After an overzealous editor attempted to rearrange one of Winston Churchill’s sentences to avoid ending it in a preposition, the Prime Minister scribbled a single sentence in reply: “This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.”
Churchill was quite confident in his writing style and knew that the "rule" against preposition-stranding was not an inviolable grammatical standard. The silly rule, according to the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, had been “created ex nihilo in 1672 by the essayist John Dryden.” Churchill understood the difference between conventional wisdom and established fact and his witty rebuke ensured that that chastened proofreader learned the lesson too.
I was once again reminded of this (possibly apocryphal) anecdote while reading associate justice Antonin Scalia’s review of Steven Smith’s Law’s Quandary. In presenting his analysis, Smith claims that there are three “ontological inventories”—three categories describing what we in twenty-first-century America “believe to be real”: everyday experience, science, and religion. Scalia notes that Smith excludes the last from consideration because of the “norm prescribing that religious beliefs are inadmissible in academic explanations.”
This, of course, is utter nonsense. The sort of nonsense up with which I will not put. And which should not put up with either.
All too often Christians – and theists in general – allow such silly remarks to pass unchallenged. We shrug and sigh assuming that those are the rules of the game. Instead we should giggle and snort and point out that no one is without religious beliefs. A belief is a religious belief, as philosopher Roy Clouser usefully defines the term, provided that:
(1) It is a belief in something(s) or other as divine, or
(2) It is a belief concerning how humans come to stand in relation to the divine.
Even those who might quibble with the novel definition cannot deny that this is a universal set of beliefs. Whether the subject is Yahweh, Zeus, the Great Pumpkin, or the physical cosmos, everyone has a belief about the “divine” and man’s relation to such an entity. It may be the devil or it may be the Lord, as Bob Dylan said, but you're gonna have to serve somebody.
Like Dryden and prepositional-endings, Smith and his ilk attempt to create, ex nihilo, the silly rule that the only legitimate relation to the divine is a functional atheism. “You can believe your fairy stores about Jehovah and Jesus,” they smirk, “but they are inadmissible in academic explanations.” The only proper response to such foolishness is to deride their palpable and wholly self-imposed ignorance. Would they attempt to apply this ridiculous standard in dismissing the explanations of Augustine, Aquinas, Sir William Blackstone, T. S. Eliot, Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, or Alvin Plantinga? If so, then they are unserious and can be rightfully dismissed as poseurs.
Instead, though, we act as if we are the ones who must defend our position. We evangelicals, having squandered our intellectual heritage, are especially prone to being cowed into submission. Our scholars leave their beliefs at the gates of the Ivory Tower, promising to return for them when they join the hallowed ranks of tenured untouchables. But having learned to serve a false god – the divinity of functional atheism—they find their minds are too flabby and unfit to “think Christianly” about their research programs.
Academics are not the only ones at fault. Many of us fool ourselves into believing that we can approach our vocations with a sense of religious neutrality. What we fail to understand is that we either bring the Logos to bear on our areas of expertise and fields of study or we reject him as irrelevant, a useless appendage that can be shaved off with Occam’s razor. We would do well to remember, though, Christ’s warning that if we deny him before men that he will also deny us before his Father in heaven…and that denying Christ can be done without ever moving our lips.
In refusing to acknowledge how our religious beliefs affect our work, though, we do more than merely shame our Creator. Common grace can only carry us so far and without the redemptive guidance of Christians, our culture-making efforts will eventually stagnate and atrophy, sinking us further into cognitive dissonance (as, for example, the tension between a purely material, deterministic universe and human free will). We are not only set free from our sins but set free to help carry out God’s redemptive role in creation.
When corrected by archaic grammarians who insist – even though we don’t speak Latin – that it’s improper to split infinitives, we must have the courage and good sense to call them on their nonsense. The same is true for those who attempt to hinder rational inquiry by excluding explanations rooted in theism. It is our duty to boldly challenge such illogical prejudice; nonsense up with which we should not put.
Luther said,
"Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved."
Joe
I see an all too telling point:
The challenge, though is deeper than that even: we are here dealing with the issue of worldviews and their core function as explanations of reality. What is being done by asserting academic power, is worldview imperialism on the bahalf of a system that is patently absurd and responsible over the past 100 years for over 100 millions dead: naturalistic, evolutionary materialist thought and agendas. [cf a parallel discussion: in the GR thread.]
The fallacy of the closed mind is a terrible intellectual prison.
At worldviews level, the proper approach is that at dialectical level, we exert comparative difficulties across live worldview options, relative to: (1) factual adequacy, (2) coherence, (3) explanatory elegance/ad hocness.
Of course, over the past several months, it has become plain that evolutionary materialist advocates consistently wish to distract attention from this reasonable approach. Why? Simple, their system is:
In short, it is high time that the dominant status of evolutionary materialism in the hearts and minds of many of the educated across western culture was seriously re-examined. Cf here on a brief overview of the core issues for that.] Jesus put the core issue very well:
Nuff said.
Grace open eyes
Gordon
Joe
Took an initial glance through Scalia's review. I tis quite rich with interesting points well worth taking up, which tie into the above.
My favourite so far:
Of course, the reason for that is not just that prudence -- aka Pascal's wager -- dictates that one reckons with the consequences of error; but also that there is of course a vanishingly small probability entailed. That is, the BEST EXPLANATION of such a mesage is that it is meaningful.
Indeed, Swinbourne I think it is adds to the point: if one sees "Welcome to Wales" in rocks lined up beside a railway, one normally infers to agency; but also if one infers to accident then one has to infer to meaninglessness even though the stones make a meaningful message.
But, the message IS there, is accurately functional and is evidently meaningful, so accident that gives contextually accurate and functional communication on that level of function and complexity is maximally improbable!
However, further, if the message is sufficiently serious that your life -- or your eternity -- may hang from it, what will you do; oh man?
So, then, let us consider cases such as: the evident finetuning of the known cosmos, the biofunctional complexity of life itself, the burden of proof on the presence of a moral, intelligent agent in a body diagnosed to be cognitively impaired; an unborn child.
Why then, do so many insist on begging the questrion that inference to an Intelligent Designer, or to menaingful encounter with God in life etc are a priori inadmissible in serious discussion?
Or, is it that the question-begging prejudices and closed mindedness of all too many secularist-influenced educated westerners are now being exposed . . . ?
Grace open eyes.
Gordon
Joe:
How could you have left off this goodie?
Need I say, reductio ad absurdum again? [have a look at Rom 2: 1 - 16!]
let us compare the 2nd para of the US DOI, remembering its context back through Blackstone, Locke, Rutherford, the Dutch DOI of 1581 and Duplesis Mornay's Vindiciae:
So, whose report do we believe? The founders -- who have proved prescient on that point: self-EVIDENT -- or Smith et al who acknowledge their absurdity and confusion butr refuse to admit the obvious solution, a priori!
Justice Scalia hits a home run, way out in the parking lot. [translating from hitting a big six in cricket . . .]
Grace open eyes
Gordon
When my students ask me if it is ever acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition, I ironically respond, "Not that I know of."
Very few get it. *sigh*
But, the message IS there, is accurately functional and is evidently meaningful, so accident that gives contextually accurate and functional communication on that level of function and complexity is maximally improbable!...Why then, do so many insist on begging the questrion that inference to an Intelligent Designer, or to menaingful encounter with God in life etc are a priori inadmissible in serious discussion?
The 'message in the sand' analogies fail for one simple reason, there are no messages yet discovered in 'biological complexity'. The fact that I see 'welcome to wales' spelled out with rocks on the ground as I arrive does give me good reason to think some intelligent agent wants me to feel welcome. The fact that I see rocks on the ground alone, though, tells me nothing about how they got there. If we discovered "Larry is a mullet head and you're a fool if you listen to anything he says about DNA" spelled out over and over again in our genetic code I'd be given pause to wonder if that was put there to tell us something. Yet the fact that DNA is coded to make more DNA tells us nothing. That isn't a message, if DNA wasn't coded to make copies of itself it wouldn't make copies of itself.
Joe,
It sounds like this is an interesting but somewhat difficult post. Before Gordon takes us down the road to yet another debate over intelligent design, perhaps you could clarify your statement:
Instead, though, we act as if we are the ones who must defend our position. We evangelicals, having squandered our intellectual heritage, are especially prone to being cowed into submission. Our scholars leave their beliefs at the gates of the Ivory Tower, promising to return for them when they join the hallowed ranks of tenured untouchables. But having learned to serve a false god – the divinity of functional atheism—they find their minds are too flabby and unfit to “think Christianly” about their research programs
What does this mean exactly? Can you provide us with a hypothetical example of a research program with Christianity 'thought into it' versus one with 'functional athiesm'? Extra credit, can you give a hypothetical program with Christianity thought into it, one with Islam and another with functional athiesm so we can compare and contrast?
Boonton,
What does this mean exactly? Can you provide us with a hypothetical example of a research program with Christianity 'thought into it' versus one with 'functional athiesm'? Extra credit, can you give a hypothetical program with Christianity thought into it, one with Islam and another with functional athiesm so we can compare and contrast?
The most obvious example I can think of is analytic philosophy. Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff , William Alston, and a handful of others have reintroduced Christian presuppositions into philosophy in their “reformed epistemology.” Their work stands along side of that of atheists (both functional and theoretical) and other theists (Jews, Muslims, etc.).
I think they've provided a valuable template for how to present Christian ideas in a pluralistic forum.
OK, you got me Joe. Can you summarize what analytic philosophic is and how the work of the three you mentioned differs from that of athiests and other theists? I'll go to wikipedia in a few moments anyway...
Joe,
Great post. I was struck by your comments pertaining to our beliefs in relation to our work. Working for a Jesuit institution that endeavors in top notch scientific exploration and medical care, I can tell you how great it is to have the spiritual deep in the bones of our practices. The spirit is a given here, and it is functional atheism and devout atheism that are checked at the door. I think this is much more representative of the world at large. Everyone that comes through our doors for education or care benefit from this philosophy. Do we kick out the atheists and deny them? No, but whether they realize it or not, they are getting education and care as a human that goes above and beyond, because the stakes of our mission are so high, rather than a mechanical indifference, and a sense of ultimate futility or simply saying, we don't know...
Point of reference Rob and Joe, the example of analytic philosophy and Alvin Plantinga are hardly in an academic field where religion has been ruled out a priori. From my brief wikipeding of Plantinga it seems that he has spent a lot of time addressing the question of how a good God could permit evil inthe world and why this is not evidence that God doesn't exist.
Of all the fields where religion could be considered 'outside the scope', philosophy is probably the least applicable. Did Joe mean his post to apply to fields outside of philsophy like science, mathematics, etc?
Boonton, I haven't worn a mullet hairdo in 20 years.
But having learned to serve a false god – the divinity of functional atheism—they find their minds are too flabby and unfit to “think Christianly” about their research programs
Of course, if we're talking about scientific research, then "thinking Christianly" about that research is an oxymoron ... unless Christianity is defined as the belief that the Bible was intended to be used as an incontrovertible scientifically accurate text around which all scientific studies must be forcibly warped.
I don't recall Jesus "Christ" getting into many scientific discussions with his apostles. He seemed to have little use for science or math. I guess I wouldn't be too curious about those subjects either if I could do whatever I wanted without regard for physical laws of any kind.
But unfortunately, as a human being on earth in 2005, I am bound by those laws. I'm not ashamed to admit it, either. Ironically, many Christians in this country lack this sort of humility. They seem to think that Jesus makes vaccines and antibiotics and puts them under someone's pillow at night. They forget that human beings devoted large parts of their waking lives to practicing the scientific method in order to bring clean water and safe food to other people's tables.
You don't really discuss Smith or Scalia very much, and I haven't read either, so I have nothing to say about them. But regarding your point about evidentiary bases for belief:
Smith claims that there are three “ontological inventories”—three categories describing what we in twenty-first-century America “believe to be real”: everyday experience, science, and religion. Scalia notes that Smith excludes the last from consideration because of the “norm prescribing that religious beliefs are inadmissible in academic explanations.”
This, of course, is utter nonsense. The sort of nonsense up with which I will not put. And which should not put up with either.
. . . [W]e should giggle and snort and point out that no one is without religious beliefs. A belief is a religious belief, as philosopher Roy Clouser usefully defines the term, provided that:
(1) It is a belief in something(s) or other as divine, or
(2) It is a belief concerning how humans come to stand in relation to the divine.
Notice that Clouser's definition of "religious belief" has nothing to do with what Smith obviously means by that term. Clouser's definition circumscribes beliefs about religion, while Smith was discussing religiously-inspired beliefs about the natural world, as a category of knowledge ("what we believe to be real"). Clouser-style beliefs obviously do not play the role Smith refers to, since they do not make reference to anything we believe to be real (other, perhaps, than "the divine") - they are obviously not the kind of beliefs that tell us what exists in the natural world, which is what Smith is addressing. And it has nothing to do with whether we all do or do not have "religious beliefs". Clouser "proves" we do simply by defining any opinion on a basic religious topic as a "religious belief", but this does not matter; Smith is not claiming that people should not have "religious beliefs" in his (Smith's) sense (religiously-grounded beliefs about ontological reality, such as the belief that there are angels, or the belief that God intervenes to violate natural laws), only that those beliefs are not a reliable category of knowledge.
You don't quote Smith's reasoning for his claim, but it's easy enough to guess at it. Both of his other two categories - science and everyday experience - are grounded on direct observation of natural events. Religious beliefs about the nature of reality are based on "things unseen". The difference between the two is simple: the former are objective, which merely means that observing them does not depend on who you are or what you already believe - any two observers with the same observational apparatus can make the same observations; the latter is subjective - whether you "observe" the thing unseen (an oxymoron in itself) depends entirely on whether you think you do, with no possibility of confirmation by others. So, other observers have no reason to accept materially ungrounded subjective religious beliefs as accurate, but they do have reason to accept confirmable observations of materially substantive phenomena - because they themselves have made, or at least can make, the same observations.
There's nothing magical or unfair about this, and it has nothing to do with "worldviews" or atheism. The reason you don't believe someone who claims to have spoken to the Virgin Mary is the same reason you don't believe someone who claims to have seen the Loch Ness Monster - but has no samples, did not take pictures, and is not corroborated by other observers looking at the same scene. The fact that both these claims are materially groundless doesn't prove them false, but it does mean there is literally no reason - no compelling evidence - justifying anyone other than the observer accepting them as true. And this is precisely why we do science. There's nothing special about science, and doing science does not require any particular worldview or religious belief (in Clouser's sense) - it merely requires an assumption that belief is compelled by evidence and not otherwise. Maybe there really are tiny angels moving electrons around inside molecules, and maybe only very strongly religious believers can see them - but that simply means there is no reason for anyone else to accept that belief as true. Science is nothing more than the attempt to accumulate knowledge that is not subjective - that is confirmable by multiple observers. The only way to do that is to restrict what is accepted as true to what can actually be confirmed. And this cuts out religious belief (in Smith's sense) entirely - not because it is necessarily false, but because there is no reason for anyone other than the individual believer to accept that it is true. And this is why religious claims are not accepted in scholarly work - not because they violate some sort of arbitrary and prejudiced "academic norm" (I don't believe Scalia is dumb enough to think that, though I do believe he is dishonest enough to write it), but because they are the sort of claims that cannot be confirmed, and thus cannot be accepted by those who do not already share them.
Kevin T.K.,
Just how many observers make for "compelling evidence"? Two? Twelve? One hundred? Or none, as long as you've got it on film? But then the film could have been tampered with, right? If hundreds of people confirm seeing a man who was dead living, how does that not meet your test?
Kevin,
Notice that Clouser's definition of "religious belief" has nothing to do with what Smith obviously means by that term. Clouser's definition circumscribes beliefs about religion, while Smith was discussing religiously-inspired beliefs about the natural world, as a category of knowledge ("what we believe to be real").
My excerpt of Clouser’s definition does not do justice to his main thesis (laid out in “The Myth of Religious Neutrality). His point is that religious-beliefs provide the “control” or foundation for almost all other theoretical beliefs that we hold.
Clouser-style beliefs obviously do not play the role Smith refers to, since they do not make reference to anything we believe to be real (other, perhaps, than "the divine") - they are obviously not the kind of beliefs that tell us what exists in the natural world, which is what Smith is addressing.
Your statement is a good example of what Clouser was talking about. You start with a religious belief (atheism) and then deduce what “exists in the natural world.” For example, I believe that while God exists outside of the natural realm, that he also interacts in a detectable manner within nature and therefore can be referred to in explanations. But you would disagree. Why should we assume that you are automatically right and I am automatically wrong?
…only that those beliefs are not a reliable category of knowledge.
Yes, and that is what I’m saying is nonsense.
You don't quote Smith's reasoning for his claim, but it's easy enough to guess at it. Both of his other two categories - science and everyday experience - are grounded on direct observation of natural events.
Um, not always. You are implying that the only legitimate categories require direct observation. But most of what we know – both in science and everyday experience – is not directly empirically verifiable. Most of it is based on inductive reasoning, testimony, conjecture, etc. Almost all of neo-Darwinism, for example, is based on inferences about events that are neither testable or empirically verifiable.
Religious beliefs about the nature of reality are based on "things unseen".
But so is the human mind. I’ve never seen your mind but I assume that is has a real existence and has an effect on reality.
The difference between the two is simple: the former are objective, which merely means that observing them does not depend on who you are or what you already believe - any two observers with the same observational apparatus can make the same observations; the latter is subjective - whether you "observe" the thing unseen (an oxymoron in itself) depends entirely on whether you think you do, with no possibility of confirmation by others.
This is far too limiting. Almost all religious experiences can meet that criteria of “objective” while some phenomena (especially in science) may not.
So, other observers have no reason to accept materially ungrounded subjective religious beliefs as accurate, but they do have reason to accept confirmable observations of materially substantive phenomena - because they themselves have made, or at least can make, the same observations.
Here is where Clouser comes back in. While we may both be able to observe the same event, our theories on them will be based on our religious beliefs. I could credit something to God while you claim, say, that is an “emergent property.” Neither of these can be empirically verified so our explanations are ultimately religious-based.
they are the sort of claims that cannot be confirmed, and thus cannot be accepted by those who do not already share them
Again I think you are being far too restrictive. Much of science depends on theoretical hypothesizing rather than direct observation. That is why there is a debate between neo-Darwinism and ID. Both see the same “data” but draw different conclusions based on their control beliefs.
You can believe your fairy stores about Jehovah and Jesus,” they smirk, “but they are inadmissible in academic explanations.” . . . Would they attempt to apply this ridiculous standard in dismissing the explanations of Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler?
Um, yes.
I've left out Blackstone, Eliot, and Plantinga (who, by the way, is regarded as competent but otherwise not particularly important by most philosophers) because they are not engaged in making empirical claims about the natural world.
Of those above who are, it is true that they were deeply influenced by their religious beliefs, and in the last two cases were also scientists of the first rank. However, it is notable that for each of them virtually every religiously-inspired empirical claim they made was grossly wrong, often laughably so.
Aquinas's idiotic maunderings about the differences in souls of male and female fetuses are the premier example of the bankruptcy of religious "science".
Newton's long submersion in alchemy - in an attempt to reconcile his empirical knowledge with his religous beliefs - is commonly regarded as a travesty and a waste of an invaluable intellect. None of that work remains today in the catalog of accepted scientific truths. (It was Newton, by the way, who postulated the thoroughly empirical Rules of Reasoning: Rule I: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Rule II: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. Rule III: The qualities of bodies . . . are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. Rule IV: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. What he himself admitted as knowledge - after a lifetime of scrabbling among bizarre religiously-inspired theories - was that observation was paramount, that no hypotheses were to be accepted unless necessary to explain observations, and that the universe is a consistent place where nothing is ad hoc or arbitrary.)
Kepler was deeply religious and constantly speculated about the religious meanings of natural phenomena. He investigated many natural phenomena from a scientific standpoint, then often claimed their geometric structure revealed some sort of hidden code from God. His derivation of the laws of planetary motion - based upon an immense series of incredibly painstaking empirical observations by Tycho Brahe - was a majestic piece of mathematics; his claim that it revealed the nature of the Trinity was nonsense. In short, his scientific work was brilliant, and closely tied to his religious beliefs, which were invariably childish and embarrassing.
None of the religiously-inspired empirical claims of these men is accepted as true today. Their scientific work is among the most fundamental groundworks of all empirical knowledge, and in every respect its acceptance as truth has absolutely nothing to do with their religious beliefs, which were usually a hindrance to their work. Anyone today who attempted to cite their religious beliefs as reasons for accepting their empirical discoveries would be regarded as an idiot. The scientific work Newton and Kepler did is accepted because it is empirically verifiable and for no other reason whatsoever. (The other two are simply best forgotten.) Their religion was an important part of their natures as persons, and obviously influenced their scientific work - but the latter was successful independently of, and usually in spite of, the religious beliefs that may have motivated it. And the same is true of any lesser scientist today.
Kevin,
None of the religiously-inspired empirical claims of these men is accepted as true today.
Would you also include their religiously-inspired claims about empiricism. Empirical science is predicated on the universe being rational, comprehensible, and generally consistent. It is no accident that science was birthed from a theistic worldview. Empiricism is itself a belief that is rooted in a religious belief (one that atheism has to borrow because it can’t replicate).
Joe
Almost all of neo-Darwinism, for example, is based on inferences about events that are neither testable or empirically verifiable.
Baloney. The same sorts of "inferences" are relied on you by you Joe nearly every second of every day. I can't empirically verify that you weren't created out of scratch ten seconds ago by the Sporgaculans and all our memories and all actions flowing from you prior to that moment weren't also fabricated.
But so what? So we should pretend that science is just a bunch of baloney like all the world's religions except for yours?
We've been down this past 1001 times.
The only thing that has changed lately is that a Federal Court trial in Dover Pennsylvania is showing (again) how easily it is to deceive scientifically illiterate Christians and how willing those self-identifying Christians are to lie -- even under oath -- to hide their plainly religious motivations for denying long established scientific facts about the evolution of life on planet earth.
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/11/judge_jones_getting_angry.php#trackbacks
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/buckinghams_second_lie_under_o.php#trackbacks
When Judge Jones hands down his ruling, guess what? His conclusions will accord with everything I've been saying for the last two years about the charlatans at the Discovery Institute and the rubes who wall prey to those charlatans' propaganda. His conclusions will not accord with Gordon Mullins' claptrap.
Is Judge Jones "blinded" by his "atheistic worldview"? Or by the "anti-Christian forces who have distorted the Founders' will"? Will these sorts of attacks be the talking points spun out by the apologists for teaching pseudoscientific garbage and/or anti-science propaganda in public schools?
Of course they will.
I've left out Blackstone, Eliot, and Plantinga (who, by the way, is regarded as competent but otherwise not particularly important by most philosophers)
Perhaps if Plantinga were like Peter Singer and held views that would make a Nazi cringe he could be considered "particularly important." ; )
Joe
Empirical science is predicated on the universe being rational, comprehensible, and generally consistent.
Some consistency is all that is "required" of the universe for empirical science to "work". The rational and comprehensible part is the job of the humans who study and describe the consistent features of the universe.
Rational and comprehensible humans who study and describe the universe are called "scientists."
Irrational or incomprehensible humans who study and describe the consistent features of the universe are called "charlatans" or "cranks" or "morons."
Humans who attempt to explain "why" the universe exists are called "preachers" (if they are good at it) or "philosophers" (if they suck at it).
All I have to say is that it's apparent that positivist bias is hard to overcome.
More people should read philosophy of science and critiques of empiricism, or else they're going to be saying the same things over and over again and not understanding that analytic philosophy has already rejected and gone past empiricism.
The positivists on this blog are living in the intellectual 80's and 90's...
Joe, I agree with you that there is a place for religion in the academy. That place is in cultural studies, because religion is a social artifact.
However, there is absolutely no place for any kind of religious explanation in the fields of the hard sciences. A computer program will return a predictable result whether the coder is a Buddhist or a Christian or possessed of a secular outlook. Same for biology, astronomy, etc.
Perhaps what you're really trying to say is that "Christian values" ought not to be checked at the door of the university. Well, you can make that case. Some areas of scientific inquiry affect the ethical sphere - stem cell research and cloning come to mind - but the actual techniques and procedures fundamental to such studies, like the software example mentioned above, operate independently of the researcher's private beliefs.
Almost all religious experiences can meet that criteria of “objective” while some phenomena (especially in science) may not.
Do you have any examples at hand that would support this assertion? In that I can't come up with a single instance, I can only surmise that this is something you very much want to assert as being true, and so you're simply making the bald claim even though the facts suggest that you're mistaken.
Remember that claim for cold fusion a while back? Other researchers "with the same observational apparatus" attempted to "make the same observations" and failed. As a result, cold fusion was judged (in this instance) to be false. Are you saying that a religious experience could measure up to a similar level of scrutiny? How so?
It is no accident that science was birthed from a theistic worldview. Empiricism is itself a belief that is rooted in a religious belief.
Point of order - prior to the advent of the scientific method and the tremendous progress our species has made in understanding the nature of the physical universe, a theistic worldview is all that our ancestors had available. Theism evolved into secularism in the same way bloodletting with leeches evolved into modern medicine. Nota bene this does not mean that today's medical practices are "rooted" or "based" on the archaic practice of bleeding the ill.
Just how many observers make for "compelling evidence"? Two? Twelve? One hundred? Or none, as long as you've got it on film? But then the film could have been tampered with, right? If hundreds of people confirm seeing a man who was dead living, how does that not meet your test?
I'll let Keith speak for himself but I suspect the answer is that 'compelling' is not a binary condition. There is little compelling evidence that the Loch Ness Monster exists when compared to the giant squid. Or there is more compelling evidence for the Theory of Relativity than there is String Theory but the book is not considered closed on either one.
Perhaps if Plantinga were like Peter Singer and held views that would make a Nazi cringe he could be considered "particularly important." ; )
Is Peter Singer considered particularly important by philosophy or does he just garner a lot of attention? Sort of like the physicist who studies UFO's will get a lot more popular press than the one that studies the properties of pebbles.
Joe I'm still unclear where you are going with this. Are you asserting that Christian views should be more important in academic philosophy departments or is your argument broader and applicable to other fields such as math, science, economics etc? If so please give me an example of how a 'Christian based' research program would work in these disciplines.
Just how many observers make for "compelling evidence"? Two? Twelve? One hundred? Or none, as long as you've got it on film? But then the film could have been tampered with, right? If hundreds of people confirm seeing a man who was dead living, how does that not meet your test?
I'll let Keith speak for himself but I suspect the answer is that 'compelling' is not a binary condition. There is little compelling evidence that the Loch Ness Monster exists when compared to the giant squid. Or there is more compelling evidence for the Theory of Relativity than there is String Theory but the book is not considered closed on either one.
Perhaps if Plantinga were like Peter Singer and held views that would make a Nazi cringe he could be considered "particularly important." ; )
Is Peter Singer considered particularly important by philosophy or does he just garner a lot of attention? Sort of like the physicist who studies UFO's will get a lot more popular press than the one that studies the properties of pebbles.
Joe I'm still unclear where you are going with this. Are you asserting that Christian views should be more important in academic philosophy departments or is your argument broader and applicable to other fields such as math, science, economics etc? If so please give me an example of how a 'Christian based' research program would work in these disciplines
analytic philosophy has already rejected and gone past empiricism.
Wow, really? No wonder my CD player isn't working.
"the fact that DNA is coded to make more DNA tells us nothing" True, Boonton, too true. That is the physical world. It does not interact in the telling, but as soon as you said this:"does give me good reason to think" it becomes apparent that here is something that the purely materialistic has no real explanation for. And religion does address.
In the same way, Larry, to what do you give "Rational and comprehensible humans" vs."Irrational or incomprehensible humans" except you have some comprehension of the abstract and of moral and value laden thought processes that are not quantitatively evaluated apart from very 'religious' based way of thinking?
Materialists always have trouble explaining the Metaphysical...without collapsing it down to meaninglessness... and in that case- what happens to your evaluations of rational vs. irrational? What difference would it make in a purely physical (scientific) system?
oh. yeah. and great post, Mr. Carter
Raven
Theism evolved into secularism in the same way bloodletting with leeches evolved into modern medicine.
Then how come we still have theists?
a theistic worldview is all that our ancestors had available.
Baloney. All animals with brains learn about the world through trial, error, and memory or some level of reasoning, however rudimentary.
No deities necessary now or ever.
Dear Lary Lord,
I hope that is your real name given your religious blind spot.
In any event, I really enjoy your circular logic and your attempt to reduce the argument to "moronic Christians". However, you issue go much deeper. Your religious bigotry is really what is at issue here.
By the way, your attempt to ignore "how the universe was made" shows the falacy in your argument. As soon as you can tell me how "matter" was made out of "nothing" without a divine being, then your argument will hold water. But until you have created something out of nothing in the laboratory, your beliefs are ungrounded, so to speak.
Finally, your elitist attitude is probably your greatest crutch. Since you cannot address issues such as non-reducable complexity, you simply ignore it and begin your personal attacks. Not very "scientific", if you know what I mean.
Cheers,
Saintknowitall
Since you cannot address issues such as non-reducable complexity, you simply ignore it.
Oy. "Non-reducable" complexity ... you mean irreducible complexity a la Michael "Let's Teach Schoolkids that God is Dead" Behe?
I'll be happy to address that "issue" after Dr. Behe demonstrates its relevance to biological science. Thus far, Dr. Behe has failed miserably on that score ... or laughably, depending on your perspective.
I have no idea how sharing a view with the world's thousands of experts on the subject of evolutionary biology makes me an "elitist." From where I'm standing, that's common sense.
If you're standing outside your burning apartment building and 1000 fireman are telling you it's in danger of collapsing, do you rush in to grab your baseball card collection because your preacher says God wants you to go inside?
Professer Behe's stated position that he thinks it's a waste of his time to prove his own "theories" sounds rather "elitist" to me.
Or the Discovery Institute's position that Dr. Behe's theories should be taught in public school science classes regardless of the fact that scientists think Behe is a garbage-spewing charlatan -- that sounds "elitist" to me, too.
and begin your personal attacks
Huh?
By the way, your attempt to ignore "how the universe was made" shows the falacy in your argument.
I really could care less "how the universe was made." But if I felt compelled to understand how it was made, I guarantee you that I wouldn't go around telling people that "God must have done it because if he didn't then we have no basis for morality so we should all just kill ourselves."
Nope. I'd use science. You see, the evidence that science is useful for understanding the universe is all around us.
Now, if I wanted to understand why the universe was made, I'd read the Popol Vuh.
Gordon writes,
Gordon, my friend, why do you find it necessary to paint the naturalist view in such unfair and perjorative terms? I have looked at you in the past as someone with whom I disagreed on a number of issues yet willing to engage in the discussion with some grace and a sense of fairness.
I hope this is a result of your just having a bad day or the need to express a little rant. That happens to us all and you've had a tough huricaine season down there in the Carribean.
I wish you fair weather.
All:
A considerable back-forth over the past day or so. Some points are worth a remark.
but first a stipulative note: Given his recent track record, I will not respond to Boonton's now sadly all too evident uncivil tone [also cf here], save to comment that highly complex and functionally specified information cries out for explanation and the ususal question-begging naturalistic fairly tales to dismiss that point simply do not hold water.
Andy has raised an interesting issue: is it unfair to highlight nautralistic philosophy and its handmaiden, methodological natutralism AKA functional atheism, as being:
I think the tone may be provocative [given recent exchanges that leave me, sadly, shaking my head], but unfortunately the substantial point is there -- indeed, the Scalia review brings out all three in the context of the evident reductio ad absurdum faced by thought on law. I cannot resist one more excerpt:
[Read the review in toto then come back on it.]
Recall, in short, the core issue: is there a question-begging game going on that has inappropriately -- and in the end absurdly -- excluded from consideration from the outset, a live option that IS coherent and answers to the experience that we have -- namely that we find ourselves not just bound by the is factor, but by the ought factor too?
The is-ought gap faced by naturalistic worldviews is notorious, and Scalia's review tellingly exploits it.
Okay, that's enough for now.
Grace open eyes
Gordon
Andy:
Montserrat was spared this record-setting season. unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Cuba, ycatan, Central America and of couse broad swathes of the US Gulf coasts.
Our local biophysical environmental concern is that our friendly volcano is putting up a new dome and the local authorities and PR people -- I won't call them journalists -- are spinning away madly when they cannot simply ignore and suppress. [Those who, like yours truly, have asked pointed questions and highlighted the need for a more balanced view of the imponderables and unknowns at work, thus the need for prudence, have been targeted as you can imagine.] Sad.
I guess though that California's earthquakes and volcanos are potentially just as bad.
My comment on the media circus on some of the events, is that we need to realise that the manage,ment issue is a computer archi problem: centralised processing just cannot beat distributed, in a situation that is as localised and fast moving and uncertain as what has happened. That after all is Von Mises' key observation and successful prediction on the fate of centrally planned economies!
Okay trust you and yours fare well: what are you doing about 'quakes and 'canos, 'canes and twisters etc out there?
Gordon
All:
Pardon one last intervention, on further reading.
To see an all too revealing sample of what closed-minded functional atheism boils down to in scientific circles, kindly see the current discussion in Telic Thoughts: http://telicthoughts.com/?p=341
(Don't omit to look at the comment chain!)
FYI
GEM
Larry Lord,
Are you still asking questions?
How about this, no one answer any of Larry Lord's questions until he answers our one question.
That question is, "Where did you obtain your PhD from, Larry?"
Soon as you answer that question then you may continue to ask questions and expect to receive answers.
I’ve actually been wrestling with this one for a while now. I recently finished another re-reading of Mark Noll’s Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, and I do get very excited about encouraging Christian thought. I can’t get enough of reading the likes of Lewis, Bonhoeffer, Augustine, and the like who are able to better explain Christian thought in a way that makes sense. But I don’t see how there can be a particularly Christian view to hard subjects like math and science. Those subjects hit on observable facts, with experiments that can be repeated by anyone with the same result no matter their personal beliefs. I can understand how a Christian view impacts what we do with the scientific knowledge we learn, but not how there is any distinctively Christian form of science.
Hi Gordon and everybody,
I just left a comment over at Telic Thoughts in the comment thread that Gordon mentioned. Here's a link to the comment thread:
Circus of the Spineless
Here's a link to my comment:
Matthew responds to criticism of a science blogger by an Intelligent Design blogger
Enjoy!
Eric & Lisa, at worst, your question is an attempt at ad hominem, at best it is better served by enlisting the argumentum ad verecundiam.
Darrel:
"I don’t see how there can be a particularly Christian view to hard subjects like math and science"
At the same time it can't be extrapolated out to be a sign of support for an atheist view, which I think is the context that tends to be used with this.
Part of the problem with this debate is that we take parts of the puzzle and say this is the whole. Science is simply a tool of man, not an entity, as such it has a certain neutrality. It doesn't prove God or disprove God. An atheist such as Larry will simply reduce everything down to what he can see or handle, and seek to ignore that this is not sufficient for the needs of his humanity. He will constantly be in tension because of this.
This explains to me the need to crusade for the atheist cause on Christian grounds, such as EO. It is something to be welcomed, but at the same time you have to wonder at the dynamic.
The larger question is whether the neutrality of pure science or math ( unadulterated by use in a metaphysical type of agenda) is compromised when dropped into the larger metaphysical picture.
If I am understanding Joes point concerning Scalia's remark on Smith is that this simply isn't so. Must we edit out religion in order to have "real science"? I agree with Joe, as I understand him, in saying "no". but I understand also the grave requirement that we not hijack things to make dishonest points.
If science does not prove God then we should not try to bend it for sake of our personal worldview satisfaction.
This is a hard temptation to resist. And if anything, the secular bent to atheism is one illustration.
Blame it on Nietzsche.
It's interesting. Leo Strauss and his East Coast followers, most notably Allan Bloom, would agree with you that your religious claims to Truth should be absolutely taken seriously in the public square.
However, privately they were militant atheistic philosophers. They truly did believe that, after Nietzsche, no true philosopher could believe in God.
And Nietzche in turn blamed the death of God on many of those theists whom you cited -- like Netwon and Locke.
Even though these men believed in God (or claimed to believe in God) they elevated Reason, Science and Empiricism -- what man can know as man -- over Revelation and Clerical Authority as the ultimater arbiter of Truth.
Eventually Reason discovered that God didn't exist. Hence Enlightenment killed God (according to Nietzsche).
Gordon,
Naturalist responds: We have the humility – and good sense – to say "we don't know" rather than assign cause to the supernatural. Our approach leaves room for further investigation rather than putting an end to it. So far methodological naturalism has produced all of what we call science – not a small accomplishment.
Naturalist responds: Rather than assuming that mind is a supernatural phenomena, we see it as a wonderfully complex and intriguing function of a material brain and human nervous system. As for morals, we prefer to use our human reason and compassion than argue over which holy book and whose interpretation of it is correct.
Naturalist responds: Yet methodological naturalism managed to displace Aristotle's view of physics with Newton's, then Newton's with Einstein's – hardly the result of "question-begging ad hoc assertions and prejudiced rules of reasoning."
Andy
From Joe's post:
I'm glad I live in a country where the government can not impose a state religion and everyone is free to practice whatever religion they please.
I'm also glad that "God, told me to do it" is not permitted in a court of law — except, prehaps, as an insanity defense.
Gordon,
Montserrat was spared this record-setting season.
I'm glad to hear that. Dealing with a volcano is more than enough for anyone!
Okay trust you and yours fare well: what are you doing about 'quakes and 'canos, 'canes and twisters etc out there?
On the coast of northern California earthquakes are the only natural disaster we experience; go a bit inland where it is drier and forest fires are a real problem as well. This past summer however we had a new twist: There was a 7.0 quake 90 miles due west (out to sea). Never felt a thing at my house, but the next morning we found out one-third of our small town (those people living in the low-lying area) had been evacuated for fear of a tsunami. Ignorance is bliss sometimes — or at least provides a good night's sleep.
So I'm still waiting to hear from Joe or anyone else, does this call for 'Christian research' have application anywhere besides philsophy departments? If so what would it look like?
We have the humility – and good sense – to say "we don't know" rather than assign cause to the supernatural.
But isn't ruling out the supernatural when you confess that you don't know rather arrogant?
The supernatural would have been ruled out if Larry had claimed to have proven it doesn't exist. He doesn't claim that.
But isn't ruling out the supernatural when you confess that you don't know rather arrogant?
How is saying "I don't know" ruling anything out?
Even if the "supernatural" is ruled out, it's hardly arrogant to do so. It's eminently practical, considering all the supernatural explanations for various phenomena that turned out to be bogus upon further investigation, and considering that supernatural explanations are, by definition, untestable and useless dead ends.
Boon -- that was AndyS speaking as The Naturalist, not me.
Which brings us back to Rob's question regarding compelling evidence:
Just how many observers make for "compelling evidence"? Two? Twelve? One hundred? Or none, as long as you've got it on film? But then the film could have been tampered with, right? If hundreds of people confirm seeing a man who was dead living, how does that not meet your test?
There is no test in naturalism nor, IMO, are explanations that involve a diety ruled out. 'Compelling evidence' is ranked on a scale of relative degrees of compellingness. In other words, there is evidence here that Larry has a Phd in biology (his statements to that effect). If Rob states he too has a Phd in biology but also posts a link to his doctrial thesis that would be more compelling (relative to Larry's statement). If Joe states the same but also provides a scanned image of his degree that would be more compelling. If Eric & Lisa do all of the above but also provide a video interview with their doctrial advisor who states he granted him/her a Phd that would be more compelling yet.
In this sense no question is really considered closed since new evidence could cause any statement to leapfrog its way over others in terms of relative compellingness.
This is somewhat unlike religious doctrine where there are matters that are considered settled. In Christian thought, for example, no one debates that Jesus was the Son of God. It isn't even considered possible that a new scroll or new evidence or new translation might come up that could shed doubt on that. Yet even as something as compelling as gravity could end up being overturned entirely (I think, BTW, the latest Sci Am has a story pondering whether gravity is some sort of illusion generated by a multi-dimensional universe).
considering that supernatural explanations are, by definition, untestable and useless dead ends.
You mean like macro-evolution;P.
I was amused by this, from William Saletan's column in "Slate" last week:
...from last week's cross-examination of Behe by Eric Rothschild, the lawyer opposing the school board in the Pennsylvania case:
Q: Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
A: Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many ways. … When I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved. …
Q: What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?
A: And I wonder, could—am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
Q: I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you. You've made this claim here (reading): "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know, what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
A: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.
Ilona,
Interesting that you should respond like that.
My education is High School level only. If you were to ask me where I received my High School Diploma I would reply Norco High School. That wasn't difficult.
If I were to claim to have a PhD and someone asked me where I obtained my PhD, I would respond with the University where I obtained it.
Your announcement that, at worst, it is an ad hominem attack confuses me. How could such a question be an ad hominem attack?
Unless of course you think Larry is a liar. In which case, the question isn't an ad hominem attack so much as Larry is a liar. :)
This is somewhat unlike religious doctrine where there are matters that are considered settled. In Christian thought, for example, no one debates that Jesus was the Son of God.
And that's precisely why religion cannot speak to the sciences. Nothing in the academy is considered "settled" in the fashion described above. Not natural selection, not the origin of the universe, nothing gets a rubber stamp of finality.
From a secular viewpoint, it seems fairly likely that there was a Nazarene named Jesus who was some kind of preacher and who drew a small and loyal following. The assertation that this individual was - or became - a deity is unsupported and non-credible. This should not be a problem for Christians.
You could view this person as an influential teacher along the lines of a Buddha, or a Ghandi, or a Martin Luther King and dispense with the dogma entirely.
E/L -- even if I didn't represent the pinacle of virtue of honesty, I still don't understand why you should care. I'm just some dude commenting in a blog somewhere. I'm not hawking some story and taking money from people in exchange for false promises.
Perhaps you should focus your attention on learning more about those people who appear -- at first glance -- to represent your interests.
People like Jay Sekulow.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1130499506270
An interesting character, huh? Do you suppose he would be interested in taking "intelligent design" or "textbook disclaimers" to the Supremes?
I suppose he would. The Discovery Institute just needs to save its pennies. Jay ain't cheap.
ucfengr: But isn't ruling out the supernatural when you confess that you don't know rather arrogant?
Larry already gave an excellent answer to that, so I'll take a different tact.
What's wrong with saying "I don't know" when, in fact, you don't know?
One dictionary gives this list of definitions for the adjective supernatural:
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. 3. Of or relating to a deity. 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. 5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
Which of those have anything to do with science? I can see supernatural causes being discussed in the realms of the occult, religion, and paranormal phenomena, but just how and why would you include them in a scientific (or legal or medical or engineering) explanation of anything?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/02/sex.survey.ap/index.html
In summary, we hold that there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs" and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other fundamental right. In doing so, we do not quarrel with the parents' right to inform and advise their children about the subject of sex as they see fit. We conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select.
That last sentence is interesting.
All:
Overnight, I see that there was a lot of inadvertent support to Joe's point, with a modification as in sq brackets:
The reason for that is fairly simple as I have often outlined. Given the evident failure to see the vicious circularity in excluding a live ption at this level, it is worth a refresher:
It is worth taking up Andy on his observatiuons relative to naturalism:
I: Factual adequacy:
Naturalist responds: We have the humility – and good sense – to say "we don't know" rather than assign cause to the supernatural. Our approach leaves room for further investigation rather than putting an end to it. So far methodological naturalism has produced all of what we call science – not a small accomplishment.
--> First, the factual inadequacy lies in inability to get to cosmos, life, mind and morals FROM WITHIN THE SYSTEM.
--> Second, the issue Joe highlights is exactly a case of closing the door a priori on an otherwise quite live option -- and Scalia shows just how the attempt disintegrates, as excerpted. Such a priori decisions that block off live options based on metaphysical prejudices, frankly, are not exactly illustrations of humility. [Nor is the attitude with which they are ever so often expressed. Andy of course is a wonderful exception tot he attitude of say Dawkins on evo mat and NDT; namely that those who reject it are ignorant or stupid or insane or wicked.]
--> Third, I am astonished at your grossly inaccurate claim on the scientific status of methodological naturalism [MN]. This is a PHILOSOPHICAL assertion about science and its alleged limits [i.e. the demarcation problem lies down that road], and in fact, the founding of modern science was presicely NOT in that frame but rather in a decisedly theistic, judaeochristian frame. And ever since, a great many scientists have precisely NOT worked in a methodologically naturalistic frame.
--> In short, to say: "So far methodological naturalism has produced all of what we call science" is simply and blatantly false to the fact. yet another instance of: factuyal inadequacy.
II: Coherence:
Naturalist responds: Rather than assuming that mind is a supernatural phenomena, we see it as a wonderfully complex and intriguing function of a material brain and human nervous system. As for morals, we prefer to use our human reason and compassion than argue over which holy book and whose interpretation of it is correct.
--> I pointed out that naturalistic systems of thought repeatedly and consistently end up in logical, dynamical and existential incoherence, as the Scalia review again documents. That is, there is a pattern of question-begging and self referential inconsistencies, there is a persistent gap on mechanisms to drive the process [just so stories will not work], and one ends up in borrowing quietly from the fruit of other woreldviews in order to live in the real world. On that, Hume's famous remarks on his skepticism fading away after he has spent a few hours with his friends at meals, games and merriment is telling!
--> You wish to focus on the issue of mind and body. Now, in simple terms:
III: Simplicity vs Ad hocness
Naturalist responds: Yet methodological naturalism managed to displace Aristotle's view of physics with Newton's, then Newton's with Einstein's – hardly the result of "question-begging ad hoc assertions and prejudiced rules of reasoning."
--> The Newtonian sysnthesis was NOT a case of methodological naturalism, as a perusal of Principia [v hard to read] or competent histories of science will abundantly substantiate -- newton made repeated and significant reference to God in the analysis and framework he adopted. If you were speaking of Lapace's Celestial Mechanique, ~ 100 years later, where on being asked by napoleon on why God appeared nowhere within, that Mthematrician said: "I have no need of that hypothesis" you would be on firmer grounds -- but the implicit epistemological and analytical framework in question assumes the legitimacy of observations and allegedly logical reasoning, which in an evolutionary materialist framework, we cannot reliably get to.
--> The confidence in the accuracy and reliability of observations and analysiss traces to the historical context of the theistic frame: our cognitive processes are in general properly functioning in the context for which they were designed, so as Plantinga argues echoing Thomas Reid, we have good reason to TRUST -- have FAITH in -- them, as a default.
--> By sharpest contrast, radical skepticism either self-destructs in an infinite regress of doubts [cf chain of reasoning above!], or else it must be question-beggingly and selectively applied against those positions we wish to reject but not those with which we are sympathetic. THAT is what I mean by question-begging assertions and unfairness in reasoning -- as I have pointed out over the past seven months more than once.
--> By contrast, balanced comparative difficulties across live options is NOT unfair, question-begging or infinitely regressive. It simply requires humility to admit that we are here in the province of expanations not demonstrations, and thus we balance faith and doubt existentially.
++++++++
Beyond this, I will simply note on the issue of inference to design as an empirical explanatory factor, that the issue of law and meaning and the root of the underlying oughtness actually cry out for that inference, as Scalia pointed out in my last excerpt:
Grace, open eyes
Gordon
PS:
As a bit of a footnote, I think we should observe that the issues in this thread, properly are PHILOSPHICAL issues linked to science, not science proper. That is, the issue is whether the MN demarcation attempt is a proper move on philosophical grounds.
That can be relatively easily answered, and has been, long since:
So, to a priori rule out the possibility of inference on a best explanation basis to such is to beg the philosophical question, and to impose an illegitimate demarcation of science/non science on grounds irrelevant to an honest open minded examination of the empirically testable truth of the world.
Further to this, I again see tired, ill-informed dismissive rhetoric on Design Theory. I first note that the issues raised in this thread and other recent threads show just how relevant are issues of empirically detecting the presence and activity of an agent [e.g. in a body that may either be that of a victim of so-called PVS or someone suffereing from paralysis leading to locked-in consciousness], and the discerning of its intent [e.g. when we see a cluster of activcities by a political or legal agent, can we empirically credibly detect the intent, relative to whatever standard of proof is applicable?].
Those, plainly, are design theory problems.
Those who are interested in moving beyond rhetorical posturings may wish to consult the following recent contributions to the debate, in the context of the Dover Trial:
1] Dembski's rebuttal remarks. [This also shows a summary of what DT is doing as a valid paradigm for research.]
2] Dembskis positive case
3] DI's Amicus brief.
Grace open eyes
Gordon
Newbie alert. I’ve lurked at this site for several months, enjoying the intellectual quality of the debates. This thread is the type that pushes the most buttons. Politeness is sometimes wanting but I suppose that is inevitable when disagreeing about important issues. I know I am not saying anything new here but I am yielding to the urge to add my say.
Science attempts to provide natural explanations for natural processes. Supernatural explanations are excluded simply because they cannot be tested. Supporters of intelligent design argue that if all natural theories are shown to be deficient, then a supernatural theory is the only possibility. The problem is the impossibility of proving a negative - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. Even if, for instance, there were no apparent evolutionary process that could result in our blood-clotting mechanism, that wouldn’t prove that no evolutionary process was possible. Though I gather that blood clotting is not as formidable an example as Behe thought it was.
I can appreciate why theists of an inquiring nature are tempted to see aspects of the universe currently unexplainable by natural processes as evidence of the hand of God. But two things undermine the “God of the gaps”. The gaps keep shrinking and we can never know if a particular gap is, um, unshrinkable.
Behe himself made it clear that ID is deficient as a scientific theory. In testifying at the Dover trial he had to admit that the only way he could accord intelligent design such status was to redefine what qualifies as a scientific theory, and that under his definition astrology also qualifies! Meanwhile, Dembski and several others scheduled as witnesses for defence decided not face cross-examination.
Morality is another topic here that theists here love to goad materialists with. Either there is an external (supernatural) measure of what is moral, or might makes right. This is provocative because of the implicit endorsement of ruthlessness, which, of course, all us non-psychopaths innately feel is wrong. But I think the implication is misleading. In the evolutionary sense, “might” is whatever promotes reproductive success. And in many species, including ours, reciprocal altruism is far mightier than unrestrained ruthlessness. The phrase is an oxymoron, of course, but it is descriptive of behaviour whereby assistance (or at least non-ruthlessness) is offered to another without the expectation of any immediate reward. In many species, a biological inclination for such behaviour among kin will be selected for and in at least our species, subsequent cultural evolution expands the behaviour to include unrelated fellow beings.
Scientific explanations that rate being called theories may be far off for questions like how the universe began, how life began, and how self-consciousness arose. And maybe it is because they are unexplainable as natural processes. Maybe God/ID does exist. But, Pascal’s wager notwithstanding, in the absence of any positive evidence of the supernatural, I’m inclined to think not. To accept that natural explanations cannot be found would be to ensure they