1

G.K. Chesterton eerily defines postmodern scientism in the following excerpt from "Orthodoxy":

"In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."

Skinner makes the same error as Dawkins in his book "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". Even from a purely pragmatic point of view, Skinner and Dawkins can only intellectualize from a safe haven made possible by the very reality they utterly reject.

2

Joe

This is a good, quite simple presentation of the underlying conundrum of evolutionary materialism: self-referential insonsistency, or as Plantinga puts it: it is inescapably self-defeating.

Two and a half cheers.

Why not three?

1] I think you need to explicitly integrate neo-Darwinian thought and the wider worldview of evolutionary materialism, i.e. the cascade from hydrogen to humans through Monod's chance plus necessity alone.

2] I think Nokes' remarks need a proviso or two. First, We can fairly easily imagine a fifth dimension, through vectors: (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, . . . , xn) -- an n-dimensional space. So, it is not a question of an immaterial world being unimaginable per se, as that there is no credible way to distinguish the illusory from the real on evo mat premises.

Finally, I also -- at the risk of sounding like a scratched record -- think that the underlying worldview issue of soherence needs to be addressed in the context of comparative difficulties.

Okay, all the best.

Grace to all

Gordon

3

You know, Joe has claimed to read all the comments on his blog. When did he claim this? Well when he acted the part of the cowardly tyrant and banned Larry he claimed it was because he was subjected to his comments for two long years implying that he at least pays attention to us commentors.

I find it odd then that Joe never seems to learn anything from the comments. In fact, he has taken to running 'reruns' of older posts. If God forbid, Joe died tomorrow but his wife wanted EO to keep running for the ad revenue I think she could pull off the feat by just randomly pasting paragraphs of old posts about a particular topic together to make new ones and no one would know the difference. It is with this sad observation I begin to do this again:

Even Charles Darwin recognized that if the human brain is a product of blind, non-teleological evolutionary processes, then we have no reason to believe that the brain is capable of producing convictions that are trustworthy:

I pointed out several times now that human beliefs are very untrustworthy when they are about things not directly related to survival. we all probably know people who have very far out beliefs. Maybe they believe JFK was killed by a Jewish conspiracy, maybe they believe the gov't is actively covering up UFO abductions, or maybe they believe the Da vinci Code...that a secret society is using murder and other means to cover up the living offspring of Jesus. Personally I have encountered more than a few people who are convinced that AIDS was invented in a gov't lab and somehow escaped either by accident or on purpose.

What's amazing about these wackos is that just like us they are able to hold down jobs, pay their bills, brush their teeth & keep from walking in front of trains and busses. In fact, look at the crazy homeless guy on the street who claims he is superman and can fly. Notice how you rarely hear about even his type jumping off buildings?

The fact is evolution has done a great job at giving us brains that keep us alive (Darwin award winners notwithstanding). We do not have brains that are very good at coming up with true beliefs beyond that. If we did we wouldn't need to be constantly reminded of all the logical fallacies we so easily make. We wouldn't need to study logic and philosophy just as we don't need to study walking or eating.

Now let's take down Joe's three:

The first, and most common error, is simple circular reasoning. An example is found in a comment made by Matthew Goggins, “If we see brains that appear to be produced by non-rational processes, such as evolution, we can therefore conclude that rational things or beings are indeed produced by non-rational processes. There is no reason to think otherwise.” Obviously, simply assuming that our brains appear to be produced by non-rational processes does not serve as evidence for that claim.

Well actualy it is evidence. The word 'appear' here is the key. Naturally there's a lot of stuff behind that word but if you can summarize it as 'brains appear to have been formed by non-rational processes' then that is indeed evidence. Granted you can then dig into the evidence behind the word 'appear' but Joe has made it clear he doesn't get his hands dirty by actual science when he talks about science so don't expect it anytime soon.

The second type of error is based on the assumption that true beliefs would have some form of adaptive value, and would therefore be “selected” by evolution. The problem with this claim is that it cannot tell us what beliefs are true, only that some beliefs have an adaptive value. The reason this is the case is that there are two sets of beliefs--beliefs that are true and beliefs that have an adaptive value--that may or may not overlap.

Indeed and we often adopt beliefs that are caused by an 'adaptive value' that are not true. For example, we have a habit of seeing patterns where non exist. Show someone a paper filled with dots generated randomly and he will tell you they don't seem random. This is why the night sky seems to have constellations in it tracing out shapes. Obviously being sensitive to patterns is a good trait for beings like ourselves. If we're hunters it lets us notice patterns in our prey's behavior, if we are gathers it lets us see patterns of where edible plants can be found and if we are farmers it let's us see what works and doesn't work. But clearly we encounter numerous situations where we get tripped up imagining patterns that don't really exist. Hell an entire industry has grown up around 'technical analysis' of stock prices that have been statistically proven over and over again to follow only a random pattern. Yet many of us are willing to believe in our ability to see patterns in price charts that we'd part with our bread and butter to get what we think is an edge from meaningless charts.

In this material world, how can people imagine the non-material? If all is material, then the immaterial is completely beyond the paradigm of humans (and other denizens of the natural world). For someone to imagine the immaterial when neither they nor anyone else has ever experienced the immaterial is rather like trying to imagine a fifth dimension -- it is something so far out of our perception that conceiving of it seems nearly impossible.

Isn't it interesting Joe that even though we know a fifth dimension exists in terms of useful mathematical objects we have great difficulty imagining it. Here's the fact, when you imagine yourself winning 'world's best blogger' you are imaging an immaterial world. But that type of ability has an adaptive value because it helps you set in motion a plan that may not accomplish that goal but at least get you closer to it just as the ability for the hunter to imagine a trap working to capture some prey lets him set one up. For human like intelligence the ability to imagine things that are not there is essential.

There's a deeper error here, the belief that evolutionary theory says everything can be traced back to some 'adaptive value'. It's very close to arguing that all species are perfect. But evolution doesn't argue this. It only argues that the dynamics of natural selection operate to shape species over the long run. It is quite possible for a species to have quite a few novel 'side effects' that result from its useful adaptations but are not themselves an 'adaptive value'

4

"He appears not to realize that if the human brain is “designed” (he can’t help but sneak in teleological terms for non-teleological processes) by evolution then our brains would have no way to “understand” Darwinism."

A non-sequitur, as has been pointed out numerous times.

"Likewise, if we believe that non-teleological evolution is true then we have no reason to believe the theory since we would have no reason to trust that our belief-forming apparatus is reliable.

All of this should be self-evident to anyone who has given it a moment’s thought."

Nonsense and absolutely not. We have many reasons to believe that our belief-forming apparatus is reliable. To the extent that our beliefs contribute to our success as a species, they are reliable. That doesn't mean that all our beliefs are valid, however. Nonsense beliefs that do not negatively impact survival are not selected against. You think that materialism is a nonsense belief, and you do not seem to lack faith in your "noetic equipment". I, too, view some beliefs as nonsense, and I have no reason to doubt my belief-forming apparatus. It seems more grounded in reality than those of others I know.

5

You know who you are...

"Well when he acted the part of the cowardly tyrant and banned Larry he claimed it was because he was subjected to his comments for two long years implying that he at least pays attention to us commentors."

I think you're the only one still stuck on this. Perhaps you could demonstrate your highly evolved magnanimity and move on. It's just an idea -- but, it is repetative at this point, which is a quality you seem not to appreciate in others..

Now, since I am merely a non directed, accidental piece of meat and nerves firing off as they were programmed by no-one to do, I hope you will forgive my actions, guided by non-other than mother nature. Not that it matters, as matter goes.

It seems the big thread and theme behind all of this angst is not understanding that something must be uncaused and self exisiting---but what. I know, simple.

6

I think you're the only one still stuck on this. Perhaps you could demonstrate your highly evolved magnanimity and move on. It's just an idea -- but, it is repetative at this point, which is a quality you seem not to appreciate in others..

Since the banning keeps going on the person that needs to move on is Joe. Otherwise I shall keep reminding him of it as long as he keeps doing it. Likewise since Joe keeps bringing up the same arguments over and over again I shall respond to them over and over again. I will try to do more than simply cut and paste my original responses since there's always a chance that wording an old argument in a new way may yield some insights.

It seems the big thread and theme behind all of this angst is not understanding that something must be uncaused and self exisiting---but what. I know, simple.

Which has nothing to do with evolution yet every time philsophical materialism is discussed up pops evolution as a theory.

7

I think this may be a lost cause, but I just want to point out something:

Scientism is not post-modern

B. F. Skinner was nothing at all like, nowhere near, not even dubious, opposite of flirting with it, on the other side of the room from, the guy defined against, definitively NOT a postmodernist

Richard Dawkins is ... getting the picture, are we? ... not a post-modern thinker

I am sick and tired of hearing people who don't know jack about the history of ideas throwing around post-modern as a way to say "something I don't like or understand"!

Folks, modernism is what's in the zombie's head. Post-modernism is when it starts to wonder what it's doing there, since zombies are dead.

Let's use our words wisely or not at all, OK?

Good post, Joe. Not sure I agree 100%, though basically we're in the same place, but will chew on it. Mostly wanted to rant at the commenter, before it got left standing while the thread got hijacked.

Cheers,
PGE

8

A machine built with illogic will produce illogical output (google "Pentium bug" for a specific example). Unless human beings are designed to be able to perceive truth, I don't think that you can build a case for it based on logic. The Pentium chip didn't "know" that it had flawed logic and it was even designed for logic. We don't even know that logic (as opposed to, perhaps, intuition?) is adaptive. Scientists who believe that the "God gene" is responsible for religious experiences are stating that those people are not processing reality correctly - the machine is faking input. This position suggests that many people have a sensory system that is illogical at a fundamental level. Unless it is this gene that ALLOWS the organism to correctly perceive reality, and the other organisms have a flawed sensory system. A fixed Pentium chip diagnosing a flawed Pentium chip can truthfully only say that they have differing output without some higher access to the rules by which they both operate.

Perhaps the larger lesson is that empiricists should steer clear of philosophical issues - just the facts, ma'am.

9

Boonton, you said, "every time philsophical materialism is discussed up pops evolution as a theory"

Could you explain to me what theory of origins/development, apart from evolution, that materialists accept?

I know the 2 are separate things, but I haven't seen materialism "use" anything but evolution. This seems to explain why the 2 are always linked. I'd appreciate being set straight if I've missed some other alternative.

10

Boonton You know, Joe has claimed to read all the comments on his blog. When did he claim this? Well when he acted the part of the cowardly tyrant and banned Larry he claimed it was because he was subjected to his comments for two long years implying that he at least pays attention to us commentors.

I think I may have to revise that “read all the comments” policy since lately you’ve become an absolute bore.

I pointed out several times now that human beliefs are very untrustworthy when they are about things not directly related to survival.

You seem to think that repeating yourself incessantly is evidence of a strong rebuttal. I’m not sure if anyone every pointed out the obvious problem with your statement so let me take the opportunity to point out how it is self-defeating.

I assume that your statement is not directly related to survival. If not, then there is no reason to assume it is trustworthy. In fact, since nothing you write in these comment sections has anything to do with survival I suppose we can just assume that what you say is always untrustworthy.

Well actualy it is evidence. The word 'appear' here is the key. Naturally there's a lot of stuff behind that word but if you can summarize it as 'brains appear to have been formed by non-rational processes' then that is indeed evidence.

Do you even bother to read what you write? How does adding the word “appear” make it “evidence?” According to you, we could take an unsupported statement…

The human brain is a product of non-rational processes.

…and by simply adding the word “appear”…

The human brain appears to be a product of non-rational processes.

…it becomes “evidence” that it happened. That makes even less sense than Goggins circular reasoning.

Indeed and we often adopt beliefs that are caused by an 'adaptive value' that are not true.

Here again you return to begging the question. How do you know that the belief is true or false?

Obviously being sensitive to patterns is a good trait for beings like ourselves.

While the fallacies you commit in your reasoning are becoming less obvious, they are no less damaging to your defense. Your error is due to a failure to adequately investigate the suspected cause. In other words, you assume that your statement is true and then conclude that non-rational processes could produce such pattern-recognition ability.

Isn't it interesting Joe that even though we know a fifth dimension exists in terms of useful mathematical objects we have great difficulty imagining it.

You are confusing the meaning of the word “exist.” Just because something is a useful mathematical object does not mean that it exists in reality. Infinity, for example, is useful but cannot exist in a truly material universe.

For human like intelligence the ability to imagine things that are not there is essential.

You just keep talking in circles. Whether it is useful or not, you have not explained how it is possible for non-teleological evolution to produce teleological results. You keep sneaking in terms such as useful. But evolution doesn’t recognize what is useful. It just recognizes what is. If the non-material world doesn’t exist then there is no way for us to acquire a belief about it since we would never experience it.

Rob A non-sequitur, as has been pointed out numerous times.

Why don’t you humor us by explaining once more why that is a non-sequiter.

Nonsense and absolutely not. We have many reasons to believe that our belief-forming apparatus is reliable.

Of course we do, Rob, which is precisely why we have a reason to reject the idea that non-teleological evolution has produced our noetic equipment.

11

Gordon - after rereading your comments, I think that I have mostly just expounded on your point: "there is no credible way to distinguish the illusory from the real on evo mat premises" although I don't need to qualify "materialism" with "evolutionary."

However, I do disagree that we can necessarily conceptualize things that we can characterize. I can describe the 3-D slices of a hypercube, but conceptualizing a hypercube is impossible (although I can entertain the possibility that Gordon has super-powers and can move through the 5th dimentsion :) I am not intending to mock Gordon, I'm just disagreeing that mathematically describing is equivalent to conceptualizing.

Quantum mechanics is a good example of what I am talking about - clearly we understand it well enough to do mathematically chracterize it, and even to produce amazing technology. But physicists argue about what is really going on - what is happening when a wavefunction collapses due to a measurement, or do Feynman diagrams represent some sort of actual process, or is the mathematics unrelated to actual processes?

Heck, what is time, really? Stephen Hawking said time is like a rotating doughnut fired from a cannon, except without the cannon. Or the doughnut. If you think about it too long, you'll blow your circuitry.

If we live in a 21 dimensional universe and we can't conceptualize more than 3, or if we can't conceptualize time and its effects (such as one-way travel or space-time mixing), it could very well be that our minds are not able to assess the reality we live in. If so, then we ought to distrust our perceptions (in a philosophical sense - realistically, we get along well enough whether you believe in materialism or not). This doesn't necessarily make non-materialism correct, but weakens the argument for materialism on the grounds that it can't objectively evaluate a system that it is coupled to.

12

Maybe I'm missing something really obvious here, but this seems like an incredibly weak argument for theism.

It makes perfect sense to me that non-rational processes could end up producing beings that are, at least sometimes, rational. For the last few hundred thousand years, rationality in humans is a trait favored by natural selection. Insuring that one's senses and thoughts are accurately aligned with reality seems like an ability that helps humans survive and thrive. Even rationality on matters not related directly to survival helps humans live better lives. In cases where rationality does directly impact survival, it could definitely affect one's ability to attract a mate.

As pointed out above, many humans continue to practice irrationality. How else to explain the widespread beliefs in reincarnation, the unluckiness of Friday the 13th, alien space visitors, Mormonism, Hinduism, Christianity and other religions?

I would agree with the argument from Darwin and others that it is difficult to place much trust in the human capacity to find truth. We might be hallucinating or convincing ourselves to believe something we want to believe (WMDs in Iraq, anyone?). That is why we test our beliefs against reality and against the thoughts of others.

Joe writes: "Although his statement is bursting with irony, it appears to be lost on the typically clueless Dawkins." Besides this being a cheap ad hominem, I seriously doubt that Dawkins missed the hilarious irony.

Maybe we should abandon the search for truthfulness anyhow and satisfy ourselves with the more fulfilling quest for "truthiness." Look it up in your gut!

13

ex-preacher Maybe I'm missing something really obvious here, but this seems like an incredibly weak argument for theism.

I think the obvious point you are missing is that this isn’t an argument for theism. An argument against something doesn’t necessarily entail an argument for something else. But if anything, the argument would be for the creation of noetic equipment using rational processes (whether evolutionary or other).

It makes perfect sense to me that non-rational processes could end up producing beings that are, at least sometimes, rational.

How does that make perfect sense? Do we often see reason springing from non-rational processes? Can you provide one example where this has been tested or has been observed to occur?

For the last few hundred thousand years, rationality in humans is a trait favored by natural selection.

Once again, I’ll point out that this is begging the question. There is no evidence—none, nada, zip—that natural selection favors rationality. The reason is because we would have to know what rationality was before natural selection selects for it. If we don’t, then it is simply a post hoc ergo fallacy.

Insuring that one's senses and thoughts are accurately aligned with reality seems like an ability that helps humans survive and thrive. Even rationality on matters not related directly to survival helps humans live better lives. In cases where rationality does directly impact survival, it could definitely affect one's ability to attract a mate.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has shown that this isn’t necessarily the case. As Boonton pointed out, I've flogged that dead horse a few too many times.

Even Churchland admits that truth-discerning and rationality are not necessary for survival. What is necessary for survival is that you not get killed. That’s it. To try to sneak in teleological explanations (i.e., natural selection somehow chooses rationality) is to misunderstand how Darwinism works (note: that’s the point of the Dawkins quote above--even though he constantly does the same thing himself).

As pointed out above, many humans continue to practice irrationality. How else to explain the widespread beliefs in reincarnation, the unluckiness of Friday the 13th, alien space visitors, Mormonism, Hinduism, Christianity and other religions?

How do you know they are irrational? If they lead to increased chances of survival, then they would be more “rational” than their alternatives.

That is why we test our beliefs against reality and against the thoughts of others.

Think about what you just wrote. The way we discern if our noetic equipment is trustworthy is to test it against reality. But we can only discern reality by using our noetic equipment, the same equipment whose reliability we are uncertain of.

I don’t mean to single you out but you are the third person who has tried to defend this idea by resorting to circular reasoning. Shouldn’t that tell you that something is wrong with the idea? If you have to accept a scientific theory a priori before it can be applied then it isn't really a scientific theory at all.

Besides this being a cheap ad hominem, I seriously doubt that Dawkins missed the hilarious irony.

It’s an ad hominum but I’m not sure I’d call it cheap. And yes, I think Dawkins did miss the irony because he’s a bit of a dullard. Dawkins is the Pat Robertson of the scientific community.

14

"Why don’t you humor us by explaining once more why that is a non-sequiter."

I think you've misplaced the burden of proof, Joe. You say that "if the human brain is “designed”...by evolution then our brains would have no way to “understand” Darwinism."

I say that does not follow. Now you must provide support for the assertion that it does. Preferably without linking that Plantinga gem that Gordon is so fond of that dresses the same non-sequitur in flowery philosophical language. I can suggest many ways through which evolutionary mechanisms would favor rational thought, and I will if you wish. It's just that they seem so obvious to me it seems a waste of time. I think it's bizarre that anyone would even dispute that point.

15

Joe Carter wrote:

I think Dawkins did miss the irony because he’s a bit of a dullard. Dawkins is the Pat Robertson of the scientific community.

I too tire of the repetition.

But my man Doug Hofstadter said of Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene,"...

Building on a beautifully chosen set of analogies,. . . Richard Dawkins shows how, in the end, spectacularly complex organizations can have the properties we attribute to ourselves, all as a consequence of aimless chemical reactions. This is one of the coldest, most inhuman and disorienting views of human beings I have ever heard," continues Hofstadter, "and yet I love it! It is so deep an insight, to bridge the gap between the lifeless and the living, the chemical and the biological, the random and the teleological, the physical and the spiritual.

IOW, I think you just don't like him because to you, Richard Dawkins is religiously incorrect.

And yes, that is intended as religious analog for those who complain about things being "P.C."

As for the post itself, I'm surprised you haven't cleaned it up since the last time you brought out this line of thinking and were shown the fallacies therein.

16

Could you explain to me what theory of origins/development, apart from evolution, that materialists accept?

No I cannot nor can I point you to any theory of eltro-magnetism that materialists accept other than the current one nor a theory of gravity they accept that is not Einstein's. But that doesn't answer my question, why is evolution the whipping theory whenever materialism is discussed?

Joe:
I assume that your statement is not directly related to survival. If not, then there is no reason to assume it is trustworthy. In fact, since nothing you write in these comment sections has anything to do with survival I suppose we can just assume that what you say is always untrustworthy.

You're now confusing a tool with a result. A hammer is a useful tool for pounding things because it has attributes that make it good for that job such as a lever and a dense center of gravity. The hammer can also be employed as a paperweight because some of those attributes work for that as well.

Certain attributes of our brain are useful for survival. For example, the ability to make sense of sensory data or the ability to apply basic mathematical concepts (if one deer feeds my family for a week then I need to kill a deer about once every seven days to keep from starving but if I kill more often than that I'm probably wasting my effort since I don't have a way to store the extra meet yet). These attributes can be deployed to work on topics that are not directly survival related and we can be confident that they will work.

There is an assumption here that the universe is essentially rational and that rationality is reflected in the material world.

As I pointed out, though, building upon our basic mental tools to build more sophisticated truths requires a lot of work and practice and we are highly error prone in doing so. If this were not the case we would not need your refresher courses on logical fallacies and neither would you.

Do you even bother to read what you write? How does adding the word “appear” make it “evidence?” According to you, we could take an unsupported statement…

You accused this phrase of circular reasoning. Allow me to demonstrate:

"It appears that OJ killed his wife"

Is not circular reasoning. It is a shorthand way of writing:

"Looking at the many hours of testimoney, reports, pictures, observations etc., it appears that OJ killed his wife"

You are free to dispute this but to actually do it you have to get your hands dirty and explain to us why all that evidence is faulty or incomplete. You can't just wave around a logical fallacy and say your client should get off! The statement that "The human brain appears to be a product of non-rational processes" was not made in a vaccuum. The 'appears' word stands in for a huge amount of evidence just as it did in the OJ example I used. Feel free to actually tell us what is wrong with that evidence but if you're too good to get your hands dirty then be honest about that too. Drop it from your list of errors and just say "I'm too lazy to learn about this or comment intelligently on it". I've basically done that with Gordon's demand that I slog through his differential equations on thermodynamics.

Here again you return to begging the question. How do you know that the belief is true or false?

Ok let's use a concrete example. Many people obviously feel the distribution of stars in the sky appears non-random. They feel there are patterns, even very educated people who have no use for astrology believe this. How do we know this is false? Our basic mathematical skills can be built in a careful and rigerous way to produce an objective definition of what a random distribution of points looks like. From there we can oberve that while our instincts incline us to see patterns objectively there the data does not fit patterned data.

Painstaking and time consuming to think this way? Yes. That is because it quite frankly is not natural anymore than a ballerina's skills are natural. Instead the mind has to be trained to build up its basic skills to reason rationally just as the ballerina must build up her natural muscles and reflexes to accomplish what she does.

You are confusing the meaning of the word “exist.” Just because something is a useful mathematical object does not mean that it exists in reality. Infinity, for example, is useful but cannot exist in a truly material universe.

REally ? Why not?

You just keep talking in circles. Whether it is useful or not, you have not explained how it is possible for non-teleological evolution to produce teleological results. You keep sneaking in terms such as useful. But evolution doesn’t recognize what is useful. It just recognizes what is. If the non-material world doesn’t exist then there is no way for us to acquire a belief about it since we would never experience it.

I notice you are coupling a philsophical term (teleogical) with a scientific theory (evolution). Is gravity teleogical? I may be poorly educated in science but I've never seen anything about gravity other than very dry and very materialist equations. Anyway, your question seems to assume it is impossible to acquire a belief about something we never experience. Why would that be a true statement for either materialism or non-materialism? Second what evidence do you have that our beliefs about a non-material universe are not really material beliefs given a shiny coat?

To use an example you're familiar with, look at Jack Chic cartoons. Notice that heaven & even God always end up being presented as exagerrations of everyday things we encounter in the material world (wings from birds, clouds in the sky, even men who sit on thrones). Want a more sophisciated POV, notice how any mathematical text on hyperdimensional objects will depict them in terms of normal 3-d objects we encounter in the 'material world'? It is a common theme to mystics of all the major religions that the essential truth of the non-material world is inexpressible. It can only be hinted at in the most roundabout ways.

17

Great discussion all around. Except for a bit of bitterness here and there. Seems like pride prevents many of us from coming to true conclusions. Take that as you like.

18

boonton:
I notice you are coupling a philsophical term (teleogical) with a scientific theory (evolution).

That is because philosophy is a second order discipline.

19

I must say this is an incredible and unnecessary tangle stemming from the almost total misunderstanding of the way four key concepts are used in language: belief, reason, truth, and fact.

Let's put them back in order. First, "fact" is a condition in the world, "truth" is a condition in language, logic, or mathematics. Any particular tree is a fact, any particular tree is not true. The statement--There is a Red Maple tree in my front yard.--happens [circumstantially] to be "true" and its truth is demonstrated by its correspondence to fact.

"Reason" is the attempt to put any statements of any language into consistent and non-contradictory order. It applies only to language and not to experience. We also call this consistent and non-contradictory order in statements [tautologically] "true". The statement--If there is a Red Maple tree in my front yard, then its leaves are red in the fall.--is true whatever factual conditions obtain in my front yard. The truth of the statement is inherent in the definition of "Red Maple tree."

In that sense we, personally, are not particularly "rational". We merely perceive, think, come to conlusions, and speak. There is no genuine dilemma about any of these: they are, for each of us individually, undeniable facts. We do this.

Language, the medium we use to speak and [partially] to think is pre-rational. Reason is the attempt to knock it ex post facto into consistency for the sake of coherence. The "dilemma" Joe describes is simply a category mistake, mistaking "reason", which is something we do to language, for "experience" which is something we self-evidently possess.

We do not believe in our experience, we experience it. "Reason" and "truth" are ways we use to talk about it and "facts" are what we experience.

What we "believe" in are statements about the facts, not the facts themselves. But while we self-evidently possess experience, experience does not order, or explain, itself. We explain it with our statements, and "belief" means that we think our statements "true", either tautologically or circumstantially.

I believe in the statement--There is a Red Maple tree in my front yard.--even though, at my computer station, I cannot experience the fact that makes it true. When I step out my front door "belief" is irrelevant.

The problem is that we are not omnicient, we never experience the sum total of the facts, and we are always confronted with new facts. Because of this we must make statements that explain where those new facts come from and why.

Statements which accomodate all the new facts we do not yet know cannot be proved circumstantially "true" by correspondence to fact. They can only be "consistent" with the facts we know and "coherent" enough to suggest what the new facts will be like. Such statements can only be true tautologically through accordance with reason.

The point of science is that it is a linguistic tool we have developed to improve the coherence of those statements and their capacity to predict new facts.

In the absence of all the facts, there are always both teleological and non-teleological explanations which are "consistent" with the facts. And, since we will never experience all facts, both sets of explanations can always be modified to remain consistent with whatever we have experienced.

Thus Einstein can say, "God does not play dice with the Universe." without such a statement contradicting in the least his scientific statements on the cosmological constant.

The first statement, about God, is simply not "coherent" enough to predict something about the facts we do not know. The other statements have such "coherence" and they are constantly being tested for their "consistency" with new facts, even though they can never be proven to be circumstantially true.

Charles Darwin lost his faith in God. But there is absolutely nothing in TENS that made this necessary. He simply mistakenly identified God with the Old Testament narrative about Him.

Darwin came to the conclusion that this narrative was not consistent with the facts. As far as I can see, there is no reason to doubt this particular conclusion whether or not one believes in God.

The point of TENS is not that teleology is "false" but that it is, first, not coherent enough to predict new facts, and, second, that it is unnecessary in order to achieve such coherence. The truth or falsity of teleology is beside the point.

Comparing TENS with the Old Testament narrative of how the world was formed and how animals were made is possible because both can be compared against a standard of consistency with fact. By that standard, it seems to me, the Old Testament loses.

But TENS cannot be compared for such consistency with a teleological argument for an "intelligent designer". Both theories can be infinitely modified to remain consistent with the facts. What the explanation of the "intelligent designer" cannot do that TENS can and does, is predict things about the facts of biology which we do not yet know, but can easily find out.

20

"Whether it is useful or not, you have not explained how it is possible for non-teleological evolution to produce teleological results."

I don't think that question is answerable at all. And that's because evolution (which is what we generally use around here as shorthand for "natural selection") produces effects that are ipso facto teleological in result. The process of evolution, through a merciless calculus, spares the peacock its beautiful display of plumage while condeming the dodo to extinction. The peacocks with the brightest and longest feathers frighten predators and attract mates. The dodo, being flightless, was no match for the common housecat.

Nature doesn't actively select anything for survival, of course, but Earth's organisms compete for resources and each individual relies upon its own ingenuity to obtain what it requires for survival. After a few million years of this, the results are complex and often difficult to understand without grasping the interplay of ecology, sociology, zoology, geology, biology, genetics, and climatic change.

In all cases, survival is the triumph of design in the form of phenotype.

Really, Joe, your question deserves recasting for clarity. It isn't "trustworthy beliefs" you're claiming materialism fails to explain, but it's symbols and values that don't logically follow from a wholly materialistic worldview. Things like "goodness," and "justice," for example. And I'd say that you're exactly right. Our minds are capable of holding metaphors and adjectives and superlatives and all sorts of things that don't occur in nature. And "trustworthy beliefs" fall into that category.

Where you go astray is in claiming that such things cannot arise through natural processes, whereas they obviously have. There's certainly no reason to posit an invisible superbeing to explain their place in human reasoning.

21

Boonton: "You're now confusing a tool with a result. A hammer is a useful tool for pounding things because it has attributes that make it good for that job such as a lever and a dense center of gravity. The hammer can also be employed as a paperweight because some of those attributes work for that as well."

Just curious about that "dense center of gravity" comment. I'm unfamiliar with centers of gravity having any density. Even in calculations of metacentric height in buoyant objects in a fluid there is no distinction in the density of the center of gravity of a ton of ping pong balls or a ton of lead.

Mumon: Since you're back to comment on evolution, care to update us on how the for-profit abiogenesis experiments are going?

Raven: "Where you go astray is in claiming that such things cannot arise through natural processes, whereas they obviously have."

This is once again a question-begging assertion. If it were obvious (i.e. inarguable) that rationality arose from irrational processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Also, your second paragraph with all the persiflage about zoology, geology, climate change, etc. does not provide evidence for your claim, rather it merely errects an edifice of ultimately meaningless appeals to authority to disciplines which obviously do not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to all people of good will that Darwinism is undisputable fact.

22

I understand what you're saying here, but there are few people I've seen who would fall under the definition of straight-out naturalist. Even among those who completely believe evolution, some believe in some sort of a god and some do not. It's a mixed bag of beliefs out there, so trying to come at it rationally is not helpful. (I understand and agree with your point that they don't *want* to be rational and take the evidence where it leads, because it's so obvious that doing so leads to no other option than there is a God!)

But in day to day speaking with people, that doesn't help. Most folks have not learned how to be consistent in their stated beliefs, nor are they able/willing to take their beliefs to the furthest conclusion. So they little of this belief, a little of that belief and we end up with a confusing mess to try and unravel.

23

Boonton Naturally there's a lot of stuff behind that word but if you can summarize it as 'brains appear to have been formed by non-rational processes' then that is indeed evidence.

Rob Ryan We have many reasons to believe that our belief-forming apparatus is reliable. To the extent that our beliefs contribute to our success as a species, they are reliable.

ex-preacher It makes perfect sense to me that non-rational processes could end up producing beings that are, at least sometimes, rational. For the last few hundred thousand years, rationality in humans is a trait favored by natural selection.

The Raven Where you go astray is in claiming that such things cannot arise through natural processes, whereas they obviously have.

Begging the question -- the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.

24

Cheesehead
Just curious about that "dense center of gravity" comment. I'm unfamiliar with centers of gravity having any density. Even in calculations of metacentric height in buoyant objects in a fluid there is no distinction in the density of the center of gravity of a ton of ping pong balls or a ton of lead.

You're right, I should have just said "heavy piece of metal that is still easy to swing".

This is once again a question-begging assertion. If it were obvious (i.e. inarguable) that rationality arose from irrational processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What exactly is an 'irrational process'? Are the equations that describe gravity irrational? How about the equations that describe quantum theory?

Joe:
Begging the question -- the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.

As I pointed out, Joe, it is perfectly acceptable to summarize the conclusions that are drawn from a body of evidence. The passage you quoted is in context of a body of emperical evidence which you are free to challenge. I even gave you an analogy with the OJ case to use as a comparison.

25

Boonton wrote: Since the banning keeps going on the person that needs to move on is Joe. Otherwise I shall keep reminding him of it as long as he keeps doing it.

If Joe is on a banning spree, how come you and Mumon are still here? ;) As for Larry, despite his smarts, he was more often than not involved in troll-like activity, and I eventually just skipped over his irritating posts, so if Joe banned him, I don't disagree.

26

Joe accuses me of a strawman for my taking of his argument:
"This is not to say that that the relation between evolution and our capacity to acquire truth is outright false. It just means that the claim undercuts its own justification: If we believe we have reliable belief-forming apparatus then we have reason to believe that non-teleological evolution is false. Likewise, if we believe that non-teleological evolution is true then we have no reason to believe the theory since we would have no reason to trust that our belief-forming apparatus is reliable.

All of this should be self-evident to anyone who has given it a moment’s thought. So why would anyone still believe that it is possible that reliable belief-forming apparatus could have arisen from non-teleological evolution? I believe that there are four common errors that prevent them from letting go of this self-defeating theory."
And making it a trascendental one about the necessity or contingency of logic, where either logic is necessary or contingent to god's existence. He claims it is self-evident to see teleology due to the existence of reason, but accuses me of a strawman for inserting god into the telology argument.

Anyone else see this as a strawman? Joe is proclaiming that a telos must exist, so who set it? Aliens? Who gave them their reasoning capability. If Joe is claiming intelligence is necessary to explain intelligence, without invoking a Prime Mover, then this is the most absurd argument he could make. I don't accuse him of doing so. I, in fact, am giving him the credit of taking a Prime Mover into account in his argument for the contingency of logic upon the prime mover's existence.

I also invite him to explain a telology whereby creaturs are endowed with reason by a creature who has reason which does not go back, somehow, to an uncaused cause, an entity which itself has reason, and the capacity to instill it in the universe...but is not god. I would love to discuss that further.

27

I take exception to your use of "persiflage" with respect to my comment, Joe.

The Raven always stays on-topic and srives for brevity. If you fail to grasp my point feel free to request a clarification.

28

Raven I take exception to your use of "persiflage" with respect to my comment, Joe.

Huh?

29

Greetings, all:

Several interesting points. Pardon my (implicit) chuckles . . .

1] Alex: I do disagree that we can necessarily conceptualize things that we can characterize.

--> Actually, I think fuzzy concepts come first, then we characterise, i.e. define or quantify or whatever. But, I think you mean something like "visualise."

--> I guess here my home disicpline helps us all: think of a spatisally distributed field, that is also time changing. For instance, imagine a 3-d weather map's picture of air pressures or temperatures. That simple mind's eye view blows you right by the 5th and 6th vector dimensions: (x, y, z, t, P, T). So, we are probably familiar with thinking of dimmensions beyond the three common spatial ones, plus the time one; but maybe didn't recognise that. but now, we all know how to do it.

--> Add in wind, a 3-d vector field, and you get even more interesting numbers of dimensions. [right up to the 9th actually, with the 6 already in hand . . . just think of a spatially distributed network of tiny arrows, pointing where the wind blows, of length proportionate to its strength: (x, y, z, t, P, T, a*i, b*j, c*k) . . . we now have an interesting phase space in hand] I guess that is why weathermen [who apply this physics] always look like they have been gobbling aspirins like sweeties!

--> if you want to get real interesting, consider tiny curled up loops of string, which fold into themselves several dimensions that are not macroscopically visible; sprinkle a dash or two of math, and you are at the frontiers of physics!

2] PG: Scientism is not post-modern

--> VERRRRRRRRRRRRY interesting point. In fact, I think we need to distinguish moderntity and hyper-or ultra-modernity that can be described in the acid but apt words of Thomas Oden:

when avant-garde academics bandy about the term “postmodern,” it is usually more accurate to strike post and insert ultra. For guild scholars, postmodern simply means hypermodern, where the value assumptions of modernity are nostalgically recollected and ancient wisdoms compulsively disregarded. Meanwhile the emergent actual postmodernity that is being suffered through outside the ivory tower is not yet grasped or rightly appraised by those in it.

We do not at all mean by post modernity what many academics mean – deconstructionist literary criticism and relativistic nihilism . . . Richard Rorty and Jacques Derrida are ultra-modern writers according to this definition, rather than postmodern . . . . what is named post is actually a desperate extension of despairing modernity that imagines by calling itself another name (postmodern), it can extend the ideology of modernity into the period following modernity . . . .

--> So, scientism seems to be one of these ultra carryovers, at least in some hands; especially, the chronological snobbery. (Capital case in point: the rage-filled reaction to the rising scientific crediboility of the design paradigm.)

3] Alex again: Scientists who believe that the "God gene" is responsible for religious experiences are stating that those people are not processing reality correctly - the machine is faking input. This position suggests that many people have a sensory system that is illogical at a fundamental level

--> Do you see where that is headed? the pentium-bug diagnosing cheip was not made witht he same technology and its relative credibility was attested by . . . humans.

--> But now, we are asking about massive misprocessing in the human brain and mind> Once that fox is let in the henhouse, it raises all sorts of self-referential havoc!

4] Ex: this seems like an incredibly weak argument for theism. It makes perfect sense to me that non-rational processes could end up producing beings that are, at least sometimes, rational. For the last few hundred thousand years, rationality in humans is a trait favored by natural selection.

--> First: this is not an argument FOR theism. It is a comparative difficulties challenge for evolutrionary materialism and atheism: self-referential inconsistency.

--> Second, look at the highlighted part: do you see the self-reference? Do you not see the fact that you are speaking about things as they seem to you, not as they stand in themselves? but, that is the gap that has to be bridged, and unless you are able to show -- not just claim -- that accurate ratiocination is a credible product of natural selection as it rewards adaptive BEHAVIOUR [not thought], the gap remains.

--> But then, that is the problem all over again: you have to use your mind to show that your mind is reliable . . .

5] JM: we, personally, are not particularly "rational". We merely perceive, think, come to conlusions, and speak. There is no genuine dilemma about any of these: they are, for each of us individually, undeniable facts. We do this. Language, the medium we use to speak and [partially] to think is pre-rational. Reason is the attempt to knock it ex post facto into consistency for the sake of coherence. The "dilemma" Joe describes is simply a category mistake, mistaking "reason", which is something we do to language, for "experience" which is something we self-evidently possess.

--> Interesting post. I would note however that "fact" has other usages that are closer to Joe's than to yours.

--> More directly, I think language is inherently rational: ir REFERS to extralinguistic reality, and in so doing -- at least in a contextually definable way -- it predicates claims about that extralinguistic world in ways that exclude other claims, on pain of confusion.

--> Even more intreresting, reality is itself rational and coherent -- why this test is so important. For instance, say you hear a loud squeal of brakes as an out of control car rushes towards you [on the testimony of eyes and ears]: is the car both there-and-not-there at the same time in the same sense? Do you serenely infer that both are true so you can ignore th car, od do you jump?

--> At the same time, notice the subtlety in evo mat's self-referential inconsistency: we here worked off hte assumed accuracy of senses and inferences. But, if one's pentium bug brain wished to be knocked over but thought that jumping was ht ebest way to do it, then THAT would be adaptively successful in the sense of promoting differential reproductive success! [Cf Plantinga's discussion -- which cannot simply be brushed away with a n impatient quip, as someone upthread tried to do.]

+ + + + + +

Okay, have more fun!

Grace to all

Gordon

30

PS

Struck me that some may want to visualise all nine dims at once.

Consider that the atmosphere is represented by a field of dots, colour coded for temp, and size-coded for pressure.

the velocity arrows stick out of them. As time progresses the field of dots flows and changes colour and size. here, we see a simple atmospheric model that can then be tied into e.g. condensation [related to temp, press and conc of H2O in the air . . . indeed, that is what is happening with clouds.]

GEM

31

Boonton (et al.), is it fair to summarize your position like this: Science and evolutionary theory operate independent of metaphysics and epistemology. They deal with what is, without asking questions of how or why it got that way. Nor do they worry about whether our senses or minds are trustworthy. They are assumed to be, and science proceeds accordingly.

If this is a fair summary, it might explain why you get so frustrated with these topics. You want to skip all the foundational stuff and deal with the science, while Joe wants to deal with the philosophy behind (beneath) it.

Or am I wrong?

32

Gordon - I think that you have made some good examples. I certainly agree that you or I can describe an "n" dimensional "vector" that is familiar and easily visualized. I commonly use 4-vectors in particle physics and I understand how to visualize the components; they are orthogonal and rotating the vector in 4-space mixes the elements. But I am sure that I can't conceptualize a 4-dimensional space (excluding time because of its special properties). Maybe my definition is too fuzzy and someone will think of a better word. But the concept of taking a step orthogonal to 3-D space - I can't construct the experience in my imagination and so I say I can't conceptualize it. And quite possibly I wouldn't understand or recognize it if it happened to me. We may not have the fundamental capacity to properly process all the input we get from the universe.

Also, in your example, there are ways to show 21 parameters and how they change but I disupute that it is the equivalent of 21-dimensional space. Your parameterization isn't properly a vector (it certainly doesn't obey mathematical rules for vectors) and that makes me suspicious about the space it inhabits. I agree that it is about the best analogy that people can really understand but I mantain that there is a qualitative difference between understanding 21 parameters and a 21 dimensional space, and the qualitative part was the real thrust of my argument. I like the example though.

Or maybe it's just me who can't visualize 21 dimensions and everyone else is pointing and laughing at me.

33

Boonton (et al.), is it fair to summarize your position like this: Science and evolutionary theory operate independent of metaphysics and epistemology. They deal with what is, without asking questions of how or why it got that way. Nor do they worry about whether our senses or minds are trustworthy. They are assumed to be, and science proceeds accordingly.

If this is a fair summary, it might explain why you get so frustrated with these topics. You want to skip all the foundational stuff and deal with the science, while Joe wants to deal with the philosophy behind (beneath) it.

Very close Bryan. What I object to is not discussing metaphysics and epistemology but pretending scientific theories are metaphysics/epistemology. Joe (et al.) incessently mix and match the two as if they were the same. When cornered they will admit there's a difference but let up your guard for a moment and they will go at it again. To be honest I'd probably would rather deal with the philosophy than the science.

34

Is it legitimate for scientists to skip metaphysics and epistemology? In effect, they are living beyond their means. Or building castles in the air, hoping someone will come along and put a foundation under them eventually (and preferably one without any of that God-nonsense). Is it fair to say, then, that science rests on faith?

"I find that my thoughts, perceptions, and experiences seem to correspond to reality, and that there is an order to reality. I have no idea why this is the case, and my philosophical system can't account for it, but since it IS, what the heck?!, let's do some science!"

35

Is it legitimate for scientists to skip metaphysics and epistemology?

No scientists should contribute to metaphysics and epistemology but we should be clear as to which is which. Whether or not chemistry is sufficient to explain the formation of the first thing that could be called a living cell has nothing to do with metaphysics or epistemology. Nor does pretending that scientific theories like evolution come with prepackaged 'worldviews' that inform the student of morality, ethics or other such issues.

Does science rest on faith? I'd rather say it rests on the soft metaphysical assumption (again 'matter exists and it matters') Is this a faith of sorts? I suppose it is but this should be clearly articulated as quite a different faith than what is required of actual materialism (that only matter exists).

36

Raven: It wasn't Joe who characterized the second paragraph of your post on 1/16 1951 as persiflage. It was me. And if it would make you feel better I'll even call it airy persiflage, for reasons stated in my original response to you. That said, I would agree that you generally are very concise and thoughtful in your posts, even though we almost never agree.

Boonton: "This is once again a question-begging assertion. If it were obvious (i.e. inarguable) that rationality arose from irrational processes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"What exactly is an 'irrational process'? Are the equations that describe gravity irrational? How about the equations that describe quantum theory?"

Well, paybacks certainly are fair play, so I'll start out by saying touche, and then amend my previous statement to the effect that in naturalistic materialism the forces of nature are nonrational, not irrational.

Regarding the banning of Larry: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean it is worth slogging through all the garbage he was spreading about to find the half dozen times in 20,000 comments that he actually presented an argument worth following up on. Once he started down the Nazi trail with Gordon he crossed a line many of us feel had already been crossed many times previously in which allowing him to stay was just plain destructive. I know I stayed away from even reading the comments many times because he would just drag the discussion off on some irrelevant tangent or ad hominem attack. Am I the only one who thinks the comment threads are more interesting without him than with him?

37

Hmmmm...a belief in non-teleological evolution reminds me a bit of the Left's belief that the constitution is a "living, breathing, changing document", except for the right to infanticide on demand...that one's immutable and sacrosanct...

38

Well, paybacks certainly are fair play, so I'll start out by saying touche, and then amend my previous statement to the effect that in naturalistic materialism the forces of nature are nonrational, not irrational.

Ok, here's a kicker for you. Are you trying to say that when your brain thinks rationally it is using or applying non-natural forces?

Once he started down the Nazi trail with Gordon he crossed a line many of us feel had already been crossed many times previously in which allowing him to stay was just plain destructive.

Please, Gordon went around crying that I compared him to a Nazi. It was a typical of him, when he finally lost the argument he played the victimization card. For the record the question was asked yet again why we just couldn't 'teach the controversy'. I pointed out that there's a host of crank theories that people believe such as the beliefs of the Nation of Islam and anti-semitics beliefs that 'Jews rule the world' etc. We don't teach those just because some people say there are two sides. Gordon immediately jumped on this by pretending it was the same as saying anyone who believes in ID is a Nazi and of course I'm a horrible guy etc. etc. Don't put words in Joe's mouth. He articulated a vulgar, incoherent and lame explanation for Larry's banning...calling Gordon a Nazi wasn't listed. BTW, Joe said that he received numerous complaints about Terry & Gordon and he would decide what action was necessary. We all await his verdict with anticipation.

soup
Hmmmm...a belief in non-teleological evolution reminds....

Out of curiosity is there such a thing as a belief in non-teleological gravity? A non-teleological kinetic theory of gasses?

39

I think,
therefore, I am.

40

Maybe we have too much brain.

Maybe what we have is a cancerous overtaking of a brainstem. Something that just wouldn't stop growing once it reached the human threshold. We have more than we need to survive. We have leisure time, and very complicated languages, opposable thumbs, and insatiable sex drives.

The fact that we are thinking, discussing, rationalizing, and arguing now is proof that the brain is reliable, whether descended from monkeys or made in Heaven. So we are back to square one and choosing sides for the next game.

How can you say that a beautiful mind cannot come from the roll-of-the-dice evolutionary process? The minds below us stair-step up, if you look at it.

You want me to throw up my hands and say it's all too complicated for my simple little mind, don't you? You want me to admit that it must have been designed, just because I can't figure it out. Just because I don't have all the answers.

I'm going to run off into the woods and eat worms. Nobody loves me.

41

Hi All:

Some interesting points.

1] Alex: I can't conceptualize a 4-dimensional space (excluding time because of its special properties)

--> Here, thanks for your kind words and clarification on visualising n-dims, in the sense of independent physically [or at least in the broad sense dynamically] relevant variables.

--> You are correct that we cannot visualise more than 3 dimensions as spatial ones similar to x, y,z, and time -- HH notwithstanding -- is not a spatial dimension. Howbeit, that is my point: spatial dimensions are not the only relevant type -- so we can conceptualise and even visualise far more than 3+1. Not to mention, the existence of further "hidden" dimensions of reality might help us begin to understand, say the biblical and even philsphical concepts of the interactive intersection of time and eternity, matter and mind [e.g. Plato's theory of Forms] as domains . . . e.g. one point in eternity corresponding to all points in space-time, or a universal form manifesting itself simultaneously in many material situations. Nor are strict vectors -- and your point is taken on that! [though of course we have all sorts to transformation tricks to linearise variables, functions and even diff eqn's and get matrix equations that make sense, too . . . what a computer graphics simulation of the atmospheric conds model I mentioned would do, in effect] -- necessary to do that.

2] Bryan: Is it legitimate for scientists to skip metaphysics and epistemology? In effect, they are living beyond their means. Or building castles in the air, hoping someone will come along and put a foundation under them eventually (and preferably one without any of that God-nonsense). Is it fair to say, then, that science rests on faith?

--> Once we ask whether there is a scientific method, or try to set out demarcation lines between science and non-science, or lay out a research programme, meta questions naturaly emerge, relevant to epistemology, logic and metaphysics, plus in many cases, ethics. In short, we cannot avoid philosphy in science, we end up with unexamined, and often quite bad phil.

--> So the issue is not faith vs reason, but that reason embeds faith [it has to get back to premises that are unproved as a start-point] so is the resulting faith blind or critically aware?

--> The problem is that those who adhere to evolutionary materialism are, sadlym begging some big and in some cases -- coherence and self referentiality -- telling questions.

3]B: Are you trying to say that when your brain thinks rationally it is using or applying non-natural forces?

--> We do not need to know how a process works in order to know that it works with a sufficiently high degree of reliability that we can trust it to be useful. [Try: gravity and ordinary people, or fluid mechanics and flight as common examples.)

--> In short, the cosmos is odten strange and/or mysterious to us, but instances like that should not blind us tot he obvious.

4] On "Victim cards"

--> I suspect that a run through of the Dover thread will rapidly show that the win/loss on merits is not as B has claimed, in an attempt to further slander. For instance, it is pretty well shown that the judge in Q ruled unfairly, onb a lack of good facts, starting with the cited and linked existence of precisely the peer reviewed ID-supportive scientific literature that he asserted did not exist. Notice especially how there was no response to the challenge to critically review the WEL paper. The Meyer paper of course long since was shown by the OSC investigation to have passed proper peer review by "renowned scientists" whatever petulance Panda's Thumb/NCSE may have to throw at it. And, of course, ID-supportive and even theistic papers have long since been a commonplace in the peer reviewed literature in cosmology because it is realised that that discipline is now heavily tinged with metaphysical themes.

--> What happened is that B decided to make invidious comparisons and I called him on it as a violation of basic civility, just as he has in the past few days decided to "innocently" introduce the outrageous example of bestialisty associated with my name in another current thread, which I have also called him on. L -- who BTW under the alter ego "Windbag" is apparently still commenting, but evidently chastened -- went to the next step and outright called me a Nazi [while failing to actually address the substantive matters]. At least one other commenter took up a similar line of remarks.

--> In that context, when we see B protesting "injustice" and subjecting Joe to repeated namecallig for reinforcing a minimal degree of discipline in defense of basic civility, this is sadly but tellingly revealing as to his inner attitudes and motivations. [NB: A read of Rom 1 - 3 and 5 - 8 may help show the evident underlying pattern - so much for the myth of the nice, moral atheist, or theist for that matter: we are all struggling siners who need to repent and be forgiven and cleansed from our radical unrighteousness.]

5] Jerry: Maybe we have too much brain. Maybe what we have is a cancerous overtaking of a brainstem. Something that just wouldn't stop growing once it reached the human threshold . . . . The fact that we are thinking, discussing, rationalizing, and arguing now is proof that the brain is reliable, whether descended from monkeys or made in Heaven. So we are back to square one and choosing sides for the next game.

--> First, how do you - using your overgrown monkey brain -- reliably know, much less know that certain things are "facts" or credible arguments relative to the implications of an overgrown monkey brain, one that on your assumptions is driven and controlled by a process that has no necessary connexion to rationality, but only to adaptive behaviour? [So, whether you are saying that ratiocinationis an epiphenomenon of the underlying physical links and signals in the brain or some other materialist model, you are assuming what is now to be shown. That is, this is a factual adequacy and coherence challenge.]

--> In short, the self-reference is inescapable, and the self-defeat follows rapidly thereafter, once we accept the premises of evolutionary materialism:

The intellectual powerhouse that energises secularism is Evolutionary Materialism. . . . . [but] while macro-evolution [and associated theories of cosmological and chemical evolution] may well fit into an atheistic view of the world, [such a worldview] is itself open to significant challenge and simply cannot prove materialism to be true . . . . It argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.

But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.)

Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited!

Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze?

In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic, and only survives because people often fail (or, sometimes, refuse) to think through just what their beliefs really mean.

As a further consequence, materialism can have no basis, other than arbitrary or whimsical choice and balances of power in the community, for determining what is to be accepted as True or False, Good or Evil. So, Morality, Truth, Meaning, and, at length, Man, are dead.

+ + + + + + +

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

42

--> What happened is that B decided to make invidious comparisons and I called him on it as a violation of basic civility, just as he has in the past few days decided to "innocently" introduce the outrageous example of bestialisty associated with my name in another current thread, which I have also called him on. L -- who BTW under the alter ego "Windbag" is apparently still commenting, but evidently chastened -- went to the next step and outright called me a Nazi [while failing to actually address the substantive matters]. At least one other commenter took up a similar line of remarks.

Again Gordon plays the victim card. In the thread I was discussing a hypothetical computer program that generated 'evolving phrases'. Gordon's position was that such programs are really designed due to the fact that computer programs have to be written by computer programmers. In reply I asked a simple question, suppose such a program generated a slanderous phrase against Gordon or in a more positive angle generated a novel worthy of the Nobel prize. Would the programmer be responsibile for either the slander or the Nobel?

Instead of seeing the question for what it was, a somewhat silly hypothetical that illustrated a very relevant point, Gordon would rather pretend he was being slandered despite the rather obvious fact that the 'association' was introduced as an example rather than a statement of fact.

--> In that context, when we see B protesting "injustice" and subjecting Joe to repeated namecallig for reinforcing a minimal degree of discipline in defense of basic civility, this is sadly but tellingly revealing as to his inner attitudes and motivations.

Speaking of such Joe said he was investigating you and your buddy Terry for the numerous complaints you have generated over the years. Again we await the results of Joe's careful study with anticipation.

Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence

This would be true if the forces that shape our brains thinking process were not connected to the material world. However they clearly are. In the simple example I used, the hunter who realizes a deer will feed his family for seven days concludes he should kill one deer per week. Anything more is wasted effort anything less is starvation. This simple mathematical reasoning is shaped by the forces of the natural world (plus logic if you want to consider that apart from the natural world but still 'materialistic' in a Platonic sort of way). It is not correct by lucky coincidence. The brain that says "Kill a deer once every 14 days" starves to death.

More interesting conclusions can be built up upon simple truths in a painstaking process that can generate truths just as reliable. However as I pointed out this is NOT natural for the human brain to do. It takes effort and practice to think logically in this manner and even then people are more often prone to make 'snap judgements' whose truth value is not as reliable (but the process is still worthwhile because of the speed advantage).

43

Alexander Scott wrote, "Heck, what is time, really? Stephen Hawking said time is like a rotating doughnut fired from a cannon, except without the cannon. Or the doughnut. If you think about it too long, you'll blow your circuitry."

Time is the interal measure of a movement. Aristotle --> Augustine --> Leibniz --> Whitehead / Bachalard --> Deleuze

44

Boonton: "Ok, here's a kicker for you. Are you trying to say that when your brain thinks rationally it is using or applying non-natural forces?"

Not really. That seems on initial inspection to be a possible but not necessary conclusion to special creation. I would say, though, that the mechanisms that allow you or me to think rationally are extremely unlikely to have arisen by chance. This would apply, to use an analogy from computer terminology (and clearly computers are designed by intelligence), to both our "hardware" and our "software".

"This would be true if the forces that shape our brains thinking process were not connected to the material world. However they clearly are. In the simple example I used, the hunter who realizes a deer will feed his family for seven days concludes he should kill one deer per week. Anything more is wasted effort anything less is starvation. This simple mathematical reasoning is shaped by the forces of the natural world (plus logic if you want to consider that apart from the natural world but still 'materialistic' in a Platonic sort of way). It is not correct by lucky coincidence. The brain that says "Kill a deer once every 14 days" starves to death."

This is not an argument that our brains are reliable measurers of truth, merely that those who have survived are reliably pragmatic concerning survival. There is a large difference between the two propositions, wouldn't you agree?

"Speaking of such Joe said he was investigating you and your buddy Terry for the numerous complaints you have generated over the years. Again we await the results of Joe's careful study with anticipation."

What in the world are you talking about??? Gordon and Terry are articulate, not profane, civil, and devote more attention to these threads than most of us. How could their posts possibly be considered objectionable on a blog that is, after all, called the Evangelical Outpost? If the objection is that they use up too much of Joe's bandwidth--well then you should be included in that investigation.

45

Cheesehead,
Boonton is mischaracterizing the situation. Joe did not say he currently had numerous complaints about Gordon and Terry; he said if after two years he had numerous complaints, he'd re-evaluate the situation. He seems to be enjoying twisting the situation, though.

Personally, I can attest to being called names, to having my honesty and integrity called into question constantly, including being called a liar about every other post (not victim's mentallity--just the facts) in the case of our commentor that has been sent to his room. The funny part is--if these comments were made in person ---in say a restaurant or a pub, I suspect our friend LL would have to quickly encorporate his fight or flight response. I seriously doubt that he would have the courage to say such things to someone's face. Perhaps it is a standard we could apply here. If you wouldn't have the guts to say that with the person in the room...well, you get the idea.

Anyhow, I also enjoy Gordon's and Tery's comments, and for that matter Boonton's, when not in the petty name calling vein.

That's the last I'll personally say on that subject.

46

Boonton: "I'm not really sure what you mean by chance."

What I mean is the known forces of nature acting as they do with no intelligence guiding them. It "appears" that nonrational forces acting in what we know about the universe could not "create" rational beings. And since it "appears" that way, that must be taken as evidence that it actually happened that way. ;)
(Disclaimer: I am shamelessly ripping off that line of logic from previous posts by a defender of materialistic naturalism--I think it was you, but I didn't scroll back to verify this.)

"I agree there is a difference in the two propositions but is it really that wide? There's certainly some overlap there. We agree, though, if you want to emphasize that many times our brains form beliefs that are objectively false. We know this because many of our beliefs can be checked by confirming them against the basic tools of rational thought that we have (the simple mathematical tools the hunter has above can be expanded step by step all the way into higher mathematics)."

Here we round the bend once again and arrive at the original proposition that Joe made. How can we trust our ability to arrive at truth using the basic tools of rational thought we possess when we have no reason to trust the reliability of our rational capabilities. It gets back to the distinction between being able to arrive at objective truth versus the survivors arriving at a pragmatic framework to categorize their existence, the pragmatism of that framework being demonstrated in the fact of their survival.

As to the ongoing Terry & Gordon thing, I think Rob did a good job of responding to that.

47

Errr looks like Rob has got me. Joe did not say he had numerous complaints he was clearly speaking hypothetically as to what he would do after they were here two years and he received dozens of complaints. Looking back I see Gordon raised that point himself in one of his posts but I missed it. So on that front I do apologize.

As for your horrible victimization by Larry. I've been on this blog for a long time (not two years though) and found little to back you up. Perhaps if you had conversed with Larry in real life you would have resorted to violence. That says less about Larry than about you. Larry was often sarcastic and mocking but that is not the same as abuse and not contributing. Often it was necessary and effective to deflate bloated egos and delusions of granduer by certain people here.

Here we round the bend once again and arrive at the original proposition that Joe made. How can we trust our ability to arrive at truth using the basic tools of rational thought we possess when we have no reason to trust the reliability of our rational capabilities. It gets back to the distinction between being able to arrive at objective truth versus the survivors arriving at a pragmatic framework to categorize their existence, the pragmatism of that framework being demonstrated in the fact of their survival

Indeed perhaps we are missing our understanding of objective truth. Take a simple statement such as 1+1=2. Is this an objective truth? I think most would say yes. Does this truth exhibit itself in the material world? Well certainly it does in my bank account!

Now can you show me, let's not even get into materialism just yet, how this could not be an objective truth or how we could be unsure that it is? I honestly don't think we can. In fact some theologians have even asserted that God himself is bound by elementary logic (see Thomas Aquinas and the Omnipotence paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox)

It comes down to this IMO. Does the ability to make true statements about the material world have any connection to the material world? Yes. Therefore it should not be shocking that evolution should 'chance' result in a creature that could make true statements about the material world.

If the material world is all that exists then for the materialist the problem ends there. The only true belief about the non-material world is that there is no such thing. Whether or not humans 'chance' upon that belief is not that stunning (there's only two possible answers, yes or no. A rational being being made out of matter getting it right by guessins is 50%).

If the material world exists with a non-material world then there's no special reason to think evolution would impart an ability to make true beliefs on the non-material world UNLESS the non-material world interacts with the material world on a regular basis.

But whatever your beliefs about materialism the real question is do you think rationality has anything to do with the material world? If so then the paradox for evolution as a theory is nicely resolved. If not then you're embracing a very radical skepticism.

Perhaps Joe should consider breaking his scheme of 'materialist religion' into two branches. One that asserts only matter exists and another that asserts matter exists but so does rationality in a Platonic sense. Plato's world of 'true forms' looks like it is more than just matter but doesn't feel like religion in itself.

48

Boonton,
Thanks for being a stand up guy. As for me, I'm a big teddybear. Haven't been in a throw down since 6th grade. However, point (illustration) stands; when a person's character is needlessly called into question - particularly in a highly offensive way, a defense response cannot be unexpected. But trust me, your friend would have never said those things in person--probably not even in 6th grade.

Now thanks to Jerry's post, I have to consider the possibility that most of my brain is a tumorous appendage. However, I've never actually seen my brain; thus, I'm not sure it's there ;-)

49

Cheesehead,

I appreciate your efforts but it is becoming apparent that principalities and powers are working overtime at these days.

Speaking of which . . . an interesting thing happened to me recently while sub-teaching a special ed. class at a local Kauai elementary school. There was only one child (Kekoa 7) who had been heavily abused and scarcly spoke except for profanities. After he hit me in the face with a pair of scissors, and started saying stuff like "devil red," I suspected that I was having a close encounter with a third grade demoniac. With no previous experience in dealing with these matters, I tried to settle him down by looking a pictures in National Geographic. He responded to the animals like a normal autistic child, but when he came across a mosaic of Jesus, he reacted strangely. I said, "Who is that?" Kekoa answered, and I quote: "He is the dead-god of Israel." I said, "The Lord rebuke you." (Knowing from the movies that always gets a reaction). With that he became enraged and said, "He can't get me from up there." After he ran out out the classroom, I called the principal for assistance. We found him hunched up, his eyes rolled back in his head, and his tougue curled in and out, like a snake. The principal only said, "He is in his reptilian state."

How does one explain in terms of the "monkey mind" how a child that literally could not articulate a complete sentence could respond in such a profoundly diabolical way? Under the circumstances there seems to be no naturalistic explanation for his choice of words and his understanding of what was at stake.
He attacked the very essence of who Christ is and then attacked
me as if to say . . . "We know Paul, but who are you."

As I revisit that experience I always wish that I had done things differently; had more faith and was less concerned about protocols. That is the first and last time something like that has ever happened to me and if I learned anything it is that there is a real enemy out there who will stop at nothing to discredit Jesus
and anyone who stands in his way. And although his methods are usually far more subtle and seductive, once you have seen it, you will recognize the 'familiar' hoof print.

I will go to my grave wondering about Kekoa and I hope that others reading this will pray for him.

50

Hey look, Terry's Back again!

51

But let me induldge Terry. Despite his well known problems with research and general honesty let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this is all true.

1. This has nothing to do with evolution.

2. The comment by the principal that the boy was in a 'reptilian state' has nothing to do with evolution although the principal may have thought he knew what he was talking about. On the other hand the principal may have simply been trying to say "there he goes again, acting like a reptile".

3. As for the comments by the boy and his reaction to you. Again evolution sheds little light on that as does the theory of gravity, quantum physics etc. You should probably pull in psychology, which is unfortunately only beginning to become really scientific. More likely the school had very limited resources so, like a doctor without surgerical instruments, you had to do what you could with your limited knowledge and resources on hand.

4. If you want some guidence I would consider what the Catholic Church, which has a long history of dealing with the idea of demons, would probably tell you. There's a good chance you were seeing the psychological impact of serious abuse on that kid. He might have even been responding to your Christianity in order to get a rise out of you. Lashing out in a way he knew would anger you. He might have even been mimicking the movies you claim you saw.

5. AFter that, though, the Church would probably tell you there was a chance the boy was suffering from demonic possession. If true, this would be an intersection of the material world with the non-material world that we were discussing. (Or a materialist may respond that it would be evidence of a part of the material world we have so far never documented in a scientific manner).

52

As long as we're talking about claims that undercut their own justification, here's 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12:

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

If you (Joe or anyone else) believe the Bible is true, how do you know you're not one of the people to whom God is sending delusions that cause you to believe lies?

53

Boonton: The biggest difference between you and LL is that it is possible to have you modify your arguments in response to comments made by others. LL may actually have just been a spamming program created by a foul-mouthed, humorless, malevolent programmer (who used his intelligence to design the program). There was no having a give-and-take with the man. He would seize on a key word or phrase in a post and just randomly spew out the same canned stuff over and over. Sure, it looked like someone was really typing all that stuff in, but it could just as easily have been an automated system.

RE: rationality as a feature of the universe. I know you didn't exactly use this phrase, so you are free to take exception with my characterizing it thus if you wish. If I understand your implication, rationality is not intrinsically connected to life forms with multicellular brains, or else you are positing that there must be rationality behind the universe. The former possibility seems to be the most likely candidate for a naturalistic materialist, but it would be mighty tough to prove empirically with the to