In his book Metaphysics, philosopher Richard Taylor asks the reader to imagine a stone that’s just been dug out of the ground, and covered by peculiar markings. On first appearances the markings appear to be accidental, simply the result of millions of years of erosion. As your examine the marking, though, your friend, a professor of ancient languages, arrives upon the scene and promptly renders a translation of the marks:
HERE KIMON FELL LEADING A BAND OF ATHENIANS AGAINST THE FORCES OF XERXES. Now one can, to be sure, still maintain that the marks are accidental, that they are only scratches left by volcanic activity, and that it is only a singular coincidence that they resemble ... some intelligible message. Nature sometimes produces effects hardly less interesting and arresting as this. The point ... however, is this: if anyone having a knowledge of this stone concludes, solely on the basis of it, that there was someone named Kimon who died in battle near where this stone was found, then he cannot, rationally, suppose that the marks on the stone are the result of the chance or purposeless operations of the forces of nature. He must, on the contrary, assume that they were inscribed there by someone whose purpose was to record an historical fact.
Taylor’s point is that because it is entirely possible for the rock to have accumulated “various and peculiar markings” during vast periods of time, there is no reason to assume that these markings were not created by pure accident. However, it would be a grave mistake, says Taylor, to also believe that these markings "reveal some truth with respect to something other than themselves" about the world. In other words, the markings cannot be both the result of chance forces and indicative of any truth beyond the mere fact that there happen to be peculiar markings upon a certain stone.
Taylor uses this example in order to examine the question, “How is human consciousness any different from the accumulation of accidental markings upon a stone?” Even if we assume that it is possible for nature to create something as inexplicably complex as human consciousness, we cannot assume that consciousness would be reliable. We cannot consistently claim, says Taylor, that human consciousness is both the chance outcome of blind, accidental causes and a reliable belief-forming apparatus by which we discern truths about the world.
Because of this, we are faced with a dilemma. We can either believe that human consciousness was created by a “blind watchmaker” or we can believe that we have the ability to form true beliefs about the world. What we cannot do is rationally hold both beliefs; we are forced to discard one of them if we are committed to being rational beings. Fortunately, if we are committed to being rational, then the choice is obvious.
Knowledge – justified, true belief – cannot be produced by unreliable noetic equipment (brain, spinal cord, senses, etc.). If we believe that it is possible to obtain knowledge, we must believe that our noetic equipment is reliable, hence designed for the task of producing reliable beliefs. But if our noetic equipment is produced by blind, undirected forces, then our equipment is not reliable. We may attempt to believe such statements as “human consciousness was produced by blind, undirected forces” but we would have no reason to believe that they are justified or true. In order to do so, we have to take a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” into the irrational. Since the two claims cannot be reconciled, they can only be believed as a matter of choice, we must choose to accept the absurdity.
The question, of course, is why anyone would choose to accept such an absurdity rather than simply discard the belief that a “blind watchmaker” created consciousness? The most likely answer is provided by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewotin:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
In other words, believing in materialism forces one to accept absurdities in order to prevent having to accept other absurd conclusion, such as that “miracles may happen.” The problem with this approach is that an a priori commitment to materialism undercuts the very foundation of science. Science requires an “apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts” that can produce reliable beliefs about reality. But all materialism can do is produce unreliable explanations to support its own materialist biases.
Science based on materialism is a vicious circle that creates premises that assume the very conclusion it sets out to prove. Yet even when materialists are made aware of this inconsistency they choose to cling dogmatically to their absurdly irrational conclusions rather than embrace logic and consistency. Such stubborn persistence of belief, however, shows that they might be correct after all: maybe their belief-forming apparatus really is produced by blind, accidental forces.
[Note to commenters: I’m truly interested in how materialists respond to this post. Unfortunately, I can already predict that the comments will all be examples of the tu quoque fallacy (fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser) or hand-waving (attempting to get past a moment when a difficult explanation is required). Because of this I propose that we strike a deal. I will open up a post this weekend in which materialists can point out inconsistencies in the theistic worldview if they will agree to respond only to the substance of this post and present positive defenses of materialism. Sound like a fair deal?]
Sources
Faith Seeking Understanding, article on Metaphysics
"In other words, the markings cannot be both the result of chance forces and indicative of any truth ...."
Why not?
Say I have a penny that says on one side "U 1." On the other side it is blank.
And then I bet someone that the coin will land with the message side up.
I flip it. By chance, it lands with the message side up.
That the coin landed with the message side up is pure chance. But the message is true. I did win.
Clearly the odds are better in my story than in Taylor's story. My point is that Taylor's conclusion in quotes above is limited to a very particular set of circumstances and is far from any kind of an axiomatic truth regarding "materialism."
Yes, I'm just getting started.
Carter
"But if our noetic equipment is produced by blind, undirected forces, then our equipment is not reliable. "
Bacteria reliably swim up gradients towards food sources. Their equipment is reliable.
Is it "absurd" to believe that the most primitive bacteria known to humans evolved via a combination of chance mutation and natural selection without the intervention of aliens?
If so, why?
If not, when did life forms become "absurdly" evolved?
Food for thought.
Joe,
A similar argument was made by C.S. Lewis. I believe it had to do with rocks on a hillside which formed the word LONDON with an arrow --->
C.S. Lewis point was pretty much the same. If the rocks fell that way by accident through years of earthquakes, etc, and the person seeing those rocks believes that, then there is no reason to believe that LONDON is in the direction of the arrow.
However, if the person seeing the rocks so arranged believes that they were purposefully put there, then a person would be reasonable to assume that LONDON is in the direction that the arrow is pointing.
Seems like pretty much the same argument.
My question is, what fool would see rocks so aligned and think they came that way by accident?
Joe,
A similar argument was made by C.S. Lewis. I believe it had to do with rocks on a hillside which formed the word LONDON with an arrow --->
C.S. Lewis point was pretty much the same. If the rocks fell that way by accident through years of earthquakes, etc, and the person seeing those rocks believes that, then there is no reason to believe that LONDON is in the direction of the arrow.
However, if the person seeing the rocks so arranged believes that they were purposefully put there, then a person would be reasonable to assume that LONDON is in the direction that the arrow is pointing.
Seems like pretty much the same argument.
My question is, what fool would see rocks so aligned and think they came that way by accident?
But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? ~ Charles Darwin
[Note to commenters: I’m truly interested in how materialists respond to this post. Unfortunately, I can already predict that the comments will all be examples of the tu quoque fallacy (fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser) or hand-waving (attempting to get past a moment when a difficult explanation is required).
Joe, you've posted this argument a million times and a million times we've responded to you and you ignore the response.
1. I've already reviewed your misuse of 'chance' and now 'pure chance' (whatever that is). Larry has fallen into the same error.
2. Evolution does not argue that traits arrive out of 'pure chance'. They are linked to survival in the environment. It's almost impossible to imagine a consciousness that DOES NOT provide true feedback from the environment to be a useful trait. If evolution is going to produce something that consumes as much resources and energy as consciousness it's a pretty slim chance that it WILL NOT have the ability to make at least a few true statements about the real world.
In the rock example you miss the point. A better analogy might be finding a rock in a vulcanic lake of acid. Now the rock might have been placed there or it just might have been there 'by chance' but the fact remains it would be logical to conclude that the rock has a chemical composition that allows it to resist the acid....at least for a time.
Boonton 1. I've already reviewed your misuse of 'chance' and now 'pure chance' (whatever that is). Larry has fallen into the same error.
Yes, I realize that you have repeatedly tried to redefine “chance” so that it is inapplicable to evolution. I’ve ignored it because no one believe it. I realize that since materialism has to strip out teleological language it makes it difficult to communicate. But you can’t simply make stuff up.
Chance is merely an accidental or unpredictable event; the intersection of two otherwise unrelated causal chains. Unless evolutionary processes developed our noetic equipment in such a way that it could not be unreliable, then it had to have occurred by chance.
2. Evolution does not argue that traits arrive out of 'pure chance'. They are linked to survival in the environment.
You seem to be confused about the way natural selection works. It doesn’t select positively, only negatively. It’s like a Russian roulette for genetics – if a mutation doesn’t kill you then it can be passed on to the next generation. There is no “selector” in natural selection that goes in an chooses the best or most beneficial traits.
It's almost impossible to imagine a consciousness that DOES NOT provide true feedback from the environment to be a useful trait.
Why? True feedback is not necessary to survival. Alvin Plantinga proved that many years ago (as we’ve covered before).
…it's a pretty slim chance that it WILL NOT have the ability to make at least a few true statements about the real world.
I’ll grant that. Sometimes we could make true statements about the real world. But we would have no certain method of distinguishing the true statements from the false ones.
Yes, I realize that you have repeatedly tried to redefine “chance” so that it is inapplicable to evolution. I’ve ignored it because no one believe it. I realize that since materialism has to strip out teleological language it makes it difficult to communicate. But you can’t simply make stuff up.
Chance is merely an accidental or unpredictable event; the intersection of two otherwise unrelated causal chains. Unless evolutionary processes developed our noetic equipment in such a way that it could not be unreliable, then it had to have occurred by chance.
Errr no I pointed out that chance does not exist on a 'fundamental level'. When you flip a coin the outcome is determined by the laws of motion. For you, a simple human, the outcome is unknown hence we use probability as a way to deal with this. Consider a multiple choice test. If you have 5 choices and you guess you have a 20% chance of getting it right. If you can eliminate three choices then you have a 50% chance of getting it right when you guess. The fact is, though, that the correct answer is not determined by 'pure chance'. The right answer is the correct answer to that question. If you know the subject then the chance of getting it right is 100%.
One may say we are here because on Wednesday the earth was not hit by a metor that wiped out all life. One may say we were 'lucky'. The reality is the reason such a thing didn't happen is because metors obey the laws of motion which are quite deterministic and reliable. If you happened to have known the velocity and position of all the objects in the solar system you would have been able to know that there was 'no chance' for earth to have been hit this Wednesday just as you would have known with absolute certainity that the earth would have been hit back when the age of the dinosaurs came to an end.
But of course we don't know the position of every rock in the solar system so we opt for the next best solution and assert there is a 'low chance' of earth getting hit today. Basically the 'chance' thing is just a more sophisticated way of guessing on a multiple choice test.
The one exception may be in the world of quantum physics but even there the 'pure chance'...if it exists...cancels itself out when you look at anything larger than a few atoms. The flipped coin cannot be predicted because of incomplete information...not because of fundamental 'pure chance'.
You seem to be confused about the way natural selection works. It doesn’t select positively, only negatively. It’s like a Russian roulette for genetics – if a mutation doesn’t kill you then it can be passed on to the next generation. There is no “selector” in natural selection that goes in an chooses the best or most beneficial traits.
And if a mutation helps you it makes it easier to to pass on your genes. Angelina Joile's lips, for example, serve quite well to improve her mating prospects (as do other things that we shall not mention on a family blog!).
Why? True feedback is not necessary to survival. Alvin Plantinga proved that many years ago (as we’ve covered before).
Perhaps you could give me a condensed refresher on why true feedback isn't necessary for survival. More to the point, why would an organism that is more prone to receive true feedback not have an advantage over one that doesn't?
I’ll grant that. Sometimes we could make true statements about the real world. But we would have no certain method of distinguishing the true statements from the false ones.
In other words we are not infallible. That's undisputable whether you want to be a pure materialist or pure mystic. If we do have the ability to at least have a good certainity that we can make true statements about the real world we can at least achieve a certain level of 'low risk'. For example, we can probably be safe in saying after billions of mostly agreeable observation that the earth pulls things towards its surface with a high degree of certainity. However whether you're a materialist or mystic the fact remains there is always a slight risk that maybe we'll wake up in a Matrix like world and discover the whole gravity thing was a really clever illusion that fooled all of us. I don't suppose either of us could prove there is absolutely 0 chance of that happening.
By Frederic Friedel
Probability is a tricky business. There are a lot of cases in which reality contradict intuition, something that up shown in numerous probability paradoxes that are circulated in mathematics classes and social gatherings. One of the most famous is the Birthday Paradox. How big must a group of people be in order for you to be reasonably certain that two of them will share the same birthday?
The intuitive answer often given is 183, i.e. 365 divided by two. The correct number is not something people easily arrive at, certainly not by intuition. The surprising fact is that if you have a gathering of 23 people the chances of two of them having the same birthday is better than 50%.
The solution does not seem quite as surprising if you put the question in a different way: if 23 people are gathered in a room, what are the chances that no two of them will have the same birthday? And this is the simplest way to approach the mathematics of the paradox. We calculate what the chances are of not sharing birthdays.
Assume you are alone in a room. The chances that every person in the room has a different birthday is obviously 100% – or in the language of probabilities: 1. Now a second person enters. The chances that he or she will have a different birthday to you is 364/365 (we are going to ignore leap years in this calculation), or 0.9973, which is the same as 99.73%. A third person enters. The chances that this person has a different birthday from both you and the second person is 363/365. The chances that all three have different birthdays is 364/365 times 363/365, or 0.9918.
So the chances of 23 people having different birthdays is 364/365 * 363/365 * 362/365 * 361/365 ... 343/365, which comes out to 0.493. This means there is a 49.3% chance of everyone in the room having different birthdays, and conversely a 50.7% chance of at least two sharing the same birthday
I think it would be a good exercise for everyone who is trying to make an argument based on a probability of something happening being 'really low' to actually post an estimate of that probability...or at least a sketch of how one would actually calculate it.
Larry Lord:
Carter:"But if our noetic equipment is produced by blind, undirected forces, then our equipment is not reliable. "
You: "Bacteria reliably swim up gradients towards food sources. Their equipment is reliable."
Don't you know that evolutionary and genetic algorithms don't work?
Of course, the characterization by Carter as "blind, undirected" is wrong- organisms do indeed have an objective function- propagation of the DNA/species. But let's conveniently ignore that...
Boonton,
I think it would be a good exercise for everyone who is trying to make an argument based on a probability of something happening being 'really low' to actually post an estimate of that probability...or at least a sketch of how one would actually calculate it.
Well, this was unexpected. I didn't really expect think that you would be so blantant in your efforts to help shore up my argument. ; )
But you are right. Frequentist probability merely implies a lack of information and we cannot adequately estimate the probability of an event without relevant, true information. But then how can we ever know that our beliefs are true? Unless there is ojective truth, then we rely on the probability that something is true. So how then can we determine the probability that our beliefs are true without relevant, true information confirming that we have the ability to form true beliefs?
The viscious circle is once again complete.
Mumon Of course, the characterization by Carter as "blind, undirected" is wrong- organisms do indeed have an objective function- propagation of the DNA/species. But let's conveniently ignore that...
First of all, why is a Buddhist defending materialism? You do understand that Buddhism and materialism are on opposite ends of the spectrum, don't you?
Also, "propagation of the DNA/species" is not an "objective function." There is no objective purpose in a materialist universe. There is no purpose at all. There is only what happens. And what do you mean by "evolutionary and genetic algorithms" work? Work for what? There is no teleologial purpose in a materialist universe.
You seem to understand materialism about as well as you do Buddhism. ; )
Boonton
Errr no I pointed out that chance does not exist on a 'fundamental level'. When you flip a coin the outcome is determined by the laws of motion. For you, a simple human, the outcome is unknown hence we use probability as a way to deal with this. Consider a multiple choice test. If you have 5 choices and you guess you have a 20% chance of getting it right. If you can eliminate three choices then you have a 50% chance of getting it right when you guess. The fact is, though, that the correct answer is not determined by 'pure chance'. The right answer is the correct answer to that question. If you know the subject then the chance of getting it right is 100%.
Do you suppose God would 'know the subject'?
Boonton
"1. I've already reviewed your misuse of 'chance' and now 'pure chance' (whatever that is). Larry has fallen into the same error."
I don't think I've fallen into the 'same error' as Joe.
Rather, using the same definition of chance that Taylor used, I showed that Taylor's conclusion is false.
"In other words, believing in materialism forces one to accept absurdities in order to prevent having to accept other absurd conclusion, such as that “miracles may happen.” The problem with this approach is that an a priori commitment to materialism undercuts the very foundation of science. Science requires an “apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts” that can produce reliable beliefs about reality. But all materialism can do is produce unreliable explanations to support its own materialist biases."
Agreed. But the problem is that science, in order to develop asymptotically towards something that might be of technical or explanatory benefit to us, HAS TO rule out 'the divine,' or 'God,' or 'consciousness.'
Would those of you who think science shouldn't be committed to materialism really want an airplane engineer to have recourse to GOD in ascertaining the reliability of the mechanism he/she is designing? --"and in your tests, why did the wing not fracture?" --"Oh, I'm pretty sure God was giving the aluminum added flexibility somehow." A scientist, when confronted with a mysterious 'gap' in the logic of his or her theory, who appealed to "god" would not be a good scientist. yes, the materialist bias of science IS a bias, but it is a necessary bias as it forces the narrative of inquisitiveness and theories along rather than stopping at some arbitrary "oh, god did that" whenever we run out of explanations.
Science is not absolutely reliable, and cannot explain or create any kind of meta-narrative, but within the limits of what it is designed to do (create better and better TESTABLE approximations of what is happening and what can be expected to happen given x and y), science WITHOUT God is certainly preferable to science WITH God.
All this disputing about what "chance" is and whether it exists is really not necessary. Everywhere Joe refers to "chance" in his argument, just substitute "non-rational causes". The important point is that if the marks on the rock can be traced back to non-rational origins, we cannot then rely on those marks as a source of information about Kimon's noble sacrifice in the struggle to save Greece from the Persian hordes. Whether we describe those non-rational origins as "chance" or "mechanism" or anything else is a separate question - important, perhaps, in its own right, but not important to Joe's argument.
Similarly, if the thoughts in my head are there because of events that we can trace back to non-rational sources - which must be the case if materialism is true - then I cannot rely on the thoughts in my head to tell me about things. Whether my thoughts are there because of chance or mechanism or what-have-you, the important point is that on the materialist view they are *not* there because they are true. And if they are not there because they are true, I have no reason to think that they *are* true.
Look at it from another perspective. A materialist who thinks this issue through will eventually conclude that he is a materialist for reasons that have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of materialism. If a butterfly in Japan had beat its wings slightly differently a thousand years ago, he might be a Christian today rather than a materialist. But once he realizes this, why should he continue believe in materialism? Out of respect for the wisdom of the butterfly?
Most materialists seem to think you can get around this by arguing that our thoughts are true by coincidence. Evolution led to a chain of causes that just by coincidence happens to produce true thoughts. Of course, it's true that if a non-rational universe could produce a rational being, that being would then have a large survival advantage. But it's impossible that a non-rational universe could have produced rational thought, for the reasons Joe and I have already outlined.
1) It's phenominally unlikely, to the point of being incredible, that non-rational physical forces (call it "blind chance" or whatever you like) would just happen to line up in precisely the right way to produce a true thought. For them to produce a thought, true or otherwise, already requires so many millions of things to go exactly right all at the same time that even over millions of years it's hard to believe it could happen. For them to just happen to line up and produce a true thought, when so many more false thoughts than true ones are possible, is fantastic. I find the existence of God a whole lot more plausible than *that*.
2) Even if non-rational causes did happen to line up in just the right way to produce a true thought, how likely is it that they stay in just that right formation for even another second, let alone for thousands of years? As Lewis once said, for a materialist to believe that human thought is true requires belief not just in one incredibly happy coincidence, but in perpetual happy coincidence thoughtout recorded history.
3) But let's put both those misgivings aside. Say that by some phenomenal chance, non-rational forces lined up in just the right way to produce true thought, and just happened to stay that way. We still would have no way to *know* that they did in fact line up correctly. For us to engage in rational thought we not only have to have minds that produce true thought, we have to have sufficient grounds for believing that our minds produce true thought.
Return to the stone with markings that tell of Kimon's noble stand. Suppose there really was a Kimon who fell defending Greece from Persia, but no one ever recorded his deeds. And suppose - it is just possible - that non-rational forces (geology and weather and whatever) produced exactly the right marks to print that message on the stone. The message is true and was produced by non-rational forces. But we would have no way to *know* that; we can have no grounds for accepting it. With no independent verification of Kimon's existence, we have only the stone to go on. We can argue over whether the marks on the stone were produced by non-rational forces, but if we conclude they were produced by non-rational forces we can never go on to accept the statement as true because we will have no grounds for accepting it as true. The statement will remain to us just a statement that might or might not be true.
Anyone interested in this argument should read the first six chapters of Lewis's book "Miracles," or if you're looking for a more technical statement of the argument (suitable for professional philosophers) you can find it in Victor Reppert's short book "C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea."
Joe
"There is no objective purpose in a materialist universe. There is no purpose at all."
Again, I must quote Bob Mitchum --
"Baby, I don't CARE."
That is materialism. Does some deity have a plant for me? Maybe. Who knows? I certainly haven't seen any evidence for such a deity. But I still want to be maximize my happiness (by which I mean my overall sense of well-being, not simply pleasure) and I understand that the way to do that is to do unto others etc.
There is nothing any more inconsistent about this approach to living than yours, Joe, or anyone else who isn't living like some yogi up in the Himalayas.
Kristofer: Science does not require the assumption that supernatural interference with nature *never* occurs. It only requires the assumption that supernatural interference with nature does not occur *regularly* - that nature ordinarily operates by fixed, discoverable laws. There might be occasional intereferences with those fixed laws. The existence of exceptions to the rule does not prevent us from discovering the rule.
Again, anyone interested in this should read Lewis's "Miracles," in this case chapter 13.
But you are right. Frequentist probability merely implies a lack of information and we cannot adequately estimate the probability of an event without relevant, true information. But then how can we ever know that our beliefs are true? Unless there is ojective truth, then we rely on the probability that something is true. So how then can we determine the probability that our beliefs are true without relevant, true information confirming that we have the ability to form true beliefs?
Let's see, you're argument is that the probability of us having evolved the ability to detect true beliefs is low instead of high. I ask how one would determine this. You assume we cannot determine true beliefs therefore the probability must be low?
If we cannot obtain the necessary information then we cannot do a probability calculation. If we cannot do a calculation then we cannot make statements about probability.
The multiple choice test analogy
Do you suppose God would 'know the subject'?---bevets
I would assume so. Therefore there is no contradiction in speculating that he could have created a totally material universe knowing it would produce what he wanted to be produced (us).
Larry's error
That the coin landed with the message side up is pure chance. But the message is true. I did win.
Not 'pure chance' in the sense that the coin flip is fundamentally underterminable until it is actually done. The '50-50' odds are a result of a lack of information. If you knew the exact forces you were applying to the coin then you would be able to make it land as you pleased. This isn't 'pure chance' but more like guessing on a multiple choice test with two questions. The only field I believe pure chance might be a factor is quantum physics but there the probabilities cancel themselves out if you're talking about anything larger than a few atoms.
Greg
"And if they are not there because they are true, I have no reason to think that they *are* true."
Yes you do.
Do me a favor. Take some LSD -- 1000 micrograms or so. Then after you are come down tell me if you have a reason to think that your thoughts are true.
I think my thoughts about most things are true. In fact, I know they are true.
If you want to get into a debate about whether or not anything is "truly true" then be my guest. That's the purest form of mental masturbation.
Boonton, I understand what you are saying.
But it's irrelevant to my point. I'm assuming Taylor's own definition of chance in my coin toss to show his conclusion is wrong.
If you think Taylor is defining chance in a different way, then say so and explain why.
Look at the way the problem is initially framed: "Taylor’s point is that because it is entirely possible for the rock to have accumulated 'various and peculiar markings' during vast periods of time, there is no reason to assume that these markings were not created by pure accident."
Break the syllogism down:
1. It is possible for time and chance to create peculiar markings on a rock.
2. This rock has peculiar markings.
3. Therefore, this rock must have been formed by time and chance.
Can anyone say non sequitur? The consistent (and fallacious) argument is that if something can be ascribed to chance, it must be ascribed to chance.
Following up on Jim's coment
Joe wrote
"Taylor’s point is that because it is entirely possible for the rock to have accumulated 'various and peculiar markings' during vast periods of time, there is no reason to assume that these markings were not created by pure accident."
Again, there is a reason to assume those marking were not created by pure accident.
The reason is that if you take Taylor's argument to its LOGICALLY CONSISTENT conclusion, you will DIE because you are abandoning your ability to reason based on experience.
My computer could have formed in front of me by chance. Maybe it will explode by chance. Maybe it will turn into a glass of water by chance. Who can say? I might as well just sit here and wait for food to appear in my stomach by chance. I might even pray ...
Or, I can use my brain and my knowledge of probabilities, based on experience, to do things that will make me happy -- like not starving to death.
Excellent, except for the fact that no one ever stated #3 so your non sequitur is little more than a straw man.
Jim
Look at the way the problem is initially framed: "Taylor’s point is that because it is entirely possible for the rock to have accumulated 'various and peculiar markings' during vast periods of time, there is no reason to assume that these markings were not created by pure accident."
Break the syllogism down:
1. It is possible for time and chance to create peculiar markings on a rock.
2. This rock has peculiar markings.
3. Therefore, this rock must have been formed by time and chance.
Can anyone say non sequitur? The consistent (and fallacious) argument is that if something can be ascribed to chance, it must be ascribed to chance.
Um, no,that's not what it says. The syllogism would be:
1. It is possible for time and chance to create peculiar markings on a rock.
2. This rock has peculiar markings.
3. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that these markings were not created by pure accident.
From this we could derive that if it can be ascribed to chance, then we have no way of knowing if it should be ascribed to chance. In other words, we can never have reliable knowledge either way.
Boonton Excellent, except for the fact that no one ever stated #3 so your non sequitur is little more than a straw man.
Good catch, Boonton. Your commitment to a fair and logical discussion is praiseworthy.
Boonton: Errr no I pointed out that chance does not exist on a 'fundamental level'. When you flip a coin the outcome is determined by the laws of motion. For you, a simple human, the outcome is unknown hence we use probability as a way to deal with this. Consider a multiple choice test. If you have 5 choices and you guess you have a 20% chance of getting it right. If you can eliminate three choices then you have a 50% chance of getting it right when you guess. The fact is, though, that the correct answer is not determined by 'pure chance'. The right answer is the correct answer to that question. If you know the subject then the chance of getting it right is 100%.
bevets: Do you suppose God would 'know the subject'?
Boonton: I would assume so.
Could anyone ever 'know the subject' better than God?
Boonton:Therefore there is no contradiction in speculating that he could have created a totally material universe knowing it would produce what he wanted to be produced (us).
I could have 7 fingers on my left hand. I do not.
Joe:
"1. It is possible for time and chance to create peculiar markings on a rock.
2. This rock has peculiar markings.
3. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that these markings were not created by pure accident.
From this we could derive that if it can be ascribed to chance, then we have no way of knowing if it should be ascribed to chance."
The last sentence is not a derivation -- it's a restatement of a somewhat different argument.
Point 3 says "there is no reason to assume..." (and I have shown above why that is false).
In the alleged derivation, you say "we have no way of knowing [with 100% certainty] it should be ascribed to chance [versus intelligence with purpose]".
I can grant you the conclusion in your derivation (with the brackets) but it's still a long long long long jump from there to "there is no reason to assume that the markings weren't created by pure chance."
So where's my cookie.
Joe, I merely restated your double negation as an affirmation. But let's look at your version:
"1. It is possible for time and chance to create peculiar markings on a rock.
2. This rock has peculiar markings.
3. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that these markings were not created by pure accident.
From this we could derive that if it can be ascribed to chance, then we have no way of knowing if it should be ascribed to chance. In other words, we can never have reliable knowledge either way."
If you think that the latter claim is derived from the syllogism, then your fallacy becomes a petitio principii. It merely restates the syllogism. (Within the syllogism, the non sequitur is still intact.)
Jim,
I don't see why you call it a non sequiter. It is a standard modus ponens framework:
If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.
If P (it is possible for time and chance to create peculiar markings on a rock), then Q (rocks with peculiar markings can be created by time and chance).
P (it is possible for time and chance to create peculiar markings on a rock)
Therefore, Q (rocks with peculiar markings can be created by time and chance).
Joe, now you're changing the argument.
This:
"If P (it is possible for time and chance to create peculiar markings on a rock), then Q (rocks with peculiar markings can be created by time and chance).
P (it is possible for time and chance to create peculiar markings on a rock)
Therefore, Q (rocks with peculiar markings can be created by time and chance)."
Simply does not equate to:
""1. It is possible for time and chance to create peculiar markings on a rock.
2. This rock has peculiar markings.
3. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that these markings were not created by pure accident."
Number three's "there is no reason" is the non sequitur. It doesn't follow from premises 1 and 2.
Perhaps a counterexample is necessary.
P: It is possible for Bob Hope to produce peculiar markings on a rock.
Q. This rock has peculiar markings.
Therefore, there is no reason to assume these markings were not created by Bob Hope.
Now the non sequitur should be obvious.
Once again we're getting sidetracked. The important point is this: once we decide that the marks on the rock were made by time and chance (i.e. by non-rational forces) we can no longer justify treating them as though they were rational.
So, yes, the syllogism as stated doesn't work. But that syllogism was never part of the original argument.
"Kristofer: Science does not require the assumption that supernatural interference with nature *never* occurs. It only requires the assumption that supernatural interference with nature does not occur *regularly* - that nature ordinarily operates by fixed, discoverable laws. There might be occasional intereferences with those fixed laws. The existence of exceptions to the rule does not prevent us from discovering the rule." --Greg
Greg, I never said science requires the assumption that supernatural interference never occurs; I was making the point that it is right and proper for scientific method to proceed "as if" supernatural interference doesn't exists, because to do otherwise would compromise the methodical nature of the chain of verification and speculation. Science has to *proceed* as if there is no God (or, more properly, no supernatural interference), even if every scientist in the world believed in God and or the possibility of supernatural interference. I believe in the possibility of supernatural interference, but I sure as hell don't want nuclear scientists and engineers proceeding on the basis of it.
Jim,
Number three's "there is no reason" is the non sequitur. It doesn't follow from premises 1 and 2.
Ah, I see what you're saying now and I think you are right. That wording should not be in there. It appears that I did not adequately express Taylor's point as well as I should have. Fortunately, my friend Greg Foster provided a better explanation in an earlier comment:
It is possible for Bob Hope to produce peculiar markings on a rock.
Since Bob Hope died in 2003, it is extremely unlikely that he is capable of producing peculiar markings on a rock. Also, he is really not known for sculpting, more for telling bad jokes, making worse movies, and doing incredible work entertaining US troops overseas. Maybe Michelangelo would have been a better example, but it still would have shown the non sequitor.
Kristofer
"I believe in the possibility of supernatural interference, but I sure as hell don't want nuclear scientists and engineers proceeding on the basis of it."
I don't want my grocer or my barber proceeding on the basis of it, either.
Joe quoted
"if we conclude they were produced by non-rational forces we can never go on to accept the statement as true because we will have no grounds for accepting it as true."
In the absence of any other supporting data, sure.
But that is a trivial point, isn't it? And it applies as well to statements written by intelligent people about things for which we have zero supporting data.
That is why many people choose not to believe that a deity created the universe or that Jesus rose from the dead.
A couple observations:
At first, when I read this hypothetical anecdote about the stone, I thought it was a rather run-of-the-mill attempt to make disbelief in the supernatural appear like the domain only of madmen and nihilists. Ho hum.
But looking at it a bit more, it's actually a rather illuminating anecdote about belief formation. [Full disclosure, I speak as a person who does believe in god. But it looks like I'm the only one here who feels it's entirely rational to be both a believer in god and an atheist. I love debating this stuff, but ultimately this appeal to an argument intended to FORCE by means of cognitive implosion someone to abandon or take on a perfectly believable set of mental habits about the world seems to miss the point about what belief actually is and does.]
1. The first problem, that the anecdote entirely skips over, is just what processes and habits are in place that make the finder of the stone recognize the markings as "peculiar." Peculiar here means something that appears to us to have a non-routine or out-of-the-ordinary origin. The trouble is, our identifying something as peculiar, or vaguely non-natural is a result of expectations and mental short-cuts about what constitutes something worthy of paying extra close attention to, and what doesn't. In this case it relies on a habit of construing rows with similar sized shapes with spaces between them as being some kind of symbol system. We don't normally associate a grid with natural phenomena, as natural patterns usually follow a much more complex geometry than the two-dimensional rectangle grids our feeble minds use to organize things. So when the person in this anecdote sees this rock, it's the presence of something that appears "familiar" to him rather than something that appears as peculiar that leads him to investigate further. The peculiarity stems from the familiarity of what he sees, and his inability to explain the familiarity except through postulating that something familiar to him must have made this familiar looking thing and must have a familiar purpose in mind. The basic question really comes down to: does the universe, or rather the experience of "finding" the universe make the universe appear familiar to you? If yes, you will probably end up believing in a God. If no, you will probably end up not believing in a God (though, I am here excluding another important aspect of belief-formation, namely):
2. The role of the linguist. What helps you step from the familiarity of the shapes on the rock (which you construe as peculiar only because you feel they should be familiar--based on your own mental and linguistic practices--but don't yet match your expectation? The presence of the expert. She helps you cross the Rubicon of uncertainty, but it is NOT the content of the deciphered message, but rather your acknowledgment of her AS LINGUISTIC EXPERT that leads you to believe in the purposiveness of those markings on the rock. Belief is formed by human relationships, hierarchies, and habits. In the anecdote you have no means of verifying the intelligibility or purposiveness of the markings through your RATIONALITY or INTELLECT at all. You only have recourse to socially constructed avenues of increasing your knowledge. Reliance upon the expert/priest/scientist. Which is actually smart and efficient. We would get nowhere if everybody in the world had to independently verify everything the believe. The problem in applying this to the world is there is no undisputed expert, nor do we really have a way of establishing whether the "markings" of the universe are pecualiar (ie familiar) or not--since that is, in some real way, the true substance of our debate to begin with.
3. I leave you with a true-life story concerning an artist friend of mine who spent a summer out of the city in upstate New York. When he got back, he was all excited because he had, during one of his walks, found these sticks with these very very odd shapes on them. They looked (and he used this word) peculiar. He was convinced that they were some kind of human inscription. I very much doubted it, but he persisted. He took extreme close-up views of the markings and enlisted friends of his--experts in languages and cipher systems--to try to ascertain their provenance. For a while, he was convinced it was derived from some Sumerian script or other (I forget exactly which he had mentioned). Finally, in the course of his investigations of these peculiar sticks, one of his biologist friends told him these were unmistakably the trails left by a certain kind of insect as it burrows under the bark, looking for food. Once the branches fell to the ground and the bark dried off, the insect-trails were exposed to the world. What's the point of this anecdote?
Is communication truly peculiar, or not? Are you more impressed by the familiarity or non-familiarity of the cosmos into which you've been dropped? They are two sides of the same coin. It's your inclination as well as your relationship with "experts" (authorial or otherwise) which will lead you to what you ultimately believe.
Kristofer: I totally agree with you that science should assume God is not *currently* interfering with nature when it conducts research. But that is a far cry from saying, as you did, that "science should be committed to materialism". The idea that science involves materialist assumptions, even provisionally, is one of the deadliest poisons in popular thought. (Over the last century it has thankfully become quite rare among the scientists themselves.)
Larry: It isn't a trivial point, it's the whole argument.
If we have no information about Kimon independent of the stone, then once we ascribe the stone to non-rational causes we are left with no information about Kimon whatsoever.
Now, in the metaphor, the stone is human thought and Kimon is truth. We have no information about truth independent of our own thought. So if we ascribe our thought to non-rational causes we are left with no information about truth whatsoever.
Kristofer: You raise a lot of important epistemological issues, but most of them are not directly relevant to the truth or falsehood of Joe's argument.
Here's the argument in a nutshell:
1) There is only one thing that might serve us as a source of information about truth - our own thought.
2) If it can be shown that a thing arises entirely from non-rational sources, we can never have reason to accept that thing as a source of information.
3) It follows that if a belief system requires us to conclude that our thought arises entirely from non-rational sources, that belief system rules out the possibility of our having any information about truth.
4) Materialism requires us to conclude that our thought arises entirely from non-rational sources.
5) Therefore materialism rules out the possibility of our having any information about truth.
You raise lots of interesting intellectual questions about how we make sense of the process of apprehending truth, but the existence of those questions doesn't change the fact that materialism is inconsistent with our apprehending any truth at all. It's as though Joe were telling you that a square circle can't exist and you responded by raising questions about what color the circle was.
Evolution does not argue that traits arrive out of 'pure chance'. They are linked to survival in the environment.
But the traits must come about by random mutation before natural selection can "select" them, so Joe is right. Evolution is dependent on blind chance, which leads to all the absurdities noted above.
P: It is possible for Bob Hope to produce peculiar markings on a rock.
... and they still wouldn't be funny.
Greg
"If we have no information about Kimon independent of the stone, then once we ascribe the stone to non-rational causes we are left with no information about Kimon whatsoever."
Again: "Baby, I don't CARE."
Watch this: oijdsa;fsjflseicloslj,e
That may be code with meaning, or not.
Let's say that in some language it says: "Hitler farted on Wednesday June 1, 1926 at 1:00 pm".'
Did he or didn't he? Again: "Baby I don't CARE."
Regardless of how you interpret those letters, it doesn't change the fact that Hitler existed. The evidence Hitler existed is overwhelming and has nothing do with the existence of supernatural beings.
Same with evolution.
Joe Carter:
Buddhists - as you might infer from your earlier quote from the Dalai Lama- don't have a problem with evolution; pure materialism is another thing entirely, but my issue here was with evolution...
Also, "propagation of the DNA/species" is not an "objective function." There is no objective purpose in a materialist universe. There is no purpose at all. There is only what happens. And what do you mean by "evolutionary and genetic algorithms" work? Work for what?
When I say "objective function" -sigh- your web interface doesn't do equations- what I mean is a "goal function."
In optimization problems, something - a point, a function, etc. is chosen according to some selection method to maximize or minimize some goal -or objective.
And in that sense, evolutionary and genetic algorithms "work."
In the real world, of course, every now and then something like a meteor hits the earth or one species overpopulates an area and mass extinction events happen, but barring that- or regardless of that- the DNA is propagated.
Now one can get into a conundrum on either a purely materialist side or a purely whatever your side is (theistic?) if we note that this objective function- propagating the DNA- is considered.
"Be fruitful and multiply" eventually becomes counterproductive as resources are overultilized.
If you want a theory of origins as to why DNA got that way in the first place, well, have at it, and vice versa, but here we are.
Mumon
"If you want a theory of origins as to why DNA got that way in the first place, well, have at it, and vice versa, but here we are."
Here we are. And there are those old bones where we aren't but other animals are.
Put two and two together.
The problem with the Kimon story is that humans are fallible and also known to lie and make up stories.
The facts -- as every one of us knows but some of us may not admit -- do sometimes speak for themselves. Start listening to the facts and stop listening to Jim Dobson. Please.
Greg writes: "Here's the argument in a nutshell:
1) There is only one thing that might serve us as a source of information about truth - our own thought.
2) If it can be shown that a thing arises entirely from non-rational sources, we can never have reason to accept that thing as a source of information."
etc. etc.
The point of my "interesting questions," (which I do hope provided some interest since they are naturally powerless to cause or destroy belief in anyone) was to question exactly these first two presuppositions of yours. First, what I'm questioning is the very idea that there is one thing that serves as a source of truth for us. Further, among the what I believe to be many sources of truth-generating things out there, I believe our own "thought" would be pretty far down the list in terms of deciding what we actually believe.
Second, my thinking is intended to cast doubt on the possibility of proving that a thing arises entirely from non-rational sources, as well as its corrolary, (proving that something arises entirely from rational sources)--which goes directly to the heart of your point number 2.
We *construe* authorship. We construe what counts as information. And because there are inherent problems in thinking our way out of our thinking, it's pretty much impossible for us to make absolute determinations about what *should* be viewed as information. What counts as a source of information to us is primarily demonstrated and habituated by community and practices, not by thought.
Making determinations about thought given thought is inherently problematic, for reasons analogous to Gödel's incompleteness theorems. At some point, in every act of proving something about thought, we make claim/assumptions which are already part of what we are setting out to prove.
There are lots of fun possibilities here about our world: 1) Is there a linguist nearby? yes or no. If not, what happens? 2) What if London exists, but we don't know what London is? 3) What if what looks like an arrow actually means "is the new jerusalem." etc. etc.
My questions point towards the impossibility for us to prove anything about the nature of our thought, materialist or non-materialist, believer in blind watch-makers, chance, Chaos (as god), sloppy watch-makers, or mean-spirited demons or not. I suspect many Christians would take issue with your statement that there is "only one thing that might serve us as a source of information about truth - our own thought."
You seem to believe that matter cannot be rational? Is that because you have some hidden presupposition that rationality is somehow "ghostly" or "spiritual" whereas matter is gross and inherently stupid. I'm saying that a rock, tumbled about in an ice age, and hitting me on the shin can be entirely rational, in fact, might even be more rational than I am, and DEFINITELY contains more information than my mind does (if only someone would recognize it as information).
Why can't our "noetic equipment" be partially reliable or slightly reliable, or mostly reliable etc.? Why either/or? Is either/or (or black and white) really an accurate description of the situation?
Kristofer, you and I are using different definitions of "thought". I meant only "the activity a person is engaged in when he apprehends a proposition," whereas you seem to equate "thought" with a conscious process of rationally examining propositions. So by my definition, point #1 is almost tautological - we cannot apprehend true propositions except by thought because "thought" is simply our ability to apprehend propositions.
You write that you're trying to "point towards the impossibility for us to prove anything about the nature of our thought". That sounds to me like you're trying to prove that no proofs are valid. Fortunately, your actual arguments don't go so far as this description suggests - they only concern the various problems involved in interpreting sense perceptions. Joe's argument concerns a question that is logically prior to those problems. Before we even come to the question of how we interpret sense perceptions, there is the question of whether *any* of our thoughts are valid. So even if we granted all your arguments, they wouldn't cast doubt on Joe's argument.
Patrick writes: "Why can't our "noetic equipment" be partially reliable or slightly reliable, or mostly reliable etc.? Why either/or? Is either/or (or black and white) really an accurate description of the situation?"
Joe's argument is that if materialism is true, it follows that our noetic equipment is totally unreliable. No one is saying that "totally reliable" and "totally unreliable" are the only possibilities. The argument is that "totally unreliable" is the only possibility that is consistent with materialism.
Greg wrote: "Joe's argument is that if materialism is true, it follows that our noetic equipment is totally unreliable. No one is saying that 'totally reliable' and 'totally unreliable' are the only possibilities. The argument is that 'totally unreliable' is the only possibility that is consistent with materialism."
And he hasn't stated a very compelling case. Having "no ground" and standing on slippery ground are different. Perhaps we don't have to adopt his strict definitions of knowledge and mathematically rigorous TRUTH, and can be satisfied with incomplete or provisional answers.
Joe describes knowledge as "justified true belief," and then demands 100% reliability as "justification." That begs the question. Why should rational justification require 100% accuracy? Why define rationality in such absolutist terms?
Larry:
Yeah, I know.
By "have at it," I meant, "knock yourself out," but - as you note, the dinosaur bones are there by themselves,- and here we are.
Meaning, whatever the creationsts/ "ID" -ers want to say about the theory of origins, it doesn't mean squat when we are quite frankly in economic and cultural decline to the point where old and poor people are going to get caught in a storm, - and that's Rita, not Katrina.
Meaning, whatever the creationsts/ "ID" -ers want to say about the theory of origins, it doesn't mean squat when we are quite frankly in economic and cultural decline to the point where old and poor people are going to get caught in a storm, - and that's Rita, not Katrina.
Now here's a non sequitor, or are you implying that there was some cultural/economic zenith where old and poor (not to mention everyone else) peopel weren't caught in storms.
ucfengr:
We used to have a government that wasn't awash in cronyism, like the current one.
We used to have an FDA that wasn't run by a veteranarian.
We used to have competence.
Actually, the creationist nonsense is related to the decline of American education and the decline of good government services in general.
Joe writes: You seem to be confused about the way natural selection works. It doesn’t select positively, only negatively. It’s like a Russian roulette for genetics – if a mutation doesn’t kill you then it can be passed on to the next generation. There is no “selector” in natural selection that goes in an chooses the best or most beneficial traits.
This is just language play. From the point of view of the individuals (and their genes) that do not reproduce, the selection is negative; however, for those that do reproduce (and their genes) it is positive. And of course there is a "selector" in natural selection; it is the complex set of things and conditions we call the environment.
Buddhism
Joe writes: First of all, why is a Buddhist defending materialism? You do understand that Buddhism and materialism are on opposite ends of the spectrum, don't you?
This is more misleading rhetoric. Materialism has a number of meanings, one of which has to do with desire for and clinging to material things: cars, nice clothes, a corner office, etc. That is the sense you find being used if you search on Buddhism and materialism. Answers.com defines this sense as "The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life."
The sense used in Joe's original post is probably bettered called physicalism, "the view that all that exists is ultimately physical" (Answers.com). Here you will find Buddhists have a wide variety of views while "...the Buddha himself seems to have left open the nature of the relation between the bodily and mental constituents of persons."
Larry Lord may be the Zen master here with his refrain of "Baby, I don't care." I doubt you'll find many Buddhist who find debates of the physicalist/dualist nature very compelling one way or the other. What you will find is an abundance of Buddhists, including the Dali Lama, who are strong supporters of science and methodological naturalism.
"The problem with this approach is that an a priori commitment to materialism undercuts the very foundation of science."
It's no bigger a committment and no more of a liability than to say one is committed to studying reality. It's true that scientists will tend to overlook a lot that isn't real, but so what when the goal is knowledge?
Boonton: Errr no I pointed out that chance does not exist on a 'fundamental level'. When you flip a coin the outcome is determined by the laws of motion. For you, a simple human, the outcome is unknown hence we use probability as a way to deal with this. Consider a multiple choice test. If you have 5 choices and you guess you have a 20% chance of getting it right. If you can eliminate three choices then you have a 50% chance of getting it right when you guess. The fact is, though, that the correct answer is not determined by 'pure chance'. The right answer is the correct answer to that question. If you know the subject then the chance of getting it right is 100%.
bevets: Do you suppose God would 'know the subject'?
Boonton: I would assume so.
bevets: Could anyone ever 'know the subject' better than God?
Patrick
Why can't our "noetic equipment" be partially reliable or slightly reliable, or mostly reliable etc.? Why either/or? Is either/or (or black and white) really an accurate description of the situation?
What is 'partially unreliable'? Is it 5% unreliable or 98% unreliable? Can it be reliably determined what parts are reliable and what parts are not?
Also it seems like you sell us materialists short. We entertain thoughts of probability waves, virtual particles, space time curvature, parallel brane universes. The committment is epistemological. Accept only that which is testable. Otherwise far more is up for grabs than in religion. I suspect that's more like what Lewontin was getting at.
Accept only that which is testable.
Except that that proposition is not testable.
Joe and co.
Your inquiry is in vain. If materialism is a possible reality, how does assuming it's not an actual reality make your reasoning faculty any more reliable?
Boonton touched on this, but it seems that one must be omniscient in order to be certain of something. Nothing is certain, and I could be wrong about that. The point is that it's well known that human thought at some point reduces to unfounded assumptions. Assuming this is not the case doesn't affect it's reality. If that's cause for you to get a lobotomy or something, then maybe thinking isn't for you anyway.
Finally, I'd venture that there weren't a lot of accurate thoughts before the acquisition of language and, later, writing. It has been through informal and, later, formal education—a passing down of ideas that seem to accurately describe reality and produce effects therein—that we have come to be as knowledgeable as we presently believe ourselves to be. In other words, it is culture that over time sifts through accurate and inaccurate ideas and in some cases (we might hope) amasses the accurate ones. (Again, though, nothing is certain and I could be wrong about that. I'd bet anything that that is the only semblance of absolute truth you'll ever come across.) When the acquisition of more than one accurate notion is deemed all the more absurd, culture's function of fashioning over time a body of ideas that probably began as utter nonsense into science is discounted—which isn't fair.
bevets
"What is 'partially unreliable'? Is it 5% unreliable or 98% unreliable? Can it be reliably determined what parts are reliable and what parts are not?"
This is the sort of argument that can only be responded to by asking "Are you serious?"
And this goes directly to my point about Joe's larger hang-up regarding "consistency."
Can you imagine bevets buying a house or a car from a non-theist? Or even a hamburger: "What do you mean special sauce? How can you determine what is special and what is not special? How can you reliably determine if the sauce is special or not? Supersize? What is super? How can you reliably determine what is super and what is not super?"
Other than the characters that Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld play on TV, nobody talks like this.
But here we find evangelical trying to score points against "materialists" by arguing, essentially, that if you believe in a universe without gods, then everything is baloney.
Let me tell you what I think is baloney: bragging about how your religious beliefs make you more "logically consistent" than people who don't share those beliefs.
The amusing part of this is the implication that at some point I'm going to become 'uncomfortable' and I will see ... oh my goodness ... Joe is right! My worldview is incoherent! ... I have no foundation for my ethics ... I'm just a selfish blob of chemicals looking for something to tingle my pleasure receptors ... oh, the meaningless of it all ... but wait! I can fix all this if I accept the existence of an invisible being who is superior to everything? Really?
Wow.
No thanks.
We used to have a government that wasn't awash in cronyism, like the current one.
When, since George Washington I mean?
We used to have an FDA that wasn't run by a veteranarian.
Not sure that is a bad thing. I used to work in medicine and I can tell you there are a lot of MD's who wanted to be vets but couldn't make the cut. There are a lot fewer veterinary schools than medical (only 4 if I recall), so they are a lot more selective.
We used to have competence.
In government? What alternate universe do you live in?
ucfengr:
Do your homework on the Federal government during the New Deal. And weep.
...here are a lot of MD's who wanted to be vets but couldn't make the cut.
Sorry but I'd rather have good people experts decide what's good medicine for people rather than horse doctors...
I think most Americans would too. Maybe not Barbara Bush, but ...must...resist...comparison...
In government?
Yep. Remember the TVA? Rural electrification? General Patton? Any of those ring a bell?
mumon--We are straying pretty far of topic but, the "New Deal" probably prolonged the Depression by several years (along with the policies of the Hoover administration). Even as late as 1938, unemployment was above 20%. Let's not even discuss the ticking timebomb of Social Security and its trillions in unfunded liabilities. Plus, FDR appointed plenty of his cronies to high government office. Regrading vets vs. MD's, your preference for an MD doesn't demonstrate anything regarding who is better to do the job. I would dispute that an MD is necessarily the best person for the job. A Vet, a PhD in biochemistry, or any number of science fields would have as good a background as an MD, and is really not evidence of competency in either case.
WRT the TVA and Patton, you aren't cheery picking too much are you. For every Patton, there were 2 McClellan's or Frendenhall's (US General who preceeded Patton in North Africa) and for every TVA, there are any number of hugely expensive government failures.
mumon--I'm kind of surprised that you'd pick a guy best known for slapping around "shell-shocked" privates and trying his best to start a war with Russians as an example of competence in government. What do you have against Privates and Russians;).
Interesting how a discussion on origins degenerates into politics. Never the twain shall meet.
Or, perhaps, to be more accurate, politics and morality.
ucfengr:
..."New Deal" probably prolonged the Depression by several years (along with the policies of the Hoover administration).
That is rather odd thinking that nobody outside of Rush Limbaugh's misinformed masses takes seriously. Even the folks at the think tanks that cook up such nonsense don't take such things seriouisly.
Let's take the TVA, for one example: how could the Depression have been prolonged by that?
Let's take the abolition of child labor as another example.
But this just shows how much conservative America's thinking has been distorted by ideology- where they think that the idea that child labor laws could prolong a Depression!
Even as late as 1938, unemployment was above 20%
Which was down substantially from the 50% or so it was before then.
Let's not even discuss the ticking timebomb of Social Security and its trillions in unfunded liabilities.
There are - and have been - ways to address this problem, but the problem is that too many Americans think the New Deal prolonged the Depression. Three words : tax unearned income. You're talking about a time of record corporate profits, and absurd increases in the value of equities (in well, the oil industry - the industry of the cronies of the guy for whom you voted). The money's there. You could be paying for your social security every time you fill up at the gas pump.
Plus, FDR appointed plenty of his cronies to high government office.
Actually, he didn't. I know you want to believe that, but there was scrupulous oversight to his programs.
Regrading vets vs. MD's, your preference for an MD doesn't demonstrate anything regarding who is better to do the job. I would dispute that an MD is necessarily the best person for the job. A Vet, a PhD in biochemistry, or any number of science fields would have as good a background as an MD, and is really not evidence of competency in either case.
So, I imagine, if you're sick, you don't mind going to a vet?
For every Patton, there were 2 McClellan's or Frendenhall's (US General who preceeded Patton in North Africa) and for every TVA, there are any number of hugely expensive government failures.
Yeah, for every Democrat president there's Bush...
Mark:
Interesting how a discussion on origins degenerates into politics. Never the twain shall meet.
Actually the 2 are closely related, and are related to the denigration of science and education and the psychological and political reasons related to that.
I don't deny the "connection" between politics and science, I am only pointing out that ones world view, political ideals and moral system influences ones' scientific view, and scientific arguments alone will not change anyones' mind. These kinds of discussions may have some value, but they tend to entrench people more strongly in their own previously held positions more often than not. The heat often generated is not about science, or politics in a pure sense, but about two competing views of morality.
Mark said :
These kinds of discussions may have some value, but they tend to entrench people more strongly in their own previously held positions more often than not. The heat often generated is not about science, or politics in a pure sense, but about two competing views of morality.
Most of the commenters here including myself are so entrenched that they would need at least a hot air baloon to get a look out of their trench. While I might think that Larry Lord, Boonton, and Mumon et al.. being purveyors of hot air, would have an advantage here; it's probably not the case.
Mark
"I don't deny the "connection" between politics and science, I am only pointing out that ones world view, political ideals and moral system influences ones' scientific view, and scientific arguments alone will not change anyones' mind."
You are probably correct that scientific arguments will not change the minds of many fundamentalists. The question you and others should ask yourself is: is that a good thing?
And before you ask me what "good" means: don't. Let me know how you define it when you answer the question.
The fact is that, in the past, my opinion on various scientific matters has been changed by scientific arguments. And I'm certain it will be changed again.
What to make of people who refuse to believe in global warming? What to make of people who refuse to believe that HIV causes AIDS? What to make of people who refuse to believe the earth is older than 10,000 years?
I'll tell you: such people are clueless about those issues.
That isn't an "ad hominem" attack on the "worldview" of those people. It's just a fact.
Stupid people exist. Stupid people who have big mouths and can't keep them shut exist.
That's life.
I'll tell you: such people are clueless about those issues.
Worse than that - or simply "being stupid" they will engage their minds with all kinds of pretzel logic to protect their "worldview."
Case in point: Evidently one respondent to my comments thinks veteranarians are better qualified to be running human health services departments like the FDA than medical doctors....I'd love to know whether or not they preferred going to a vet instead of a medical doctor for their own ailments...of course, if they get too sick, the vet has the "put 'em down" option that they wouldn't allow to be given to a brain dead woman...
It's like watching an accident on the freeway in the opposite lane...
That is rather odd thinking that nobody outside of Rush Limbaugh's misinformed masses takes seriously. Even the folks at the think tanks that cook up such nonsense don't take such things seriouisly.
These kind of personal attacks don't do anything to advance your arguments and make you sound petty and closed-minded. Besides there's nothing to prevent libs from putting up a alternate-Limbaugh, except maybe talent.
The New Deal was not just rural electrification and abolishing child labor. It was also taking the dollar off the gold standard (not good for creating confidence in the dollar), raising taxes, and significantly expanding the size of government. There are more than a few economists who oppose these types of policies. The New Deal also created a policy of farmers destroying and not growing food during a time when significant numbers of Americans were starving (did you ever read "The Grapes of Wrath"?).
Which was down substantially from the 50% or so it was before then.
Before you start telling me I need a history lesson, you should probably be sure your numbers are right. Unemployment reached its peak of 24.9% in 1934 and was 19% as late as 1938.
I said--Plus, FDR appointed plenty of his cronies to high government office.
mumon responded--Actually, he didn't. I know you want to believe that, but there was scrupulous oversight to his programs.
Let's get real here. FDR was a politician, not a saint. You don't get to be elected President once, let alone 4 times without knowing how to reward your supporters and punish your opponents.
So, I imagine, if you're sick, you don't mind going to a vet?
When I am sick, I don't generally try to make an appointment with the head of the FDA. Since the "F" part of FDA stands for food, and animals make up a large part of our food supply and take lots of drugs, I don't see why a vet is by definition a bad choice for FDA head. I imagine if a hypothetical President Gore or Kerry had appointed a Vet, you would be much more sanguine.
Yeah, for every Democrat president there's Bush...
Yeah I get it, you have a blind, irrational hatred of all things Bush. Welcome to Larry Lord's world, population 2 people and uncounted personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
Of course, I mean no offense Larry, I mean what I said about your world in the best possible way.
Boonton: Errr no I pointed out that chance does not exist on a 'fundamental level'. When you flip a coin the outcome is determined by the laws of motion. For you, a simple human, the outcome is unknown hence we use probability as a way to deal with this. Consider a multiple choice test. If you have 5 choices and you guess you have a 20% chance of getting it right. If you can eliminate three choices then you have a 50% chance of getting it right when you guess. The fact is, though, that the correct answer is not determined by 'pure chance'. The right answer is the correct answer to that question. If you know the subject then the chance of getting it right is 100%.
bevets: Do you suppose God would 'know the subject'?
Boonton: I would assume so.
bevets: Could anyone ever 'know the subject' better than God?
Patrick: Why can't our "noetic equipment" be partially reliable or slightly reliable, or mostly reliable etc.? Why either/or? Is either/or (or black and white) really an accurate description of the situation?
bevets: What is 'partially unreliable'? Is it 5% unreliable or 98% unreliable? Can it be reliably determined what parts are reliable and what parts are not?
Larry Lord
This is the sort of argument that can only be responded to by asking "Are you serious?"
And this goes directly to my point about Joe's larger hang-up regarding "consistency."
And this goes directly to my point about Joe's larger hang-up regarding "consistency."
Can you imagine bevets buying a house or a car from a non-theist? Or even a hamburger: "What do you mean special sauce? How can you determine what is special and what is not special? How can you reliably determine if the sauce is special or not? Supersize? What is super? How can you reliably determine what is super and what is not super?"
Rather than expend energy on a direct answer to my question, you have diverted and obfuscated.
When I buy a house, I spend several months shopping around. When I buy a car, I spend several weeks shopping around. When I buy a candy bar, I take the first one I see. I suspect you have similar habits.
'Does God exist?' and 'What does He expect from me' are questions that a prudent person will give far more consideration than a simple question like 'Which house should I buy?'
Other than the characters that Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld play on TV, nobody talks like this.
But here we find evangelical trying to score points against "materialists" by arguing, essentially, that if you believe in a universe without gods, then everything is baloney.
Let me tell you what I think is baloney: bragging about how your religious beliefs make you more "logically consistent" than people who don't share those beliefs.
The amusing part of this is the implication that at some point I'm going to become 'uncomfortable' and I will see ... oh my goodness ... Joe is right! My worldview is incoherent! ... I have no foundation for my ethics ... I'm just a selfish blob of chemicals looking for something to tingle my pleasure receptors ... oh, the meaningless of it all ...
If there is one thing you have made clear in your thousand posts on this Christian blog it is: "Baby I don't CARE."
I would like to add a different light to this discussion since it seems to be getting off track.
When we see words on a rock we automatically assume that they came from a MIND. Why? Because simple observation tells us that. As I sit here typing in this room, there is absolutely not one thing I can see that did not first form as an idea in the mind of a human being.
Computer, desk, printer, curtain, flower print on curtain, picture on wall, frame of picture on wall, etc. etc...
Every single material man-made thing I see was at one time an idea or a concept in the MIND of a human being.
Ideas and concepts are totally immaterial. You cannot test them scientifically. You may be able to measure brain waves when a person is thinking a thought, but the idea cannot be measured by any known instrument.
Materialism, by its very premise and assumptions, cannot explain the immaterial. (Gee, I guess because the immaterial is, well, not material.)
Why then is it such a great leap of faith for me to open the blinds and look out the window at that tree or my neighbor's dog and believe that they too were once an idea in the Mind of God?
The explanation: Secular materialists are as every bit religious as I am. And as a famous talk show host said this week: "You can't argue faith."
Materialists believe in their statement of faith and therefore dogmatically have to assume that the immaterial information contained on the rock of our discussion here could have come from something other than an immaterial idea formed in a MIND. This takes great faith to believe when every single evidence in front of their nose tells them otherwise. They have to, as was stated above..."believe in absurdities."
Just look at all the IDEAS that it took to put the information on the rock. Decide what medium to use - rock. Deci