Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

An unusually steep hill for naturalism to climb

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Readers may recall cosmologist Sean Carroll and his new book The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. At Science, science philosopher Barry Loewer reviews it, noting

Sean Carroll’s “poetic naturalism” tries to make naturalism palatable to the rest of us. However, the reviewer points out that there are unanswered questions. The last few paragraphs ask some questions that many of us would want to ask Carroll. For example:
“Another challenge is understanding how thought, consciousness, and free will fit into physical theory. [. . .] But poetic naturalism should not be satisfied until it can include an account of how these elements emerge from fundamental physics or, if such an account is not forthcoming, why they do not involve nonphysical fundamental ontology.” (paywall)

It is rare for anyone to put the matter so clearly. Anyone can come up with a naturalist theory that leaves out “how thought, consciousness, and free will fit.” The poetry is optional.

See also: Debunking the debunker: How Sean Carroll gets the fine-tuning argument wrong (Vincent Torley)

and

New Scientist astounds: Information is physical

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Andre: "The lot commentating here? Not one iota….." They can't. They really don't want to go insane.CannuckianYankee
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Clown fish wrote in response to me:
Provide some hard, observable, testable evidence that “God-did-it” is a better explanation than nat/mat and you might convince me. A good start would be to propose the nature of the designer (e.g.., material, immaterial, interdimentional…), propose possible mechanisms that the designer used to realize his design. Propose whether or not the designer is constrained by physical laws or is not bound by them. Once you have set the possible framework, you can start designing experiments/observations to test these hypotheses. Once you have compiled some testing data you can modify your original hypotheses to better reflect the data. Wash, rinse, repeat.
OK. I will play along with your game, but it is really obvious to me that you do not mean what you say. I know this because there already is abundant evidence that "God-did-it" is a superior answer. The FACT that you choose to not recognize this evidence as evidence is part of your blindness. To humor you I will try. I will present a very simple argument. Before I do it, I will outline my strategy so even a committed materialist can follow it. My strategy will be to prove that my opponent actually believes my position on a key assumption that invalidates his argument and supports mine. Since even my opponent takes this position on this key assumption, my conclusion is better. 1. First premise is that clown fish believes that clown fish has free will. Support of first premise Because he makes the statement: "...you might convince me." This indicates to me that clown fish is open to the suggestion that I might choose to present a series of abstract statements that he could evaluate ( not react to... but evaluate ) that would convince ( cause him to voluntarily change the state of his mind ) to my position. His openness to him being able to change his mind sounds an awful lot to me like he believes in free will. Second support of first premise.Someone who believes they have no free will can never be sure about any conclusion, because he may simply be stating something that is wrong, but is part of his conditioning. clown fish seems awfully sure of his position on materialism, so again, it seems he believes he has free will. Third support of first premise - clown fish makes no indication that he believes clown fish's free will is illusory. 2. Second premise: Free will can at best be illusory only under nat/mat. Why? Because no matter how complex of conglomerate you make of unintelligent particles responding to unguided forces, you can not come up with the ability of said conglomerate to exercise a will. Any perceived exercise of will must be illusory. 3. Third premise - free will is possible under ID because the intelligent being can grant free will to his created beings. 4. Conclusion 1 - clown fish seems to support the idea that the free will he believes he has is non-illusory free will, and nat/mat does not allow for non-illusory free will. THUS clown fish seems to provide evidence that id ( that is able to explain the existence of free will ) is a better explanation than nat/mat which excludes the possibility of non illusory free will. 5. Conclusion 2 - since my evidence that id is better than nat/mat stems from clown fish supporting the idea of free will. and clown fish is an opponent who has stated that nat/mat is better, clown fish must be in error. I must assume that clown fish unknowingly supports the idea that ID is a better explanation ( because it can possibly explain the observations ) than nat/mat ( which excludes the observations ). QEDJDH
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
DaveS So you agree with Thomas then? Good.Andre
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Andre, I don't know where you're going with this. Are you disputing that there is such a thing as human nature? For example that people are capable of suffering? In any case, I can't "quantify" all of human nature in a blog comment. Here's what I'm referring to:
The second thesis constituting the core of natural law moral theory is the claim that standards of morality are in some sense derived from, or entailed by, the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law").
daveS
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee Like I said Eric Harris is the only atheist I know that lived consistently with his subjective moral values. The lot commentating here? Not one iota.....Andre
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
DaveS YOU spoke about the nature of human beings please quantify it.Andre
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Andre,
DaveS What is the nature of human beings is a very simple question.
It is? I don't believe there is a short answer, in any case.
Also I did not say that thought is material only that it may be bothersome when you take it to its conclusion?
I don't think that I find the topic bothersome.daveS
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Andre @ 15: "The only atheist I know that lived according to the atheistic worldview was Eric Harris." "Isnt america supposed to be the land of the free? how come, If im free, I cant deprive some f***ing dumbs*** from his possessions If he leaves them sitting in the front seat of his f***ing van in plain sight in the middle of f***ing nowhere on a fri-f***ing-day night? Natural selection. F***er should be shot." Eric Harris I suppose Eric Harris believed, his thoughts were "subjectively good." And then we get this drivel: CF @ 20: "I am not sure what specific atheist claims you are talking about but the one that I have heard goes along the line of, if God is all good and loving, why does he allow children to suffer, to get cancer, to be abused, etc. This is spoken from the perspective that my subjective moral values tell me that children suffering is not subjectively good."CannuckianYankee
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
DaveS What is the nature of human beings is a very simple question. Also I did not say that thought is material only that it may be bothersome when you take it to its conclusion?Andre
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Andre,
The natural moral law follows from the nature of humans? What is the nature of humans?
That's kind of a broad question, isn't it? Here's one example: humans are capable of suffering.
I guess you don’t like giving those non material processes too much thought? Perhaps where it may lead you is bothersome?
Eh? I don't regard human thought as a material process, and that would certainly be involved in the "discovery" of natural moral law.daveS
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
JDH: "How about the world and all that is in it was created by an intelligent being who granted onto us, (among other things ), the gift of consciousness, understanding and free will. To be consistent Seversky must answer, “Nat/mat is better than that explanation”" Provide some hard, observable, testable evidence that "God-did-it" is a better explanation than nat/mat and you might convince me. A good start would be to propose the nature of the designer (e.g.., material, immaterial, interdimentional...), propose possible mechanisms that the designer used to realize his design. Propose whether or not the designer is constrained by physical laws or is not bound by them. Once you have set the possible framework, you can start designing experiments/observations to test these hypotheses. Once you have compiled some testing data you can modify your original hypotheses to better reflect the data. Wash, rinse, repeat.clown fish
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
DaveS The natural moral law follows from the nature of humans? What is the nature of humans? I guess you don't like giving those non material processes too much thought? Perhaps where it may lead you is bothersome?Andre
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Andre,
Where does this non material thing like natural moral law come from if material processes are not involved?
Well, I said that material processes may not be all that is involved in the discovery of natural moral law. Which is not to say material processes are not involved whatsoever. Anyway, it is claimed that the natural moral law follows from the nature of humans and of the world.daveS
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
DaveS Where does this non material thing like natural moral law come from if material processes are not involved?Andre
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Andre,
DaveS Again morality can’t emerge from non morality regardless of the mechanism because material processes hold no power over non material ones.
Well, I'm not assuming that material processes are all that is involved. I stated above that the natural moral law is supposed to be accessible to human reason, which I'm not claiming is a material process.daveS
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
DaveS Again morality can't emerge from non morality regardless of the mechanism because material processes hold no power over non material ones. Do you think morality is made of any material Dave? Let me ask you when you speak of reason what do you ground it in? What is your objective standard?Andre
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Seversky:
I get that a lot of people don’t like the nat/mat approach but the reality is that, so far, no one has come up with anything better.
Me: Here is something I propose is better than the nat/mat view. How about the world and all that is in it was created by an intelligent being who granted onto us, (among other things ), the gift of consciousness, understanding and free will. To be consistent Seversky must answer, "Nat/mat is better than that explanation" Me: WHY? What makes nat/mat better? Why should I believe nat/mat when it is internally contradictory? In other words, Why is it not better to believe something that is hard to believe ( ID ) over something which is impossible(nat/mat)? Or is Seversky just too blind to understand the inherent contradictions in nat/mat that render it impossible..JDH
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Andre,
DaveS morality cannot evolve from non-morality Darwinian mechanisms can only work with matter, it has no power over that, which are not made of atoms.
The natural moral law is supposed to be accessible to humans through reason. Correct? I'm not saying anything about evolution or atoms.
You are aware that an opinion is known as an intentional state right? Intentional states are not made of matter.
Yes, I agree that opinions are not made of matter.daveS
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
DaveS morality cannot evolve from non- morality Darwinian mechanisms can only work with matter, it has no power over that, which are not made of atoms. You are aware that an opinion is known as an intentional state right? Intentional states are not made of matter.Andre
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
DaveS Subjective moral values are mere opinions on matters.
In the view I described above, they are "mere opinions" that have been shaped by thousands of years of human experience, so I wouldn't dismiss them so quickly. In fact, one could argue that they would ultimately converge to natural moral law, which is supposed to be objective. Atheists are not precluded from accepting the existence of natural moral law.daveS
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
DaveS Subjective moral values are mere opinions on matters. There is no such thing as a subjective good kill or a subjective bad kill..... This world and it's hippie leftists have all gone mad.... Might as well call for the killing of old people according to Clown fish, it will be subjectivly good... less clutter more food, less expenses on medical bills for burdened families.Andre
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
or related note, Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be 'intolerable' for him to live as if his atheistic worldview were true and to live as if he did not actually exist as a real person.
Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html also see Faith and Science - Dr. Raymond Bohlin - video - (2015) (48:46 minute mark) https://youtu.be/vTIp1kgSqzU?t=2552
As to atheists being psychopaths:
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
This psychopathic characteristic inherent to the atheistic philosophy is born out empirically, in that people who do not believe in a soul tend to be more psychopathic than the majority of normal people in America who do believe in a soul.
A scientific case for conceptual dualism: The problem of consciousness and the opposing domains hypothesis. - Anthony I. Jack - 2013 Excerpt page 18:  we predicted that psychopaths would not be able to perceive the problem of consciousness.,, In a series of five experiments (Jack, in preparation), we found a highly replicable and robust negative correlation (r~-0.34) between belief in dualism and the primary psychopathic trait of callous affect7. Page 24: Clearly these findings fit well with the hypothesis (Robbins and Jack, 2006) that psychopaths can’t see the problem of consciousness8. Taking these finding together with other work on dehumanization and the anti-social effects of denying the soul and free will, they present a powerful picture. When we see persons, that is, when we see others as fellow humans, then our percept is of something essentially non-physical nature. This feature of our psychology appears to be relevant to a number of other philosophical issues, including the tension between utilitarian principles and deontological concerns about harming persons (Jack et al., accepted), the question of whether God exists (Jack et al., under review-b), and the problem of free will9. http://tonyjack.org/files/2013%20Jack%20A%20scientific%20case%20for%20conceptual%20dualism%20%281%29.pdf Why Don't Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? The Role of Opposing Brain Networks Anthony Jack (Case Western Reserve University, Cognitive Science, Cleveland, OH In a theoretical paper linking the attribution of phenomenal consciousness to moral cognition, Robbins and Jack (Philosophical Studies, 2006) predicted that psychopaths would not perceive the problem of consciousness. New experimental evidence is presented which supports this claim: in a group of undergraduates it was found that support for a naturalistic view of the mind is positively correlated with the primary psychopathic trait of callousness. http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/goinggreen.html
Of note: Anthony Jack himself is a physicalist. In trying to develop a physical theory of consciousness he proposes that for most people the problem of consciousness, the appearance of dualism, is caused by different brain networks used for thinking about mechanisms (ie how the brain works) and for understanding social situations (ie how people feel). According to Jack, it isn’t a natural gap but a gap due to brain physiology and psychopaths lack social thinking (are callous) so they don’t see the problem. Of related note:
“, I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false Knowledge of the afterlife deters suicide. Lessons From the Light by Kenneth Ring and Evelyn Elsaesser p.257-258: As far as I know, the first clinician to make use of NDE material in this context was a New York psychologist named John McDonagh. In 1979, he presented a paper at a psychological convention that described his success with several suicidal patients using a device he called “NDE bibliotherapy.” His “technique” was actually little more than having his patients read some relevant passages from Raymond Moody’s book, Reflections on Life after Life, after which the therapist and his patient would discuss its implications for the latter’s own situation. McDonagh reports that such an approach was generally quite successful not only in reducing suicidal thoughts but also in preventing the deed altogether. … Since McDonagh’s pioneering efforts, other clinicians knowledgeable about the NDE who have had the opportunity to counsel suicidal patients have also reported similar success. Perhaps the most notable of these therapists is Bruce Greyson, a psychiatrist now at the University of Virginia, whose specialty as a clinician has been suicidology. He is also the author of a classic paper on NDEs and suicide which the specialist may wish to consult for its therapeutic implications. (14) Quite apart from the clinicians who have developed this form of what we might call “NDE-assisted therapy,” I can draw upon my own personal experience here to provide additional evidence of how the NDE has helped to deter suicide. The following case,,, http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/video-lecture-by-john-lennox-explains.html Lack of ultimate meaning in life associated with alcohol abuse, drug addiction and other mental health problems - August 2015 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150813092911.htm
also of note:
“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” George MacDonald - Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood - 1892
Evidence to that effect
Scientific evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul (Elaboration on Talbott's question “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”)– video 2016 https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1116313858381546/?type=2&theater
bornagain77
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Andre: "For the last time and read carefully… when something is subjective it is neither right or wrong, nor is it good or bad it is just an opinion." Things can be subjectively right or wrong (good or bad) because right and wrong (good and bad) are themselves subjective. Killing someone can be subjectively good or subjectively bad, depending on the circumstances. Cutting someone with a knife can be subjectively good or subjectively bad depending on the circumstances. "And from your answer you agree then you don’t live your worldview." Sure I do. "You do live if justice is real if they break into your house and steal all your belongings and the perpetrators are caught you will demand justice." True. But that wasn't your claim. You said that atheists live as if justice is real. Which is not true. We all live hoping that justice is real, but knowing full well that it does not always exist. Those are two very different things. "Lastly atheists bemoan evil all the time, they can’t reconcile evil with a good God it is one of their major points you intellectually dishonest person!" Maybe this is because you are not listening carefully to what atheists say. I am not sure what specific atheist claims you are talking about but the one that I have heard goes along the line of, if God is all good and loving, why does he allow children to suffer, to get cancer, to be abused, etc. This is spoken from the perspective that my subjective moral values tell me that children suffering is not subjectively good. As I said, evil and sin are theistic constructs.clown fish
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Andre,
Atheists live as if objective morality is true.
Well, I don't know that atheists are forbidden to believe in objective morality. I accept that there are objectively true facts about the universe, so perhaps there are objective moral truths as well. However, I don't know that I can defend any such moral truths beyond simply asserting they are such, so I will take the "subjectivist" position here. I might differ with some of the others here in that I don't claim to live as if objective morality is true. I live according to a moral system which humans have devised and refined over the millennia. Perhaps it has objective components, perhaps not.
Atheists live as if justice is real. Atheists live as if good and evil exist.
Yes, well I do, anyway. But I don't see that real things necessarily have to be objective. I understand the concepts of justice, good, and evil from a human perspective, from within our (possible subjective) moral system. Would those things still exist if there were no minds in the universe to think about them? That's the criterion I'm using for "objective". I don't know.daveS
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Clown fish: Born-again is wrong.
Just you saying it doesn't make it so.
Clown fish: Again, Seversky can correct me if I am misinterpreting him, but he used a five step argument very similar to Bornagain’s to demonstrate that the conclusion from a logically consistent argument is not always valid.
And in order to demonstrate his unremarkable claim, Seversky used a ("obviously") false premise. Well ... no one claims that reasoning based on false premises leads to valid conclusions.Origenes
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Clown fish For the last time and read carefully... when something is subjective it is neither right or wrong, nor is it good or bad it is just an opinion. And from your answer you agree then you don't live your worldview. You do live if justice is real if they break into your house and steal all your belongings and the perpetrators are caught you will demand justice. Lastly atheists bemoan evil all the time, they can't reconcile evil with a good God it is one of their major points you intellectually dishonest person!Andre
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Andre: "Atheists live as if objective morality is true." Agreed. But we are smart enough to know that this is not true. "Atheists live as if justice is real." Nobody lives as if justice is real. "Atheists live as if good and evil exist." No, we live as if there are things that are right and wrong according to our subjective morality. We leave evil and sin to the theists. "i>Matter of fact it is atheists themselves that bemoan the fact that evil is real and a reason God does not exist. Afterall why would a good God allow it?" I am sure that some atheists have used the word evil, but it does not mean that they believe that evil exists. Any more than an evolutionist thinks that life was designed when they talk about the "design" of the heart. We are all guilty of sloppy grammar and word choices.clown fish
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
DaveS The premise is true here is why. Atheists live as if objective morality is true. Atheists live as if justice is real. Atheists live as if good and evil exist. Matter of fact it is atheists themselves that bemoan the fact that evil is real and a reason God does not exist Afterall why would a good God allow it? The only atheist I know that lived according to the atheistic worldview was Eric Harris.Andre
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Origenes,
Bornagain’s second premise “Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview” still stands.
Do you believe this premise is true? It's not at all clear to me that it is true.daveS
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
On the incoherence and amorality of evolutionary materialist scientism (and by extension of fellow traveller views that are built to fit with it). F/N: For a start-point for alternative, try the Derek Smith two-tier controller cybernetic loop model. Here on too, on worldview building.kairosfocus
May 31, 2016
May
05
May
31
31
2016
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply