonaldM wrote…
I didn't recognised the name earlier. He was the one that said even an omnipotent God can't make 2+2=5, right?
Unfortunately, few people stick with using logical arguments to that extent, especially when it comes to faith. It is a lot easier to say "you just have to have faith" instead of working it through. Even when the question doesn't involve religion, you can get an "I know I am right, even if I can't explain it" declaration.
When the other side rejects logic (for whatever reason), the debate is over.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 21, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
September 21st, 2006 at 11:45 pm
DonaldM asked…
My comment about the coloring of perceptions was just a lead-in to…
"Does the logic work even if all of your assumptions about the data are correct?"
My point is still my point regardless of the cause for biased perception.
Ar the risk of being rudely repetitive (if not already too late), how can you and others ignore the need to create a consistent, logicial framework from which to base your arguments?
Interpret all the data your way. What does it add up to? Do the connections fit? Is it internally consistent?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 21, 2006 @ 11:45 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:54 am
TP
It might help if you could point to specific arguments that you think are logically inconsistent with respect to ID. I find the naturalistic worldview to be the one with inconsistent internal logic. Not to keep referring to the same guy, but once again Alvin Plantinga points the way. May I suggest you listen to his lecture An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Since you like to prooke thought, let Plantinga provoke yours. You can also read his arguments in his book Warrant and Proper Function, especially the last two chapters. Those chapters themselves became the subject of entire book featuring several critics attempting to refute his argument. I'm happy to say his arguments withstood the attempts!! (The title escapes me at the moment.)
There, now I've given you plenty of reasons why I think the logic of the naturalistic worldview is internally inconsistent. Its your turn to provide some specific areas where you think mine or others argument have the same problem and why.
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 8:54 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:56 am
TP:
If he ever did, I don't recall it.
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 8:56 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:01 am
MIke
This is exactly correct, Mike. My question to them is quite simple: How do you know scientficially (not theologically or philosophically) that the properties of the Cosmos are such that miracles caused by supernatural agents outside the Cosmos can not take place? Since Crews and Coyne want to appeal to science for all the answers, I want to see thier scientific answer to this question. Were experiments conducted to make this determination? If so, where was this research done? Under what conditions? How might the findings be falsified? In what peer reviewed scientific journal were the results reported?
Of course, we already know the answer to all those questions: zip zero, nada.
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 9:01 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:16 am
Keiths
This is classic foundationalism — the idea that one has an epistemic duty to reject any belief not based on evidence. Foundationalism has fallen on hard times in the last 2o years or so. The main criticism against is the obvious self-refuting nature of the argument. What is the evidence for the belief that one ought to have evidence for one's belief?
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 9:16 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:28 pm
I wrote…
"[Plantinga] was the one that said even an omnipotent God can't make 2+2=5, right?"
DonaldM responded"¦
From Plantinga's God, Freedom, and Evil…
"Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely.
…
The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good."
Whether of not Plantinga actually explained it using simple logic (2+2=5), set theory (there is nothing that can both be contained and not contained in a set) or only in terms like those above. The concept is essentially the same.
Once again, this has gone far a field from an Intelligent Design discussion unless your ID proposal is, in fact, based on the Intelligent Designer being God.
Is that your personal proposal you are arguing?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:38 pm
TP:
I think you're missing a verb or something, because your sentence above doesn't make sense. I can't tell what you're driving at.
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
DonaldM wrote…
I am taking a deep breath… in… out…
I can't point to any logical inconsistencies until a proposal is presented.
Here is a proposal…
It is logically consistant. Is it what you are proposing?
As to my personal proposal, I have presented it multiple times (even revised it). Can you, without arguing the evidence, indicate how it is logically inconsistant? (I will repeat it if needed)
The bulk of this thread talks about how data is inherently susceptable to biased interpretations. We can get into that, but only after both proposals are on the table.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:18 pm
DonaldM wrote…
I wasn't "driving at" anything. In fact, I was saying this topic was unimportant to the discussion unless you are pointing to God as your proposed Intelligent Designer.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:24 pm
The fact that a TP's request for a proposal of a logical framework only prompted this buck-passing is strong evidence that you don't have a logical framework, Donald.
If they convinced you, why can't you summarize them? Are scientific matters resolved by dueling essays, or by new data?
Actually, you punted and didn't offer a bit of logic.
Comment by Smokey — September 22, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
TP:
I won't argue with that.
Smokey:
You're nothing if not entertaining, Smokey. I referred to the Plantinga lecture for the simple reason that it is going straight to the source, as it were. But if you insist on a summary, I'll oblige you and TP.
Plantinga's argument says that naturalism and evolution (here thought of in just the ordinary way that evolution is taught in schools all over the place) are at best "uneasy bedfellows". If naturalism is true, and everything is the end result of some natural cause and effect, then something like the following must be true. Everything in the cosmos, every event, every bit of matter is the end product of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting over eons of time through chance and necessity or their combination. Eventually this blind, purposeless process result in the arrival of humans on the scence, replete with what Plantinga calls our cognative faculties. SInce our cognative faculties are also the end product of this long blind, purposeless process, there is no reason to think that they have as one of their functions the production of true beliefs. Therefore, the idea that "naturalism is true" being the product of our cognative faculties, seems irrational. Or, at least it is irrational to hold it as being a true belief.
If the foundation of naturalism is itself irrational, it would seem that anything that flowed from it would be irrational as well. As Plantinga puts, one who holds that naturalism and evolution are true has a built in defeater for that belief, or at least a good reason to be agnostic regarding it, and therefore the the proper course would be to withhold belief in its being true.
The theist, on the other hand, doesn't have that problem.
But as I pointed out orginally, Plantinga says it all so much better, and it is worth listening to the lecture.
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 6:44 pm
DonaldM wrote…
I explained…
I wasn't "driving at" anything. In fact, I was saying this topic was unimportant to the discussion unless you are pointing to God as your proposed Intelligent Designer.
Apparently I hit a nerve because, uncharacteristically, DonaldM took my first sentence out of context and replied only with…
Donald, did things just "get ugly"
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Source? The source of what? Are you saying that you start with a conclusion, and ignore evidence that doesn't fit?
But attributing the way that evolution has been taught in schools to scientists avoids the glaring fact that science education does a piss-poor job of teaching the scientific method, which is an important part of naturalism. It's getting better, but it's still bad. From my perspective, problems with science education are one of the main reasons there are so many pseudoscientists in the US relative to other Western countries.
Naturalism is an approach, not a fact or a claim. If that's the vocabulary that Plantinga uses, the argument is worthless. Note that you are pretending that people who take a naturalistic approach lack the integrity to admit that something is unknown. That's called projecting your faults onto others.
For example, which group of people are responsible for designing and building the computer you are using to read this? People who took a naturalistic approach to understanding physics, or people who couldn't be bothered with empirical approaches and evidence?
Comment by Smokey — September 22, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 6:50 pm
DonaldM wrote…
And I had planned on listening to it this weekend (maybe tonight). Thank you for the link.
However, it still doesn't tell me what you are proposing.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Smokey
Does the phrase non sequitor mean anything to you, Smokey. Natualism is NOT an approach, it is a philosophy. The fact that you don't know something that basic explains a lot.
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 7:23 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Why is the scientific method an important part of naturalism? The fact that you even ask the question in that way betrays that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
TP:
Enjoy.
As to what I'm proposing….for now I've been proposing that the presupposition of philosophical naturalism doesn't work for science. In light of the OP, I'm proposing that no one can tell me how they know scientifically that the properties of the cosmos are such that no actions taken by a supernatural entity can have empirical, detectable consequences in nature, even in principle, contra the quote from Coyne in the OP. Neither Coyne, Crews nor anyone else can demonstrate that in any scientific way.
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:16 pm
DonaldM wrote…
Without suggesting an alternate, you might as well be saying "The weather we are having is all wrong for this time of year."
Actually, complaining about the weather would be better since the term has a pretty common usage. The definition of "science", on the other hand, is the subject of much controversy lately. Be that as it may, the subject is a Red Herring to the question of your proposal for evolution.
DonaldM also wrote…
Excuse me if this was supposed to be your counter proposal to the above, but it didn't seem to fit that way. You are on solid, forensic grounds to argue the Status Quo and claim that the new proposal is a bunch of hog-wash. Frankly, I am inclined to agree with your assessment of Crew's proposal. But, at least, he offered one.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Donald wrote…
I was able to only listen to a portion of the audio. However, I looked over the notes and searched for other information and found this… http://www.calvin.edu/academic...
I will digest it more, but my first reaction was to laugh. At the risk of offending your sensibilities (this appears to be important to you), I find an argument that assumes humans individually, or as a whole, to be rational creatures down-right comical.
Another thing, which I have touched on before, is the difference between the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of truth. I have no problems accepting the concept that we are incapable of understanding truth, the best we can hope for is to gain a little knowledge to help us succeed at our naturally preprogrammed four F's (which Plantinga listed as "feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing.")
Donald, momentarily you have me at a disadvantage. I presume you understand Plantinga's views much better that I considering the brief time I have had to study them. While I would rather compare and contrast our personal views, I will rigorously debate Plantinga's view with you if you give me some assurance that you will stick with it.
Can we agree the principle source for Plantinga's view is the link I provided? I find it a lot easier to cut and paste text than audio.
You have my opening reaction. I will present a more embellished version of it if and when you agree to the debate.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2006 @ 11:05 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:37 pm
TP:
Really? And is this also a truth that we are incapable of understanding? Surely you can see the self-refutation of this claim, TP!!
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 11:37 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:49 pm
TP:
Debating Plantinga is really not my purpose. Its just that I agree with him on this argument, (and he puts things so much better than my feeble attempts!!!). I had forgotten about the Calvin link, but, yes, that is essentially in written form what was in the lecture.
I really was serious in my prior post: it is a self-refuting claim.
If one says "It is not possible to know truth", then that statement itself is claim on knowing at least one truth, thus the claim comes with its own refutation. Its as if I said "I can't write a word in English!"
Claiming that we can have a little knowledge doesn't help much here, because what is knowlege if not knowledge about some truth about the world or the way the world works, or about one's self? I know that knowlege and epistomology are unsettled subjects in philosophy, but at the core all seem to agree that knowledge is somehow connected with truth. So, no matter how you look at it, your claim doesn't seem warranted.
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:00 am
TP:
Well, no. I don't think that one has abdicated some duty of argumentation by merely pointing out the flaw in a particular proposition. It isn't a requirement that an alternate proposal be offered in order for the critique to be valid.
I see the two as closely intertwined.
The definition of science may be controversial, if by that you mean there is no agreed upon definition of science, but that's hardly a new state of affairs. Its been the subject of debate and discussion for centuries.
Comment by DonaldM — September 23, 2006 @ 12:00 am
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:41 am
DonaldM wrote…
But then you procede to continue the debate.
Arguing philosophy isn't my strong suit, but I will be your foil until you decide to get serious about something.
DonaldM wrote…
Or the infamous "I am lying!" We all can claim anything. Monkeys communicate aggression in the face of danger. Viceroy butterflies communicate poison when they aren't. Does it really matter whether or not Monkeys or Viceroy Butterflies believe they are brave or poisonous? It is the behavior that is important. Pursuit of knowledge is a survival trait. The fact that we irrationally think we are pursuing truth is as relevant as Peacock feathers.
Do you remember why the Oracle at Delphi said no one was wiser than Socrates?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 12:41 am
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:58 am
DonaldM wrote…
I won't argue that because I am more interested in your statement "I see the two as closely intertwined" referring to the definition of science and your ID proposal.
Definitions are crucial in a debate. Hopefully you aren't holding back because of the definition of "science". You get to define your own terms (as long as you articulate the definitions and use them consistently). Just don't try to define them for the opposing side. "Naturalism is theism without God" has got to be one of the most loaded definitions I have ever heard.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 12:58 am
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
TP:
So, by your own argument, the above claim is either a)a true statement that you arrived at through consideration of certain facts, arguments, and so forth presented to you in books, papers, online discussions, lectures and so forth or b) irrational and irrelevent, in which case there's no reason to pay attention to the fact that you think that. If A, then you've refuted your own claim, if B, then there's no way for me or anyone else to verify the truth of your claim, since, according to you it is irrational to think we can pursue truth. I really don't see a third alternative escape hatch here for your argument.
I'm not defining terms for "the other side". I am clarifying what I take to be how the naturalists define their terms.
"Naturalism is Theism without God" — Plantinga does go on to fully explain what he means by that. I don't find it as loaded as you do, once his explanation is taken into account.
As for any definition of science itself, I wouldn't presume to believe that I can accomplish what centuries of scholars, scientists and philosophers have not: a commonly acceptable defnition that all agree on. However, I have no problem rejecting a formulation of science that presupposes philosophical naturalism. That certainly ssems to be what Crews and Coyne are doing, as pointed out in the OP.
No, I'm merely using Plantinga's approach to the issues. I refer you to him because I don't think I can justly summarize in a short post what he took several pages to do.
I don't see you as my "foil". And I am being serious about something: I am serious that science defined under the presuppostions of philosophical naturalism (PN)is gratuitous to the practice of science itself. Whatever else one wants to throw into a definition of science, at the very least, it seems to me, it ought to entail a confrontation with nature and letting nature tell us what the facts are about her operations and not the other way around. Presupposing PN reverses that and has the scientist telling nature what the constraints of her operations must be. That is the foundation of the "folly" (as Mike put it in the title of this thread) of Crews and Coyne and many others who claim to speak for "science". I am quite serious when I say that I find that highly objectionable, and without merit either philosophically or scientifically.
I reject it on philosophical grounds along the same lines as Plantinga's main arguments, which is why I pointed you in that direction. I reject it scientifically because no one has provided a scientific explanation as to why the properties of the cosmos (and here I am thinking of empirical properties) are such that no actions taken by any supernatural entitiy can have empirical consequences in nature, even in principle. Further, there doesn't seem to be much hope that anyone ever could provide such an explanation on empirical grounds. The appeal goes tight back to philosophy, and that doesn't seem to get very far either for all the reasons that Plantinga points out.
Comment by DonaldM — September 23, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:14 pm
DonaldM wrote…
While this isn't my first choice of debate topics, it is about as close to a serious debate proposal I have seen from you yet. You need to be just a little more clearer on how you want to change the definition of science. To that end, we don't have to come up with a definition agreeable to all, just something you and I can debate. I offer the following…
The Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology defines science as…
1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts.
2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation.
3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.
Is this definition acceptable to you? If it is, this may be a very short debate. If it isn't, then please explain how you would change it.
As to the philosophy arguments, DonaldM wrote…
With apologies to you and Mike, I just can't get that worked up over a book written by "a retired professor of literature". If Mike's assessment of the situation is correct (which I have no reason to doubt) it does seem like a bit of an irrational proposal. But, who knows, after I retire I might end up writing a book that waxes philosophically.
Speaking of philosophy, I noticed you didn't comment on my Socrates' query. Let's add one more to the list of illogical claims we are compiling…
I am wise because I know nothing.
Using the same type of logic Plantinga used in defending free will; if the universe is such that having knowledge is irrational, we must be irrational, ignorant or both.
I think the evidence of the human species speaks for itself in this regard. And yes, that was a totally irrational claim for me to make.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 2:14 pm