In the news this week ...

I think it was on last week's thread that William mentioned the play Black Watch. Did anyone go to see it? It was certainly the highlight of the festival for me - inventive, gripping, and, above all challenging. My own liberal prejudices were assaulted by the opening words and there was food for thought throughout. The play obviously made judgments: it used history for that, just about the only thing history is good for. The judgments were subtle, however, subservient to understanding of the dramatis personae, and all the more damning for that.

Judging by the list at the side William does not follow Nelson McCausland's blog - I noted with interest his trenchant criticism of the "bad language" of the play. I took my mother, now pushing 90, with me when I went to see it. She said she thoroughly enjoyed it and had a wonderful evening. I asked her about the language and she said "I suppose that's how they speak, it was just being true to life". In her eyes the minister would still be a wee boy - I think he needs to grow up!

Talking of cultural highlights, I have to ask if the picture of our dear blogger is entirely up to date? I could be wrong because the likeness was not precise but I thought I saw someone très semblable having fun at Lady Gaga. I think we should be told...

https://charlenesproject.org/

The sad news of Charlene Barr's passing. A young Christian who was on the transplant list for a double lung transplant - yet used her life to fundraise £120,000 for a school in Uganda. She died on 30th Oct, surrounded by her family in her won home.

If this is not 'True Religion' I do not know what is...

Apologies William, I'm afraid I rarely listen to Talk Back - I prefer to lunch late in order to indulge my passion for Hugo.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/11/should_the_bbc_have_reported_o.html

I think the BBC was right to report on Paganism at Halloween. I did not watch or listen to any of its coverage, but Samhain pre-dates Christianity and this is something that I would like to know more about.

It strikes me as ironical that Christians have complained about a few hours coverage given to Paganism on the BBC. Christians appropriated a Pagan festival over 1000 years ago and have been profiting from it ever since. How must Pagans feel!

Christians freedoms eroded

Senior bishops have warned that the freedom of Christians to express their beliefs is being eroded following the introduction of equality laws.

Christians erode freedoms of other [pagan] religions

Christian leaders reacted with anger to the coverage, which was the fourth item on BBC One news at 6pm last night, and said it was yet another example of marginalising Christianity and giving undue airtime to other beliefs

is hypocrisy too strong a word ? or are they just cynically claiming victimhood at every opportunity to further their demands for special status and the right to discriminate.?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8106589/Church-of-England-cleric-compares-supporters-of-women-bishops-to-Nazis.html

It is not easy to decide where to begin with the Bishop of Lewes. To seek to exclude women from top jobs is one terrible thing, but for him to draw an analogy between his exclusionary views and January 1939 is something else altogether! He has pointed out that he did not use the word "Nazis" in his outburst, but he certainly did use the phrase "real serious warfare". Women should not be excluded from top jobs in any profession on the grounds of religion, and there should be laws to protect them from unjustified discrimination in religious jobs.

Modern pagans have as much connection with Samhain as Anam Cara had with early Irish spiritualy.

As for the Bishop of Lewes - the reactions are completely over the top. He called no one Nazis. He never mentioned the Holocaust. When someone uses the phrases D-Day to describe the start of something is that offensive? If you use the word "blitz" to describe an attempt to tidy your house is that offensive? The so-called Catholic element of the Church of England feel besieged and betrayed. Of course instead of staying and suffering they should flee to the safety of the actually called Catholic Church. Like the von Trapps escaping to Switzerland. Oh gosh, I hope that's not an offensive analogy.

Thx Martin for the Charlenesproject link.

Its a tremendous accomplishment for anyone to have achieved and when you say "If this is not 'True Religion' I do not know what is..." You're right. That's all religion should be, kindness and compassion for your fellow human being and making a positive difference in peoples lives

Michael Behe going around talking about a scientific theory?

Really, this kind of freethinking, freedom of speech and scientific theorising shouldn't be allowed in our wonderful new society of philosophical dogmatism! What will the pope and high priests of the Church of Materialism think?!?

Anyone would think there was an 'enlightenment' going on. We can't have that now, can we? Oh, for the good old days when sensible people just meekly accepted the words of 'holy writ' as revealed to our great prophet in the year 1859 and his intrepid disciples thereafter.

Next we'll have 'vulnerable' young people growing up believing in nasty things like 'hope', 'purpose' and even 'intelligence', no less! Pffff!! What's the world coming to....?

(Bring back the Inquisition is what I say!)

"Michael Behe going around talking about a scientific theory?"

1) Theory (sciences) A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena.

2) Theory (sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.

The last time I checked, ID doesn't fall into any definition for a scientific theory. In fact, Behe himself admitted that for ID to be considered science, then astrology would also be considered a science. (link)

I have no issues with the likes of Behe coming up with their ideas, any fool is within their rights to say what they want. However when they try to push their ideas as being on par with properly produced theories and, worse, attempt to teach it to children, that is when I have a problem. There's a clear distinction between free speech and outright falsehoods being portrayed as truth.

https://wireupdate.com/wires/12024/peruvian-catholic-priest-filmed-in-bed-with-woman-by-shocked-husband/

I know that a lot of contributors to this blog write about the hypocrisy of priests and the Catholic Church, and it is for these reasons that I consider this story relevant. I have watched a little of the video in question, but after careful consideration thought it best to link to a story which does not show the video. It is not the salaciousness of the story that attracts me but the hypocrisy: a poor husband follows his wife to the church which she is supposed to be cleaning only to find her in bed with the priest. The unborn child may be the priest's.

Natman -

Your definition of 'theory' is fine if science keeps within its proper limits. But science is not philosophy. The observation and prediction of physical phenomena does not necessarily tell us anything about ultimate questions. But what happens when a scientist hits the interface between the explanation of physical phenomena and the explanation of 'reality as a whole'. Then he or she has to make a philosophical decision:

1. Extend the methodological materialism of the empirical scientific method into those realms beyond the purview of science.

2. Accept that there are - or may be - aspects of reality beyond the empirical scientific method - to which certain aspects of physical phenomena (e.g. irreducible complexity) bear witness.

Both positions can be defended with recourse to logic, depending on prior presuppositions. To assume that #1 is the only logical and philosophically acceptable approach is simply fallacious.

Your error is that you insist on #1, and you simply cannot see (or refuse to see) how that is merely an assumption and not science.

Michael Behe is being thoroughly scientific in keeping the scientific method within its proper limits, and yet discerning that the empirical method suggests a reality beyond empiricism. Philosophically and logically there is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach.

...irreducible complexity

I'm unsure what you mean by this. Do you in fact refer to biological systems that you cannot comprehend, processes that you've read someplace are too 'complicated' to have arisen naturally, or some other flawed readings.

As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity within biology. If you've got some examples I'd love to tear them to shreds... I mean show you how they're not... I mean look them over.

The concept of irreducible complexity has been conclusively refuted within evolutionary biology. Only hard fast creationists still cling to it.

Natman -

There you go again!...

...avoiding the fundamental point I was making. OK, let's say 'complexity', if you're so offended by the word 'irreducible'. Take out this word, and my point still stands. We are talking about a philosophical issue here, but you seem to think that if you can prove some kind of point empirically, then that somehow 'proves' the truth of philosophical materialism. It does not. How many times do I have to say it??

Even if you can come up with some far-fetched theory about how complex systems can self-assemble, there is a HUGE jump from that theory to the 'certainty' that that is what actually happened. Since there is no direct evidence that life self-assembled (and that, of course, is true of the 'intelligent cause' theory) then the only way you can conclude that your theory is true is through the application of a particular philosophical presupposition. Now everything I have been saying to you on this blog is to call into question the validity of that presupposition.

As for 'irreducible complexity': I acknowledge that I am not a qualified scientist. Michael Behe is. Do you dispute his qualifications? But, as I repeat, this is not the issue. The issue is the ridiculously illogical and unjustifiable overreach of science into areas about which it - by the very nature of the scientific method - can say nothing.

LSV, sometimes the stuff you come out with is so hilariously Wrong that I have to pinch myself to make sure that you are not ME doing a Sokal. Really.

LSV
Judge Jones's summation in Kitzmiller v Dover
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design."

ID is creationism in a lab coat and god of the gaps remains the laziest argument of all.

Helio -

Come come now, Helio, dear chap. You don't need to speak in code to me. I do so understand your painful dilemma.

What you really mean is: "I know LSV has a point, and I know that I have no argument to refute him, but there is absolutely nooooo way I am going to be seen to be agreeing with him (I have to think about my reputation at the Church of JC Atheist, after all!)".

I have more than a pretty good hunch this is what you are saying. Why do I say this? Simple. If you had an argument to refute my comment, you'd use it. The fact that you can only resort to the predictable atheist 'humour-in-denial' playbook is rather revealing.

One doesn't really need a degree in psychology to work it out, does one?

I suggest this Christmas that you treat yourself to something, Helio: a better playbook, 'cos you're gonna need it.

#17 -

Judge Jones! Fanfare now please!!

Hurrah for the American legal system.

I must remember to build all my beliefs on the verdicts of American courts!!

(Of course McDonalds should have been sued for serving up hot coffee! That's what the good ol' American court said, so it MUST BE TRUE.)

Talk about desperate.

And talk about a total lack of understanding of the concept of falsification, on which the entirety of the materialistic view of reality is built.

Now that's what I call HILARIOUS!

LSV,

Shouting loudly and sneeringly is one of lowest courses of rebuttal available.

It's sad you've stooped so low. Quite illogical.

I'll ask you again, as whenever I ask you this you hide from the thread.

If the scientific method is so flawed, if it's inherantly wrong. What's your alternative?

If all empirical evidence is self-refuting, then all evidences for god/ID/sin/redemption are as well. So we're all at square one, and the materialistic method is still the one with the evidence that can at least attempt some form of clarity.

I don't expect an answer to this, but at least the thread can get back on topic.

Brilliant LSV, I have noticed your Saturday night posts really are top drawer. Is it because you settle down to x factor with a glass of sherry and a mince pie?

paul james #21 -

Oh, I missed X Factor. But this is much more exciting, although it kinda reminds me of the first round of X Factor, where you get all the tone deaf contestants. Perhaps we ought to have a philosophical X Factor. Now that would be a laff.

#20 -

Oh, dear Natman, what am I going to do with you?

I have never, ever, not ever, no no never, said that the scientific method is flawed. Do please pay attention. The scientific method is fantastic, wonderful, brilliant. But it is also LIMITED. L-I-M-I-T-E-D. Get it?!

Some people think that science has disproven God. This makes about as much sense as saying that the invention of the internal combustion engine has disproven love. It's called a category error, and it really is very silly indeed.

As for empiricism: of course I believe in empiricism, otherwise I wouldn't be able to use my five senses, and write this message to you. But there is a difference between using empiricism to write a post on W&T and saying that all knowledge derives from sense perception. It is a fact that that kind of absolutist empiricism is self-refuting. Get over it! If it is not self-refuting then please provide me with the empirical evidence that categorically proves that 'all knowledge comes from sense perception'. Of course, you can't do this, because that is an idea we bring TO empirical data. It is not a conclusion we derive FROM such data.

Science and atheism have nothing (necessarily) to do with each other. If they do, then I assume that a Christian engineer would have to renounce his faith in God in order to design a bridge! How flippin' ridiculous! If you can show me how belief in an intelligent creator could prevent an engineer doing his job, then I might take what you say seriously.

A judge may not have the best scientific credentials, so it's good that he follows expert witnesses. However, a judge may have a more weighty opinion on witnesses lying under oath. Here is a beauty from judge Jones (a conservative, church-going Republican, who was nominated by arch-conservative Rick Santorum and appointed by George W. Bush) on the credibility of the creationist witnesses in the ID trial:

"Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied
the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points."

Sweet, how such a judge describes the anti-science christians and their efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution. :) Tell me LSV, is he part of that new inquisition too? We damn atheists are so deviously smart, aren't we, that we make a conservative, church-going Republican judge do our dirty work for us. Mwuhahahehehehehe "evil laughter*

VSL, I waz makin teh funniez; if u wants refutin, I iz up 4 that.

It was hilarious to see you drop the "irreducible" from complexity, because you clearly do not know what it means; similarly, you do not know anything about science or the scientific method. But we all know that. You have demonstrated that time and time again.

So let's make this very clear, so that even someone of your limited faculties can understand it. Irreducible complexity refers to a situation where you can't remove one piece of a system without eliminating the "function" that that system is supposedly "designed" to perform. Except for a couple of minor problems. For one thing, the "function" that a system has in a particular organism is not necessarily the same as the function it has previously adopted going back through evolutionary time. For another, none of these systems act in isolation; many proteins, for example, have multiple functions and effects. Thirdly, within populations, genes recombine and shuffle, leading to novel functions arising all the time. I could go on, but the point is that "irreducible complexity" is NOT the same as "unevolvable complexity".

And herein lies the utter nonsense of your position. The problem is not that Mike Behe is being some sort of radical revolutionary - it is that his arguments are *wrong*. And they have been *shown* to be wrong. So what do we do about that? Yes, he is a credentialled scientist, but he is no more credentialled than the people who have refuted him. The issue here is not Mike's history; it is what he is arguing now. And he might as well be arguing that TVs are powered by magic chipmunks. I don't care what his metaphysical suppositions are - the fact remains that "irreducible complexity" is not a barrier to evolution; there is not a *shred* of evidence that biological structures have been designed by space pixies or gods, and (more importantly) he and the entertaining charlatans that staff the Discovery Institute have not been able at any point to demonstrate a test that would demonstrate that.

Intelligence is an information processing system. Evolution is an information processing system. If Mike wants us to think the former is responsible for biology, he needs to show that. At present, all he has are assertions that have been *refuted*.

But all of that is above your wee head, LSV, isn't it?

Peter Klaver (@ 23) -

Well, if you want to believe that truth is established by courtroom decisions, then feel free to do so, but I find it rather remarkable that people who claim to be 'objective' scientists should look to a judge to establish truth. We all know that the American legal system is absolutely wonderful, isn't it? (I suppose you go along with everything else in their legal system, do you? Capital punishment perhaps?)

It may have been true that there were deceitful creationists. Should I perhaps try my best not to mention Piltdown Man? Your point doesn't prove anything. In fact, all it proves is the corruption of human nature, and I suppose you imagine that materialists are incapable of resorting to such methods? Which would be rather strange given the nature of your philosophy and the moral ambiguity associated with it.

I'll let you into a secret if you like. I have met many creationists in my time, and some of them are highly objectionable. Happy now? But does the obnoxiousness of some creationists mean I now have to believe that "all that exists is matter and energy" and that "life self-assembled without the need for intelligent input"?

As for Judge Jones' personal beliefs - again I thought that you science types would disregard such a factor. It's the facts that matter apparently, so we are told.

As for 'anti-science' Christians - perhaps you may like to rise to the challenge I put to Natman in my post 22, and explain how atheism could possibly be a necessary condition for proper science (i.e. how belief in an intelligent creator could conceivably undermine, for example, an engineer doing his job). If you have the guts to answer this, then I would be most intrigued to see your reasoning. I'm feeling rather in the mood for a laugh.

If Michael Behe is presenting a new scientific theory in Belfast, then why is he doing it in a church ?

Helio (@ 24) -

Ha ha ha! A truly erudite ad hominem attack on poor old Muggins. Trouble is that Muggins doesn't mind, 'cos it just proves that Muggins has ruffled His Haughtiness's feathers, hasn't he, sunshine?

If you had bothered to read my post 15 properly, you would have seen that I am making a point about 'proof', whether it involves 'irreducible complexity' or just common-or-garden complexity. I notice that you have dodged that question. Now why doesn't that surprise me? Mmmm. I wonder? Could it be that li'l old me could be right?

One day you may understand the limitations of empiricism. I am certainly not holding my breath, but I do intend to keep putting this argument in the hope that one day an atheist with a spark of intellectual integrity may have the courage to attempt to answer it.

VPL, we have been over this before, and your snide pettiness, while endearing in a Smeagolic way, does occasionally cross the line into the tedious. But you ask about "proof", and outside of mathematics it is hard to know how you feel this word applies. Have you any proof that philosophy uncovers truth, eh, eh, ella, ella, eh? What epistemic basis do you have for relying on philosophy?

But that is just a little tease for you - a rattle of your cage. The point is this - we construct models, and we test how those models perform against the data. Mike has said things about the standard model that are incorrect, and has put forward a model that similarly is demonstrably wrong and based on false logic. Scientists get shot down for this all the time; if he wants his fringe model considered, he has to make it fly. It's like some fat ugly tone deaf trollop flagging off the X Factor judges for not getting through to boot camp.

That said, at least Mike accepts common ancestry, specifically that humans and chimps are descended from a common ape ancestor, and that most of the diversity of life is due to ordinary evolution. Irreducible complexity in Mike's analysis is limited to a few key systems.

Seriously, VSL, if you want to engage in trite sophistry, go right ahead, but you need to expect that those of us who actually do science and know how science works will regard your amusing tomfoolery as simple entertainment.

Helio (@ 28) -

"...if you want to engage in trite sophistry, go right ahead, but you need to expect that those of us who actually do science and know how science works will regard your amusing tomfoolery as simple entertainment."

Code for: "I can't answer LSV's point, and so, if I pour enough derision on him, the problem might quietly go away." A truly cunning strategy, if I may say so.

Good try, Helio. Do feel free to try again.

I am still waiting for the details of the scientific experiment which *proves* conclusively that life self-assembled (no unproven assumptions allowed), and that "any materialistic explanation of any phenomena must be regarded as truth".

Now take a few deep breaths, take your time (there's no rush) and start to apply your little grey cells to this perfectly legitimate question.

If you can't, then allow me to judge your efforts as "simple entertainment" (or, more accurately, as "cowardly evasion".)

(Oh by the way, I notice that I still have not received an answer to my question about atheism being a necessary condition for the proper functioning of science. Take your time now, old boy. I can wait...)

LSV

Life was created
I read it in an old book
QED its true

(just sticking with your own high standards of proof)

Atheism isn't a necessary condition for the proper funtioning of science. There just isn't a need to use god as a variable in any of its theories or hypothesis.

Just as there's no need for fairies, santa, the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster.

It's only hardline fundamentalists who insist that science must equal atheism.

Oh yeah, and blog commentors who've a massive persecution complex and insist that everything must follow specific logical rules else it's less than useles..

Natman (@ 31) -

Good, I'm glad you admit that the question we have been arguing about is completely irrelevant to science. And therefore science can tell us nothing about this question.

I can see that we're getting somewhere at last.

Therefore, science can make no truth claims for atheism. I hope this message gets through to Mr Heliopolitan, as he seems to be deluded into thinking that he can make lavish truth claims on the basis of his status as a scientist (see his bold performance on the "freethinking Christians" thread).

Talking about Helio... I will continue my response to him:

Further to my post #29 -

You say the following: "...you need to expect that those of us who actually do science and know how science works will regard your amusing tomfoolery as simple entertainment."

Am I to take it that you believe that only 'scientists' can tell us what reality is about?

Given that science is practical, and based on the empirical method, then I assume that you believe that only 'practical people' can give us insights into the mysteries of life. I must remember this when I next take my car to the garage:

LSV: "Hello, mate."

Mechanic: "How're doing? What can I do ya for?"

LSV: "Well, I've got a bit of a problem starting the old jam jar*. Starter motor I think. Also the brake pads feel a bit dodgy."

Mechanic: "Naa problem, mate. I'll have a look at it today."

LSV: "Cheers. Oh, just one other thing..."

Mechanic: "Yeah?"

LSV: "You're a practical man, and we all know (as 'the great and the good' tell us) that people like you have all the answers..."

Mechanic: (Looks at me with a quzzical and embarrassed look, as if to say: "Who's this nutter...?")

LSV: "... Well, ya couldn't just give me a brief run down on the intrinsic nature of consciousness, could you? I'm struggling with it a bit, you know. Also an explanation of Kant's synthetic a priori propositions..."

Mechanic: (Scratches his head). "Sorry, mate, I don't stock those parts. Never heard of that make of car..." (At which point he makes a mad dash to his office to gulp a swig of whisky to clear his head after this surreal experience).

Get the point?

To say that only materially practical people can provide insight into the meaning of life is as absurd as the above conversation. And, in case you're feeling intellectually snobbish towards a humble car mechanic, the same argument applies irrespective of any level of education. He is no less of a 'scientist' than you or anyone else, since he is 'getting his hands dirty' (to use one of your phrases) with the stuff of matter.

Science deals with science. Period. It's great for building bridges, mending computers, synthesising drugs, understanding the inner workings of eukaryotic cells, and, of coursing, fixing automobiles.

But it is thoroughly useless when it comes to:

1. The meaning of life.
2. The value of life.
3. The nature of knowledge and truth.
4. Morality.
5. And yes, ultimate origins and destiny.

All these require philosophical assumptions which lie completely outside the purview of empirical science.

Gnash your teeth as much as you like, have a good laugh (if you're that way inclined - even Klaveresque 'evil laughter'), continue churning out your 'Natmanesque' nursery rhyme analogies, indulge in 'paul james-type' one liners, and don't neglect the 'grokesx-style' logical fallacy party game, but I am going to continue to make this point until you all have the guts to face up to it.

Truth is painful, innit?


*Cockney rhyming slang for 'car' (for those uninitiates far from the madding crowd of the metropolis).

VPL, I have actually answered every one of your points previously; it is you who seems to strangely insist that my answer to one of your inane misapprehensions should necessarily apply to all of them. You are a one trick pony, dear boy. However, for the record, let me address your latest emission in toto, as it were.

Code for: "I can't answer LSV's point, and so, if I pour enough derision on him, the problem might quietly go away." A truly cunning strategy, if I may say so.

Code for: "Helio has mashed my rubbish arguments, but I daren't let him see that I'm reeling."

I am still waiting for the details of the scientific experiment which *proves* conclusively that life self-assembled (no unproven assumptions allowed), and that "any materialistic explanation of any phenomena must be regarded as truth".

Well, you'll be waiting for a long time, pal, because that is not what we are engaged in here. We are engaged in *understanding*. There is no proof that LSV's magic space pixie did not seed our planet with life, but there is no need to even hypothesise that. If we were to incorporate that (pathetic excuse for a) model, we would still not understand it. Yeah, maybe that's what happened, but there is no EVIDENCE for it, other than your incredible ignorance of science. Where did I or any other pixie-rejector indicate that "any" materialistic explanation must be the truth? I submit that you are lying, and since you appear to have no arguments in favour of your position, you are reduced to sophomoric posturing.

So, for the record, you can come back and propose your pixie when you have something that we can actually work with.

(Oh by the way, I notice that I still have not received an answer to my question about atheism being a necessary condition for the proper functioning of science. Take your time now, old boy. I can wait...)

I have answered that one many times. Atheism is not necessary. It is a result.

"...and, of coursing, fixing automobiles."

Sheesh. And to think that the great LSV isn't immune from this blogging curse!

Still, at least it's better than the monkeys could do on their typewriters...

Sorry but at the risk of insulting both of you LSV & Helio, aren't you both roughly saying the same argument from different angles
LSV Post #15

"The issue is the ridiculously illogical and unjustifiable overreach of science into areas about which it - by the very nature of the scientific method - can say nothing."

LSV post #22

"Science and atheism have nothing (necessarily) to do with each other"

You both agree that Science and Religion shouldn't be used to explain each other. Helio- that Religion shouldn't be inculcated into Science with things like Intelligent Design, and LSV that Science shouldn't overreach its remit by disproving God through our still very formative knowledge in Science.

So simply,Science shouldn't imply Atheism and Religion shouldn't be applied to denigrate Science

Helio (@ 33) -

"Where did I or any other pixie-rejector indicate that "any" materialistic explanation must be the truth? I submit that you are lying..."

I submit that you have misunderstood what I wrote. I imagine you think that I am claiming that you do not reject any particular materialistic explanation of any phenomenon. You know jolly well that I am not saying that (or you ought to know). Try understanding the context. I am contrasting a materialistic explanation with a non-materialistic explanation. If a particular event can be explained materialistically rather than non-materialistically, then you assume that the materialistic explanation is to be regarded as having more validity, even if that materialistic explanation is far-fetched.

Of course, there may be a range of materialistic explanations, some of which you may reject. But I was looking at the choice between materialism and non-materialism (or naturalism and supernaturalism, to be more accurate). How do we make this choice? By recourse to a commitment to a prior held philosophy, the validation of which lies outside the purview of the scientific method.

Here's an example: the parting of the Red Sea. How we understand this event is dependent on our worldview. But the way it was recently reported in the news was that "it could really have happened, because there is a way to explain it purely naturalistically" - the implication being that "it could not have happened if it cannot be explained naturalistically". This approach has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with philosophical presuppositions (or philosophical prejudices, more like).

Another example is consciousness. So you get someone like Susan Blackmore saying that she doesn't understand what consciousness is, but it must be something purely material. (You can find the information on this thread). So she is making a claim based not on any kind of scientific research - since she admits ignorance - but on the basis of a naturalistic worldview. Here is an example of someone who holds to a prior belief that a materialistic explanation must be the correct one, even before such an explanation has been formulated. But even after such an explanation has been formulated, it does not follow that a materialistic explanation should be the correct one. Why do I say that? Because you would then have to prove that any other possible explanation had been falsified. I notice that your post #8 on that thread supports my claim about your approach. So I am hardly a liar then, am I? Nothing like evidence is there, Helio?

Allow me to quote from that post:

"And *even* worse for LSV, even if we could not defend it *at all*, there is nothing that has *ever* been demonstrated that can't in principle be explained naturalistically. In other words, there is no evidence for anything necessarily inexplicable in a naturalistic context. It is a very very powerful "assumption", and it may very well be *true* in a rigorous hard objective sense."

I rest my case.

Your parting comment in #33 is that 'atheism is a result'. In other words, you think that science has proven atheism. Well, the only logical way you can make such an assertion is by holding to a belief that everything can be explained naturalistically, and that those explanations must be regarded as true (even though there may be some naturalistic explanations which you reject).

So either you have misunderstood my comment, or you are being totally disingenuous by calling me a liar.

In other words, try and get your head together before clicking 'Post Comment'. You may have more credibility by doing so.

LSV,

Quick question in case you're checking the thread with our previous discussion any more. Am I to assume that since you have the time to start up a new conversation here that you have time to continue our earlier discussion about the atonement? Or am I to assume that since you've chosen to start a new discussion rather than continue ours that you've exhausted your arguments? If you're still putting a reply together, please let me know, so that I know to keep checking for replies.

Jonathan -

Sorry, I am intending to respond. I have certainly not exhausted my arguments at all.

Funnily enough, earlier this afternoon I did start looking at some passages in Romans, but I seem to get diverted with our 'pixie-rejecting' friends (to use Helio's memorable phrase).

I'll see if I can post something this evening.

Jonathan,

Welcome to the tactics and strageies of LSV. When a thread gets to the point where you cannot continue. Run away to another!

LSV,

Science isn't about answering those questions, but then again, if it did, you'd ignore the evidences and claim some form of abstract logic based arguement. The point Helio and I have been trying (without much success) to get over to you is that science isn't atheistic, it just doesn't require god. If you keep asking the questions in science, if you continue to extrapolate the line of inquery, you never get to 'god'. That is what Helio means by science results in atheism.

There's a very clear statistical link with the level of education in science based subjects and the level of belief in a god. As you learn about about science, you're less inclined to believe in a god. You can't claim that's some form of anomoly.

LSV,
If a particular event can be explained materialistically rather than non-materialistically, then you assume that the materialistic explanation is to be regarded as having more validity, even if that materialistic explanation is far-fetched.

Not so. However, when it comes to stories of miracles etc, those proposing that a miracle has actually occurred have a real problem because all we have are STORIES, and stories are EASY to explain without resorting to unevidenced "non-materialistic" causes. And when it comes to the explanation of life, you have got to admit that science (materialistic and all that) has a far better track record than your superstition.

Just the way it is.

Natman -

"Welcome to the tactics and strageies of LSV. When a thread gets to the point where you cannot continue. Run away to another!"

*yawn*

It's called: "there are not enough hours in the day".

That was a cheap shot, Natman, even by your extremely low debating standards!

Natman #39
"There's a very clear statistical link with the level of education in science based subjects and the level of belief in a god. As you learn about about science, you're less inclined to believe in a god. You can't claim that's some form of anomoly."

I think that's a misnomer. You're less inclined to believe in the traditional humanlike God with a flowy white beard on a fluffy cloud

The Pastor who came out to his Megachurch was very brave. It's a sad indictment on organised religion that it doesn't deal with real life issues in practical ways.That he felt he had to stay silent for 21 yrs and cover up who he is. Society clearly prefers lies and for us all to wear masks, while genuflecting meekly as we sacrifice our true selves to the altar of acceptance in *community* & *society*

This is an interesting story on the N.I news page
https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11705764

Some MP on the radio was talking about "The Big Society" - he has a book out on the subject. He referred to the importance of the Church and doing what will make it "flourish and succeed".

More tax payers' money on its way to religionists!

"That was a cheap shot, Natman, even by your extremely low debating standards!"

....and yet you're avoiding the issues. Hoorah!

@Natman (39)

Actually, he's given a rather comprehensive reply in the other thread. Life doesn't revolve around this blog and I entirely understand if there isn't time to continue with multiple conversations. Doesn't mean I won't give him a gentle prod from time to time though.

Natman said:

"That was a cheap shot, Natman, even by your extremely low debating standards!"

....and yet you're avoiding the issues. Hoorah!

I'm still waiting for Natman to address inconsistencies in his argument over at the '100 years of Christian free-thinking' thread. Oh, also, I'm waiting for him to substantiate claims he made re burdens of proof.

Seems he came over here to shoot up the town hoping no one would notice prior form.

and don't neglect the 'grokesx-style' logical fallacy party game

Stop trotting out the fallacies while claiming to be philosophically literate and I'll stop playing. Throwing out accusations of illogicality and inconsistency at people is the first serve in that particular game. If you don't want the ball to be returned, don't hit it in the first place.

Anyway, the science/religion interface blurring arguments is an interesting area and I'm not sure you are totally up to speed with the background regarding Michael Behe. He is a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture, which (as Helio referrred to in passing) is part of the Discovery Institute. Discovery's infamous Wedge Document of 1998, leaked onto t'internet, outlined their goals to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies and replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. So, to include Behe in arguments about nasty atheists extending methodological naturalism into the pure realm of philosophy and theology is to miss a large chunk of context. Behe is a scientist, but as Ryan noted above, he has no problems with attempting to do away with methodological naturalism and redefine science to fit a religious and political agenda. And if the Wedge Document hadn't been leaked, that agenda would never have been exposed.

Still, that is all pretty much by the by, because in all the striving, ID proponents have not come up with any remotely credible science with which to challenge the mainstream. Even the Templeton Foundation, which throws millions at scientists trying to reconcile religion and science, lost patience with them, saying in 2007, "We do not believe that the science underpinning the intelligent-design movement is sound, we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and the foundation is a nonpolitical entity and does not engage in or support political movements."

But I was looking at the choice between materialism and non-materialism (or naturalism and supernaturalism, to be more accurate). How do we make this choice? By recourse to a commitment to a prior held philosophy, the validation of which lies outside the purview of the scientific method.

Here's an example: the parting of the Red Sea. How we understand this event is dependent on our worldview. But the way it was recently reported in the news was that "it could really have happened, because there is a way to explain it purely naturalistically" - the implication being that "it could not have happened if it cannot be explained naturalistically". This approach has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with philosophical presuppositions (or philosophical prejudices, more like).

Well, it's just unfortunate for you that the majority view these days, in this culture, is naturalistic. If you lived in the bible belt in the states you wouldn't have the same problem, or if you did you could at least find plenty of like minded souls to throw stuff at the telly with. If you happened to be born in Iran, India, parts of Africa and South America or any of the other highly religious places in the world, you wouldn't have the problem, either, but the chances are you'd have other more serious things to stress over.

But the thing is, we don't come by our philosophical positions in a vacuum, and right now in Europe at least, the successes of science has led many to privilege scientific explanations over religious ones. They look at the methods, assumptions, evidence and above all, the success in explaining the world, and make a judgement accordingly. You might not like it, but empirically derived evidence, scientific theory, prediction, testing, falsification (I'd look that one up, btw, you don't seem to have grasped it), peer review, hypothesis and the whole paraphernalia of science has delivered sufficiently well for people to - with suitable caveats - trust it and the methodological naturalism that underpins it.

In the States things are different, in that when religion and science collide, religion is often privileged, which is why the Discovery Institute think they are in with a shout. They are probably right, if the Sarah Palin ever gets a sniff of the Whitehouse. Consequently, over the pond, the science/religion debate is even more heated and American scientists look longingly in our direction. They should read the stuff on here before they get too wistful, though.

Another example is consciousness. So you get someone like Susan Blackmore saying that she doesn't understand what consciousness is, but it must be something purely material. (You can find the information on this thread). So she is making a claim based not on any kind of scientific research - since she admits ignorance - but on the basis of a naturalistic worldview. Here is an example of someone who holds to a prior belief that a materialistic explanation must be the correct one, even before such an explanation has been formulated. But even after such an explanation has been formulated, it does not follow that a materialistic explanation should be the correct one.

Well, one answer is that Blackmore is a scientist and as such works within the assumptions of methodological naturalism. She could, conceivably, hedge everything she says with statements saying that while to her, personally, the success of science leads her towards the position of philosophical naturalism with the consequence that her views on consciousness need to be looked at in the light of this... But that would make her as boring to listen to as we are.

Another answer is, in her own words:

It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena - only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud.

This is an interesting article if you see the parallels with humans
https://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9160000/9160744.stm

Natman (@ 46) -

"....and yet you're avoiding the issues. Hoorah!"

Such as?

grokesx -

Re: Susan Blackmore etc...

Where's the logical proof that naturalism should be regarded as the 'default' position of truth?

Of course, I would need empirical proof from you for this, since empiricism is the epistemology of naturalism.

I have asked this sort of question so many times (in different ways), that I think the evasion on this issue only convinces me that there is no such proof. Still, I will keep asking the question, embarrassing though it is to your worldview.

By the way, just as naturalists do not accept every 'naturalistic explanation' for any phenomenon (as Helio has pointed out on this thread), so theists do not accept every non-naturalistic explanation. So your parting shot about Susan Blackmore is irrelevant, unless, of course, you want to believe that one only needs to refute one aspect of 'supernaturalism' in order to refute the whole (a method of argumentation that you would not - quite rightly - stomach being applied to your worldview).

As it happens, I am extremely sceptical about out-of-body experiences and NDE. It makes not a scrap of difference to my belief in God. So what's your point exactly...?

So quit boring me with all your ridiculous accusations about logical fallacies, when it is clear that your ability to handle logic is really quite suspect at times, as I have proven on other threads (e.g. your totally contradictory application of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy).

LSV,

You say "The scientific method is fantastic, wonderful, brilliant. But it is also LIMITED", you seem to think the limits on it are somehow an inherant flaw, that because it cannot answer questions regarding god and all that jazz, it should what? Not attempt to provide alterntives? Be content with the highly dodgy 'goddit' answer whenever something is too dificult?

If empirical evidences are so wrong, what makes non-emperical ones so much better? What, in fact, are your alternatives? You've never, ever, suggested an alternative, just stamped your foot and pointed at science going 'wrong, wrong, wrong!'.

Andrew,

"I'm waiting for him to substantiate claims he made re burdens of proof."

There isn't a god. Please provide proof otherwise. I cannot provide evidence that he doesn't exist. Other than pointing to a large empty space and going 'look! no god!'

Oh, by the way, there's an invisible dragon in my garage. Unless you can prove he doesn't exist, I'm going to demand that all schools teach his existance as a fact. If you can come up with an experiment that shows he doesn't exist, then he's obviously changing the results to hide his true nature.

(and if that sounds childish and silly, it's exactly how I interpret any arguments made for the existance of a god. I just changed the names a little.)

Natman (@ 53) -

In the nicest possible way, Natman, let me say that you have misunderstood what I have written (I could word that very differently, but I am trying to be polite).

I have never said that the limits of the scientific method are an inherent flaw. There is nothing wrong with the scientific method, in the same way that there is (in my opinion) nothing wrong with Jamie Oliver's cookery books. It is just that you don't turn to Jamie to fix your car. There is nothing wrong with his recipes, if you just stick to activity in the kitchen. The fact that his books are 'limited' is no flaw, is it? Now the same applies to the scientific method. It is inherently wonderful within its proper place.

Science is not philosophy. How many times do I have to say this? Science is dependent on philosophy, and therefore we must analyse the presuppositions we bring to scientific research.

You suggest that I think empirical evidences are wrong. I have never said that! Of course, there is nothing wrong with scientific experiments and with empirical evidence. But what I have been saying is that empiricism cannot explain everything. It can explain some things wonderfully well, but not everything.

As for non-empirical evidence: well here are some non-empirical realities:

1. Logic
2. Consciousness
3. Moral values
4. Aesthetic values
5. The belief that "all knowledge derives from sense perception"
6. The belief that "science can explain everything"

#5 and #6 in the list are 'real' in the sense that these thoughts exist, but that, of course, doesn't mean that the content of those thoughts is true, but I thought I would throw those two in to make the point that naturalism is based on a non-empirical reality.

You say that I have never, ever suggested an alternative. Alternative concerning what exactly? If you're talking about theories of origins, then the idea that complex systems can self-assemble is as abstruse and impractical an idea as the idea that God created those systems. After all, you can't apply your great idea in the laboratory anyway. If you could, then you, as a scientist, would be out of a job, since I assume that you use something called 'intelligence' to conduct your experiments. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the great idea of ultimate 'non-intelligence' as the basis of reality! It really does seem bizarre to me that atheistic scientists set such great store on 'intelligence' - and claim to be so intelligent - and yet totally reject the idea of an 'ultimate intelligence'. One would think that the 'champions of intelligence', operating within an intelligible universe, would be the first to acknowledge at least the possibility that our rational human experience reflects something intelligent within reality as a whole! (Although I suppose there is no accounting for human pride, which cannot stomach the thought that man may not be the measure of all things!)

Frankly atheism is as irrelevant to practical science as theism is.

So what exactly is your complaint?

"...atheism is as irrelevant to practical science as theism is."

At least we agree on something. Now stop trying to insert god into science when he's clearly not needed. Complex systems do self-assemble, all the time. The science is solid, well grounded and supported by robust theories that survive the harshest of scrutiny. Crystal structures, long-chain organic molecules, fractals, rainbows, massive stellar and glactic motions - they're all extremely complex and yet manage to exist without any guidance whatsoever. The universe has rules, and those rules make such things inevitable. To assign an intelligence to them is bizzare.

Consciousness (or a sense of self) along with moral and aesthetic values are human constructs that would not exist without us to appreciate them and to create them in the first place.

The phrase 'science can explain everything' should be ammended to 'science might be able to explain everything'. You'd think humanity would've learnt by now that when it comes to progress and science, it's wise not to make predictions.

Natman (@ 55) -

Well, you use the word bizarre to describe the attitude of someone who links complexity and intelligence. But I find it extremely bizarre that these two concepts should not be connected. After all, all our empirical experience of life (our day to day human experience) tells us that complexity derives from intelligence.

Life, as I am sure you will agree, is far more complex than man-made machines. The fact that living systems have the ability to, as it were, 'run by themselves', and to change and adapt is testimony, not to their simplicity but to a degree of complexity that goes far beyond anything that man has ever constructed. And yet, is it not bizarre that while no one in their right mind would consider that man-made machines are self-assembled, we are being led to believe that the incredibly complex systems of life must be considered the result of sheer mindlessness?!

Now, I don't know what definition of 'bizarre' your dictionary has, but I think I have a pretty good idea what the word 'bizarre' means, and it can certainly be applied to those who think that the most complex systems known to man must be the result of mindlessness, and who insist that any intelligent cause for these systems must be regarded as daft and ridiculous.

Of course, as I say, our theory of origins has no bearing on practical day-to-day science, and just as you chide me for inserting God into science, so I could chide you for inserting 'mindlessness' into science.

You talk about the universe working according to certain rules (intelligible rules, I might add). In other words, you acknowledge the consistency, intelligibility and order of the universe. Just because there are processes within nature, which can be termed 'random', they are not actually completely 'random', since, as you acknowledge, they operate according to certain rules. Nothing that you have written proves the theory of mindlessness, and it certainly harmonises well with the theory that there is an intelligent basis to the universe - in other words, an intelligent first cause.

In fact, I can't see what is so unscientific about the idea that complex systems should have an intelligent cause. There is nothing in science to condemn such an idea. The only thing that condemns this idea is the philosophy of naturalism. The problem with you and your fellow atheists is that you think that 'science' is the same thing as 'philosophical naturalism'. You seem to be utterly incapable (or unwilling) to see the distinction between these two things. And so, according to you naturalists, if 'science' can explain something with a naturalistic theory, then that kind of 'proves' naturalism and debunks any view of reality which affirms the existence of anything more than simply the mindless movement of matter and energy.

Now I know you will disagree with me, but all I can do, in this society of 'freedom of speech', is declare what I believe, and the reasons why I believe it.

I see no evidence that complexity has to derive from mindlessness. Such an idea contradicts not only logic, but also our whole experience of life. That is my view, and also the view of a great many other people (and if you want to dismiss us as unintelligent and uneducated people, as you once did when referring to Chinese Christians, then go ahead. I'll gladly accept the insult with joy, since I am not ashamed of my sane and logical view of reality).

Natman

#55

Second paragraph.

If I were to rewrite this paragraph in the following way would you find it acceptable?

"Consciousness (or a sense of self) along with moral and aesthetic values are human constructs that would not exist without us to appreciate them and to create them in the first place."

Becomes:

'A sense of self (me) is a human (my) construct (of me) that would not exist without me to to appreciate it (me) and create it (me) in the first place.'

How happy would you be with this?

Natman

Meanwhile...do you still believe that no 'evidence proves' God does not exist and that 'it's impossible to prove a negative'? Enquiring minds want to know.

Oh, by the way, apparently there's an invisible post floating around where I claimed that all propositions are true unless proven false. Haven't seen it, have you?

When you're looking for it have a look for God, also. I've heard rumours that if you find both at the same time there's a special prize. Although in keeping with the competition it's one you can't see, hear, taste or touch. Try anyway, if you don't want it maybe your invisible dragon will.

LSV,

I don't insert mindlessness into science, mindlessness is the ground state, to insert intelligence into it is adding a new factor. To simply claim something is intelligent isn't enough, you need to provide reasons why having an intelligence is more plausible that not having one. As it stands, none of the examples I gave (plus many, many more) need a guiding intelligence, they have ocurred without the apparent need for one.

Your argument from incredulity is a poor one. Complex and intricate systems do arise from chaos and random chance, growing a crystal garden is a simple one anyone can do.

Biological systems are a poor example for intelligence anyway. Despite their amazing ability to function, they're so riddled with flaws, a designer must either have been imcompetant or malicious.

Peterm2,

Not very, as it makes no sense.

Thanks for the reply, Natman,

So where did I misread you?

Where's the logical proof that naturalism should be regarded as the 'default' position of truth?

Of course, I would need empirical proof from you for this, since empiricism is the epistemology of naturalism.

I have asked this sort of question so many times (in different ways), that I think the evasion on this issue only convinces me that there is no such proof. Still, I will keep asking the question, embarrassing though it is to your worldview.

How many times does it need to be said? There is no such proof. There is no proof of the sort you demand anywhere outside of mathematics and formal systems. Even then, as Godel showed, there are propositions that cannot be proved, but which are nevertheless true. You are chasing shadows here, and have been for as long I've been reading this blog - admittedly only for a year or so, but it seems much, much longer.

So, there are no irrefutable proofs on any of the deep and meaningful topics beloved of philosophers. If there were, they would stop arguing about them. They wouldn't need to worry about the problem of induction, the nature of truth and knowledge, the limits of empiricism or the extent to which we can trust a priori knowledge and the rationalist conclusions we draw from it. Philosophy would close down because there would be nothing for it to wibble on about.

It's been explained to you many times how science approaches this matter and I'm not going to repeat it again. You say that you have no problem with the scientific method, provided it respects its limitations, but in reality, the nature of some religious claims about how the world works fall fairly and squarely in the purview of science. You don't like it, fair enough, you have a problem with science. Just be honest and stop trying to pretend you haven't.

So your parting shot about Susan Blackmore is irrelevant, unless, of course, you want to believe that one only needs to refute one aspect of 'supernaturalism' in order to refute the whole (a method of argumentation that you would not - quite rightly - stomach being applied to your worldview).

You brought up the subject of consciousness and Sue Blackmore. I addressed the specific point. As one of the few scientists to take the dualistic idea of consciousness existing as a distinct entity separate from the brain seriously, her experience and the (lack of) evidence she found in support of the hypothesis seemed to me to be relevant.

So quit boring me with all your ridiculous accusations about logical fallacies, when it is clear that your ability to handle logic is really quite suspect at times, as I have proven on other threads (e.g. your totally contradictory application of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy).

Still flapping away at that ball, I see. To be fair, you did stay in the rally for a while on that one, but the Argument from Ignorance and Appeals to Consequence: aced, I'm afraid, mate, aced :)

Natman

"Consciousness (or a sense of self) along with moral and aesthetic values are human constructs that would not exist without us to appreciate them and to create them in the first place."

So - - - our consciousness wouldn't exist unless we were conscious....and we created our consciousness by being conscious.

Nope, I can't beat that sort of insight.
Would anyone else like to try?

Peterm2 and Daar (I think),

Does a brick have consciousness? Does a star contemplate the universe around it and start asking 'why am I here?' No, they don't. But they'd still be here if we weren't, quite happily existing without awareness.

Awareness and a sense of self are, for the moment, human attributes that would not exist without us to appreciate it. It sounds circular, and it is. If we did not exist, we could not understand our existance, it's not hard to understand.

To the universe, the Mona Lisa is a (perhaps more complex than usual) arrangement of molecules. It takes a human to appreciate the beauty within it. That doesn't mean without us it wouldn't exist (well, to be technical it wouldn't as a human painted it), but it takes a human to see it for more than just a collection of pigments and materials.

My goodness. It could be beat!

Daar,

Nice contribution. If you've something substantial to add, feel free to continue. I understand the concepts are metaphysical, but do try to keep up.

Oh, I agree. I couldn't have stated the obvious with less clarity. I've been outmatched.

Of course, the obvious is easy. The ridiculous takes genius. To say that the universe can't appreciate the Mona Lisa because the Universe is not conscious is one thing.
To say that the universe can only appreciate the Mona Lisa as a collection of atoms and molecules is quite another.

"If we did not exist, we could not understand our existence" is a work of genius. It manages to state what is obviously true, and still get everything wrong.

Of course we couldn't understand anything if we didn't exist.

But bricks and stars exist too. So do lemurs. Mere existence is neither here nor there. It is a mode of existence - rational self-awareness, not mere conciousness- that is at issue.

And to offer- "we couldn't ask why we were rationally self aware unless we were rationally self-aware" as an explanation is sublime.

If the apple didn't hit the ground we couldn't ask why it hit the ground. All that wasted ink about gravity! Honestly!

To say some questions cannot be answered is one thing, to say that some questions don't need to be answered because we can repeat the question another.

Daar,

...did you read my post? Or are you just rambling for the sake of it?

To say that the universe can only appreciate the Mona Lisa as a collection of atoms and molecules is quite another.

Where did I say this? The universe cannot appreciate anything, the Mona Lisa -is- just a collection of atoms and molecules. It is us, humans, that give it worth.

It is a mode of existence - rational self-awareness, not mere conciousness- that is at issue.

Exactly, our sense of awareness is what lets us appreciate having a sense of awareness. without it, we couldn't.

And to offer- "we couldn't ask why we were rationally self aware unless we were rationally self-aware" as an explanation is sublime.

I'm glad you like it, what's your issue with it? This all stems from LSV arguing that awareness is some form of proof that there is a guiding intelligence behind the universe. It's the same as a puddle saying 'Oh my, this place I occupy is just the right size. It must be designed!'.

Natman said (#71)

'Daar,

...did you read my post? Or are you just rambling for the sake of it?

"To say that the universe can only appreciate the Mona Lisa as a collection of atoms and molecules is quite another."

Where did I say this?'

Maybe in an invisible post? I haven't seen it myself but perhaps it's next to the invisible post where I said 'all propositions are true unless proven false'.

Oh, by the way, did you feed your invisible dragon today? You need to be careful that you do, 'out of sight out of mind'.

(re#53 & 58)

Natman

Is 63 a reply to 60?

And remember, they were referring back to 59 and 57.

Another thing #71

"our sense of awareness is what lets us appreciate having a sense of awareness. without it, we couldn't."

Emmm...

Without it, we wouldn't have it.

To be honest, 'metaphysical concepts' #65 are the least of our worries.

I'm so glad people can offer substantive alternatives to what I post about, instead of having a go at semantics, grammar and spelling mistakes and esoteric concepts with little meaning.

It's easy to take pot-shots if you're afraid to put your head above the wall.

Natman

Can you show me where I had a go at 'semantics, grammar and spelling mistakes', is it in the same place I said 'all propositions are true unless proven false'?

It's easy to put your head above the wall and then decry, decry, when your readers point out that you've actually written nonsense! It's easier still to erect strawmen and then blankly ignore requests for evidence that you have correctly described someone's position.

You present yourself as a dealer of reasoned argument against, says you, the irrationalism of Christian faith yet I have called you out on a contradiction in your argument more times than I care to document and yet you refuse to address it. If you want to argue against Christian faith on the grounds that it is irrational and then you indulge in irrationalism yourself it rather undercuts your objections against Christian faith. So forgive me if I haven't put my head above the wall but as it is you have made it that I don't have to.

Natman

So you were simply making the point that a brick can't appreciate the Mona Lisa?

Because it's all just atoms and molecules to a brick.

And the Mona Lisa wouldn't exist without humans.

Unlike bricks.

It is possible that you haven't thought this through, you know.

I like consensus. Let's find premises that everyone can agree on. Can I make a suggestion?

"Puddles cannot appreciate bricks."

"Bricks are appreciated"

Therefore

"Bricks are not appreciated by puddles"

Daar,

Interesting post, as ever.

You clearly don't understand. And please put all your comments in one post, it's cluttering the thread.

Andrew,

You're like a dog with a bone, harping on about a single apparent inconsistency in one thread, quite happy to point at the speck in my eye whilst ignoring the vast forest in your own. When you cease trying to score points based on old comments, instead of moving with the discussion, then I might have something useful to say to you.

Natman

Like Andrew, I would appreciate it if you could point out where I had “a go at semantics, grammar and spelling mistakes”.

Way back in post 57 I tried to ask if my rewrite of your comments in post 55, “Consciousness (or a sense of self) along with moral and aesthetic values are human constructs that would not exist without us to appreciate them and to create them in the first place.”, was OK.

You didn’t like my rewrite, ”Not very, as it makes no sense.”, you said.

I then asked, post 60, where I had misread you. You replied in post 63. To be honest it didn’t, and doesn’t, read like a reply to my question, so I wrote 73. Now you make a general complaint about semantics and grammar and spelling. I have said nothing of the kind; I merely want to know why you think my rewrite is a misunderstanding of your position.

I’m more than happy to discuss ‘being’, and the implications of such, but I can’t if you won’t explain where I’ve misread you.

Natman, what you seem to be saying is that because we are conscious we can appreciate consciousness, and other things. But, as Daar has pointed out (and he is pretty obtuse), that is obvious, and I fail to see what the point of saying it is.

So let's be clear, I’m not having ‘pot-shots’, I’m trying to understand you.

If you want to discuss metaphysics, let’s go, and perhaps, after you have explained where I’m wrong, we could begin with this - As you say, I am conscious, and personal, and different from ‘not personal’; however I am also finite and therefore an insufficient as a reference point to explain all that I am and all that I see around me. I cannot ‘step outside myself’ in order to explain me (or others, I am dependent, for example, on another's revelation of themselves to understand them) so, on what basis shall I do that? The fact that I have ‘self-awareness’ is a problem in the first place and it isn’t solved by saying, ‘I’m self-aware’. On what basis shall I define my ‘me-ness’ as opposed to a brick's ‘non me-ness’. On what basis shall humans define their ‘personality’, their ‘intelligence’, their ‘meaning’? Now if you are going to say that we make it up, fine, but I do hope that you realise the implications of that position.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that self-awareness isn't that special. We can only acknowledge because we have it, without it, without -us-, the universe would still exist quite happily.

It was put forwards as some form of proof that there is a guiding intelligence in the universe but I fail to see the significance of it.

Natman

'You're like a dog with a bone, harping on about a single apparent inconsistency in one thread, quite happy to point at the speck in my eye whilst ignoring the vast forest in your own. When you cease trying to score points based on old comments, instead of moving with the discussion, then I might have something useful to say to you.'

Demonstrate the inconsistency is only apparent or better still, demonstrate there is no inconsistency, period. Name the vast forest in my eye, documented from what I have said in prior threads, and I will happily address it. More than happily. Until you do, you're blowing smoke to save face.

I know, I know, you would like to move on, it is understandable. You're As I said in #76, you have criticised Christian belief for being irrational but you're peddling contradictions that are visible from space. You don't want to admit that, so with the 'specks' and 'semantics' and so on. I'm happy to be corrected, so quit asserting and start arguing.

When you cease trying to score points based on old comments, instead of moving with the discussion, then I might have something useful to say to you.

You made the comments on a public thread and I am asking you to defend them. If you no longer stand by them just say so, rather than trying to cover your tail, that would be the Christian thing to do.

Natman

You have said a number of things about self-awareness and “moral and aesthetic values” which you have called “human constructs”.

Now you have said, “self-awareness isn't that special”.

Now, never mind the implications of such a statement with regard to ‘values’, and never mind the ‘philosophical’ debate, or universes existing or not existing, I’ll give you my ‘gut’ reply to your thought that “self-awareness isn't that special” - I find that frightening.

If we can’t see each other as ‘special’, God is never going to make sense.

Peterm2,

Ah. You're assuming that just because I don't view self-awareness as special, I don't regard it as important. Or that people themselves aren't important. It's vitally important, and it lends the ability for us to appreciate a lot more than animals and inanimate objects do. However (and this is the important part), in the whole scheme of things, in a universe as vast and uncaring as it is, self-awareness isn't very special. The universe will plod along quite happily without us.

We can create morals, ethics, aesthetic values and all that jazz and give it meaning, important, vital, meaning. But without us, it's nothing at all. And we only give it the meaning because it's useful, society cannot function without it, altruism is a powerful evolutionary tool.

Compared to a giant ball of gas that burns billions of tons of hydrogen in a vast nuclear explosion every second, helping an old lady over the road is rather insignificant. Important to the old lady and the helper, but still insignificant.

Oh, right, there's nothing interesting about being interested, or interesting about being interested about why we can be interested, so we're really not that interesting.

Natman

Perhaps I was making assumptions, but you’re elaboration isn’t doing much to allay my fears. Do you see what you are doing (of course you do); you are seeking to compare one event in the universe with another and, among other things, when you do this you also contrast words like ‘important’ and ‘insignificant’.

There are all sorts of problems with this. How, for example, do you arrive at such a conclusion? How does this fit with your earlier comments about ‘stars’ and ‘bricks’ and human appreciation? What is the difference between ‘important’ and ‘significant’? I would have thought it was perfectly reasonable to think of something important as also significant. But you are assigning *value* to these illustrations you give; to make your statements you have to; can’t you see this? Or perhaps you’re just thinking one is more spectacular than another. Or perhaps you’re a pragmatist; your comment, ”we only give it the meaning because it's useful...” might suggest this.

And perhaps, Natman, this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I take the view that human beings are of ultimate value (import and significance); to be human is, by it’s very nature, valuable; one need not be useful to be of value; one’s actions need not be useful to be of value; human being are intrinsically valuable and what we do counts: helping old ladies across roads, washing dishes, changing nappies, teaching, picking daisies, emptying bins, tending the wounds of another, finding cures for cancer, sticking your kid’s ‘colouring in’ to the fridge... *all* valuable, *all* important, *all* significant. Compared to ”a giant ball of gas that burns billions of tons of hydrogen in a vast nuclear explosion every second”, many times more significant, less *noticable*, perhaps, but more important and more significant, most certainly.

And you’re the *humanist*? Boys-o!

If that is your metaphysical philosophy, I’m sticking with Jesus.

Maybe Jesus was the ultimate Humanist ;)

Peterm2,

Perhaps you could replace pragmatist with realist. Whilst I don't disagree that to the people concerned, simple everyday acts and crisis are important and vital (they have to be!) and simply because they're not of vast significance they're unimportant. Far from it, what a person does is of immense importance to themselves and those around them. The concept of the 'golden rule' is awesome and kudos to Christianity for attempting to pick up on it (if only most adherants stuck to it).

However, on the grand scale of things, what a star does, a million lightyears away, is of vastly greater significance than any of that. Without a moments notice, that giant ball of burning gases can shower our small planet with radiation so intense it can sterilise it. Nothing no person has ever done (or is likely to do) could ever compare to the level of power and uncaringness to be found out there.

All human constructs; beauty, morals, justice, etc, are simply that. When humanity no longer exists, neither will they. There's simply no evidence to suggest that such things are inherant to the universe or come from a source beyond our own ken.

Significance is not a given; significant to what, to whom?

The earth is destroyed, who cares? No doubt it is the most significant event since records began but the records have been destroyed.

So for talk's sake it is significant but only potentially, in the meantime your first love has died; now that's significant.

Oh, by the way, given that there could be no evidence for an earth destroying event it couldn't happen - Natman Chapter 34 v 1.

Andrew,

Do you think that someone on the other side of the world cares if your first love has died? Do you think someone in 100 years will care? Do you think the Orion Nebula cares?

I'm not saying such events aren't significant to you and those who do care - far from it, they're deeply significant. But in the whole scheme of things, they're not.

Btw, there's plenty evidences that an earth destroying event could happen. Have a look up of supernovas and x-ray pulsars.

Natman said:

'Btw, there's plenty evidences that an earth destroying event could happen. Have a look up of supernovas and x-ray pulsars.'

I'm sure there is but I was speaking about evidence once such an event has happened.

Natman (@ 89) -
"All human constructs; beauty, morals, justice, etc, are simply that. When humanity no longer exists, neither will they. There's simply no evidence to suggest that such things are inherant to the universe or come from a source beyond our own ken."

I'm afraid, Natman, that you have completely contradicted yourself in this post. You say that 'all human constructs' are simply that, and that there is no evidence to suggest that such things are inherent to the universe (by which I assume you mean that they are not objectively and universally valid).

But yet, you are willing to infuse the entire universe with your idea of 'significance', and demand that we acknowledge its validity! So, according to your thinking, the very existence of a star a million light years away somehow robs human life of its significance, since that 'giant ball of burning gases' can destroy life (I'm glad you acknowledge how dangerous the universe would be, if left to its own devices, which rather upsets your worldview, anyway). The fact that such a giant ball has not destroyed human life seems not to be of any concern to you. It is merely the fact that it has the potential to do so.

This is a bit like saying that we shouldn't invest any significance in bonfire night, because the great bonfire, if it got out of control, has the potential to destroy the lives of all the participants at the event. Or let's say that human life is 'insignificant' because the sun exists, because it's 'soooo big'!

C'mon, Natman, you can do better than this! You can't start imposing your value judgments on the universe and then use those very same value judgments to say that all human constructs do not reflect the way the universe is, but are merely human. You say there is no evidence that human constructs are inherent in the universe (i.e. objectively valid), and yet you expect us to believe that your idea of significance is objective and not simply a reflection of how your brain works. If your idea of significance is merely human, and therefore merely a property of Natman's brain, then it has no relevance to anyone else. So why expect us to pay any attention to what you say?

And if you start trying to appeal to something called 'logic', then you are tacitly acknowledging that logic has objective validity, and therefore must be something inherent within the universe. And if logic has objective validity, then why not beauty, morals and justice?

LSV,

Huh?

You talk about logic, but that post made no sense at all. You seem to equate significance with something else. Do you honestly think that the entirety of human existance is important compared to the scale and size of the universe? Are you really full of that much hubris?

"I'm glad you acknowledge how dangerous the universe would be, if left to its own devices, which rather upsets your worldview, anyway"

Left to its own devices? The universe -is- dangerous. And it functions perfectly well without any interferance. If you can claim otherwise, I'd be happy to review your claim and its validity. I'm sure you can drag out an ancient book from someplace that backs up your claim with perfect, non-disputable evidences.

'Do you honestly think that the entirety of human existance is important compared to the scale and size of the universe? Are you really full of that much hubris?'

Important to what, important to whom?

Natman -

Well your response just goes to show how little you understand about the things you claim. If all human thought is merely human and therefore entirely subjective, then all your thoughts fall into the same category. So why are you insisting that your way of thinking is the correct one, when you acknowledge that all ideas have no objective basis? The ideas associated with atheism have no more validity than the ideas associated with theism, of all human ideas are merely the physical product of the human brain. I'm amazed that you can't understand this simple point. And yet you have the nerve to talk about something called 'truth'!!!

According to your view of reality, everything that you have shared on this blog is merely a reflection of the way your brain works. So why expect anyone to pay any attention to what you say?

You are trying to have your cake and eat it.

It seems to me that I understand the logical implications of your world view better than you do.

Concerning the size of the universe: this is a physical phenomenon that has absolutely nothing to do with value judgments. If the observable universe was only, let's say, one light year across, would that make the human race more 'significant'? Of course not! The idea is ludicrous.

This 'spatial' argument against the value of man (and also the existence of God) has got to be one of the most illogical and emotionally driven arguments ever devised by the inflamed human imagination. It's a total irrelevance. In fact, the sheer vastness of the universe does not, in any way, contradict the Christian view. In fact, it supports it. Since we believe that God is eternal and all-powerful, then it follows that the creation reflects the nature of the creator. If the universe simply consisting of, let's say, the solar system, then perhaps you may have a point. But, as it is, you have no argument at all.

As for a dangerous universe: yes it is, when left to its own devices. Rather amazing then that life, in its incredible intricacy, delicacy and fragility has (according to your faith system) been able to survive and positively develop in such a dangerous universe for millions of years. You need a fantastic amount of faith to believe that, and I confess that I am a hopeless unbeliever and sceptic, who therefore has to settle for the good old default position of the 'intelligence explanation'.

I give up.

You're both convinced that humanity seems to occupy this special place in the universe depite the fact that there is nothing to support this view, and that, somehow, morals and ethics are hardwired into the universe.

Good luck with that mindset when something goes wrong for you and it must be part of some giant divinity inspired plot to 'get' you.

Natman -

You say you 'give up', but what exactly are you trying to convince us of?

Are you trying to convert people to a belief in total meaninglessness?

It's funny how atheistic scientists promote their world view by claiming 'it works', when, in fact, you know as well as I do that nothing can work without a belief in some kind of objective morality based on the significance and value of human life - an idea that derives from a theistic world view. The 'value of life' concept works, because it is objectively true.

If you are trying to convert me to a belief in amorality and the total insignificance of the human race, then you really are pursuing a very strange agenda indeed, because no one can truly live with that kind of belief system.

As for your parting shot about suffering, well, I've taken quite a few knocks in life. It's funny that they haven't driven me from a faith in God - quite the opposite, in fact. Why I wonder? Well, the answer is because God is real, and not merely an intellecual construct or a theory. If my faith in God is just a theory I cling to for various reasons, then I would have abandoned it years ago, in the face of adversity.

LSV,

How can you rationalise a loving, caring god with the multitude of mindless examples of suffering available to the discerning person? how can you justify the existance of a concept that condemns billions of people to an eternal suffering, just because they a) didn't know about said concept or b) were given free will to choose, and then didn't choose the 'right' one?

The only 'logical' answer to the massive levels of adversity, suffering, universal flaws and mindless malice of this existance is that there is no rational thought behind it. Otherwise you'd be able to see some form of pattern behind the events, both good and bad, that happen every day.

To try and assign some form of 'original sin' or 'Ineffable Plan' is plastering over the cracks and pretending it's all for the best and certainly not 'logical'.

The usual theistic strawman of assuming that just because morals don't come from god or some 'holy' book must mean there are no morals at all and we're all free to kill and steal as much as we like is typical, and about what I expected.

Natman

If your comments were approaching a critique of what Christians actually believed rather than a caricature of such, I might be persuaded to reply.

BTW, what is an "Ineffable Plan"? I've never heard of such a thing; then again, given that this kind of plan would be indescribable or inexpressible or beyond description or unutterable, it's hardly surprising.