Naturalism is a priori evolutionary materialism, so it both begs the question and self-refutes

_{kairosfocus

October 19, 2010

Academic Freedom, Atheism, Darwinism, Design inference, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Multiverse, Philosophy, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The thesis expressed in the title of this “opening bat” post is plainly controversial, and doubtless will be hotly contested and/or pointedly ignored. However, when all is said and done, it will be quite evident that it has the merit that it just happens to be both true and well-warranted.

So, let us begin.

Noted Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin inadvertently lets the cat out of the bag in his well-known January 1997 New York Review of Books article, “Billions and Billions of Demons”:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . .

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that

we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Emphases added.]

No wonder, a few months later, noted Intelligent Design thinker Philip Johnson aptly rebutted, in First Things:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

. . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

The matter is actually as simple as that.

In the end, that’s why there is so much heat and smoke rather than light in the controversy over Evolution, Creation and Design. For, much is at stake institutionally, educationally and culturally, and yet it turns on something so simple and obviously fallacious as aggressive materialist ideology-driven begging of worldview questions presented under the false colours of science.

Now, them’s fighting words, so let us justify them by citing what the US National Academy of Science wrote in the 2008 edition of their long-running pamphlet, Science, Evolution and Creationism:

In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. Any scientific explanation has to be testable — there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it. Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing. [Science, Evolution and Creationism, 2008, p. 10 Emphases added.]

Observe that ever so subtly loaded imposition: science “must” explain by natural causes. That is, by matter, energy, space, time, their spontaneous interactions on chance and mechanical necessity, thence what plausibly derives from that on the evolutionary materialist narrative, including life and intelligence.

Immediately, we should ask: just what is “natural”? And, right after that: why is it contrasted to “supernatural” (instead of say, “artificial”)? [More . . . ]

Comments

StephenB, Taking it in reverse order, I would surely echo those who challenge Darwinists [and TEs] to show how solely naturalistic forces can drive the macro-evolutionary process. Indeed, those of us on this side of the argument HAVE issued the challenge, and it has not been met. If there is no evidence for such a proposition, and there isn’t, why would you take it seriously? 'Show how solely naturalistic forces can drive the macro-evolutionary process'? It can't be done, even in principle. This is part of my complaint here: You're not only asking for a demonstration that naturalistic forces (and by naturalistic, it really seems you mean 'unguided, undirected, unintentional') can accomplish this or that thing, you're assuming - or at least, you would have to assume for this challenge to make sense - that processes in nature are unguided, undirected, without intention. However, I think a little perspective is in order here. YECs do not make me cringe. It is the Darwinists who make me cringe. I didn't bring up YECs, directly or indirectly. What makes me cringe is that nature screams design and guidance, the Darwinist replies 'Let me show you how processes can yield these results you see! That will demonstrate the lack of design and guidance!', and it seems many people say "I dare you!" instead of "If you succeeded, you would be demonstrating a design tool employed by a designer." The capability of natural processes to accomplish these things is the Darwinists [and the Theistic Evolutionists] main claim, asserted, I might add, in the name of science. I think it is vitally important to know if it is true or untrue. Based on current evidence, we can safely say that it is likely untrue. If it is untrue, teleology is back on the table. That is big. And thomists and TEs who actually have a spine say that teleology is 'back on the table' because it never left the table, and 'natural processes accomplishing things' could never hope to unseat it. This is like playing Texas Hold 'em, having a royal flush in your hand at the flop, then angsting about whether or not you'll get ANOTHER ace on the turn or river. It's not necessary. I can grant, design doesn't need to have taken place through evolution or natural processes. Maybe there was more direct or sudden intervention, and we should certainly investigate and even speculate about that. But design can take place wholly through natural processes as well - do you deny this? Does ID deny this? And a natural process unfolding according to a design, or operating under a design, is not 'wholly naturalistic' in the relevant sense. Call it a competing form of ID if you wish. Also, I am still puzzled about your main theme here. On the one hand, you seem to acknowledge that ID’s main trailblazers [Dembksi, Behe, Meyers etc] and all ID administrators, authors, and posters on this thread, [there must be a least a hundred of them], understand and agree that the laws of nature were designed. No, I didn't say that. I agreed with the claim that ID does not demand that the laws of nature or that 'mundane' natural processes and objects are not designed. I said that in spite of this it seemed to be the case that particular ID proponents took the view that those processes and objects were not in fact designed. Let me quote you. Yourself: The capability of natural processes to accomplish these things is the Darwinists [and the Theistic Evolutionists] main claim, asserted, I might add, in the name of science. I think it is vitally important to know if it is true or untrue. Based on current evidence, we can safely say that it is likely untrue. If it is untrue, teleology is back on the table. ... I would surely echo those who challenge Darwinists [and TEs] to show how solely naturalistic forces can drive the macro-evolutionary process. Kairosfocus, if I take him right, argues that it's entirely possible for natural mechanisms themselves as well as more basic natural objects to be designed - but that that requires a foray into metaphysics. And I'm okay with someone taking that stance, though oddly enough I don't think - if we're going to insist that ID itself is not sufficiently 'metaphysical' enough to rule out - that it needs to be ruled out. But keep in mind what this position adds up to if taken consistently: There is no possible scientific demonstration of 'purely naturalistic' forces accomplishing anything. The mere possibility of a plan or guidance, whether in a front-loaded or intervention sense, precludes this. The funny thing here is, look at Stephen Barr and Michael Behe's debate. Both of them - both! - objected to evolution (and the mechanisms and processes at work in it) being characterized as an impersonal, unguided, purposeless process. Barr took the position that we should be seeking out language like this in science textbooks and removing them (though to be frank, I think he's a bit naive in thinking this would happen without a fight and duplicity.) Behe's complaint was that, if such metaphysical smuggling was going on already, it granted license to include ID in the textbooks (you'll note the similarity between this position and my own.) But I still took it that Behe agreed with Barr in objecting to that language, thinking it was beyond the scope of science. But oddly enough, if you think that 'wholly naturalistic' processes - unless you mean something other than 'unguided' or 'impersonal' and so on - are demonstrable, that puts you in a very curious position. One where Barr the TE, possibly Behe the ID proponent, and certainly myself and other design-believers are on the side of insisting there is evident design in nature, with you granting that this is not the case. Say I'm wrong here - I'd welcome that. But maybe you can at least see why I'm getting the impression that, at least in this case, we oddly enough have ID proponents either arguing against design in nature, or at least seem willing to grant that there is none in these cases for the sake of argument. (I expect you to deny this. I hope you do. Because even Karl Giberson, if I recall right, was willing to talk about the notion of evolution being guided and itself the product of a mind. And man, you do not want to be less committed to design in nature than the Biologos guys.)nullasalus_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

---nullasalus: “I am simply contrasting two different methods of ‘design detection’, [ID, Thomism] for lack of a better phrase.” It sounds like a good phrase to me, and yes, you are right. They are two different [though compatible] methods of design detection. --- “Look, I follow ID news constantly. Not just on here – I hit intelligentdesign.org regularly, I’m on the mailing list. All I can say is that I at least somewhat often see ‘evolution’ derided – not merely Darwinism, but evolution – or natural processes placed *in opposition* to ID. Are you honestly going to tell me that there are not regular claims where ID ideas are proposed, and the challenge is for atheists and naturalists to show how ‘unguided and natural processes’ could account for this or that feat?” I think you are mixing apples with oranges. Your second point, which I do not advocate, does not really tie in with your first point, which I do advocate. Taking it in reverse order, I would surely echo those who challenge Darwinists [and TEs] to show how solely naturalistic forces can drive the macro-evolutionary process. Indeed, those of us on this side of the argument HAVE issued the challenge, and it has not been met. If there is no evidence for such a proposition, and there isn’t, why would you take it seriously? On the other hand, I do not deride the idea of a guided macro “evolution” [universal common descent]. While I am not completely convinced of it by any means, [Cornelius Hunter, BornAgain 77, and others make some really good counter arguments] I often argue as if I assumed it was true because the ID paradigm can grant the point for the sake of argument and sill win the day. However, I think a little perspective is in order here. YECs do not make me cringe. It is the Darwinists who make me cringe. To suggest that God made the earth in seven days [unlikely] is not nearly as problematic as saying that universes [and life forms] can create themselves out of nothing [impossible]. To hear the theistic evolutionists talk, YECs are crazy for proposing the improbable and Darwinists are brilliant for asserting the impossible. ---“When I see ID proponents point out the amazing architecture in cells, or the existence (and technology!) of the genetic code, and various other things – and then say ‘Now the naturalist has to show how these things came about through unguided and purposeless processes!’, I cringe. It’s like watching a guy play blackjack, hit 21, and yell “Hit me!” Not because natural processes as we know them can accomplish these things, but because it’s a useless step that distracts from their strongest points. The capability of natural processes to accomplish these things hardly matters except for specific design proposals.” ID has to answer the aggressive and intrusive claim from Darwinists that evidence for biological design is an illusion and cannot possibly be anything else. The capability of natural processes to accomplish these things is the Darwinists [and the Theistic Evolutionists] main claim, asserted, I might add, in the name of science. I think it is vitally important to know if it is true or untrue. Based on current evidence, we can safely say that it is likely untrue. If it is untrue, teleology is back on the table. That is big. ---“Let me ask you clearly. What do you want me to provide to show you what I’m speaking of, and that it isn’t just self-described naturalists? Would quotes of ID proponents saying that natural processes of various types are unguided and purposeless (and thus could never accomplish certain things) suffice?” I think you need to go to the next step which you claim follows from that complaint. Show me that some mainstream ID proponents are guilty of arguing that the laws of nature were not designed. It sounds like someone’s caricature of Dembski’s explanatory filter and not the real thing. Also, I am still puzzled about your main theme here. On the one hand, you seem to acknowledge that ID’s main trailblazers [Dembksi, Behe, Meyers etc] and all ID administrators, authors, and posters on this thread, [there must be a least a hundred of them], understand and agree that the laws of nature were designed. On the other hand, you don’t accept this as definitive of the ID position because you know of other ID supporters who, based on your reports, disagree. At the same time, you tell me that you are not holding the views of the former accountable for the views of the latter. I don’t get it. ---“The idea that ‘naturalism’ is anything more than intellectual clay that can be molded into anything whatsoever so long as it rejects particular religious beliefs. The idea that even ‘physicalism’ is well-defined anymore. I agree with you that naturalism is an elusive concept.StephenB_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

TGP: O/T. This site on bankfishing USA may be interesting, and this on Southern California surf fishing, too. Time for a good old fish fry! Escoveitched fish, Jamaican style. (I remember Gramma E, esco fish, bammie and spoon-standing thick gungo peas soup like it was yesterday.) G +++++++++++++++ PS: Since there are so many fishermen around UD, on both sides, maybe we need an O/T forum on that and like topics of mutual, neutral interest -- it will I am sure help the dynamics in the hotter discussions. I believe in the civilising influence of angling and water recreations! (Walton had somewhat to say on that.)kairosfocus_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

Folks: Interesting onward exchanges. I would love to see many threads of discussion teased out and brought to a reasonable consensus, even if that is just clarification of where we differ, why. As to the issue of ID and design beyond empirical detectability, I think that is probably one of the points that needs some balanced clarification. 1 --> I have pointed out (often) that when we shift from the signs of design in C Chemistry, cell based life [CCCBL] on earth, to the evidence that points to an observed cosmos set to a fine-tuned operating point as a system/environment that facilitates/makes possible such CCCBL, we have empirical warrant for inferring the design of the cosmos as a whole. 2 --> On what we can see in the world around us, not on metaphysical a prioris. 3 --> Which is vital. We can be far more confident on the degree of warrant for specific than for grand worldviews as a whole lump. So, when we look to warrant for worldviews, it is far wiser to start form the well warranted matters of observable, public fact, so that we hold ourselves properly accountable over factual adequacy of worldviews. 4 --> When it comes to the design inference, we have just such a case of well warranted fact. Namely, we live in a world where chance, necessity and design are all known proximate causal factors. 5 --> Let's get concrete. Drop a fair, unloaded die, it falls by necessity. It tumbles to read a value by chance. Alternatively, we could set it to read a value by intent, or a crook can load it to read a value not by chance but by intelligently built-in bias. 6 --> From many such cases, we have built up a considerable basis of common sense and technical praxis on detecting chance, necessity and design, not least to prevent being manipulated and taken advantage of, or to find out the best treatments to give in practical situations like agriculture, the classroom or the medical clinic. [Cf. above on ANOVA and experiment design. Yes, design. The experimental method puts design into the heart of science, and design detection as well, not least in cases of scientific malpractice. the case of Sir Cyril Burt's separated twins studies on inheritance of IQ is a classic of how intelligent design of faked results had significant impact on practice in the field, and later on -- once computers were there to make data cross-checking easier -- the cheat was detected by the data being too close to the ideal theoretical model to be credible as real-world statistical data. Design vs chance, detected in a key and important field with significant policy consequences. Including on the debates over bell curves, class and race.] 7 --> In many fields, we routinely identify credible signs of intelligent design, and use them. 8 --> But, as we will see, once such signs run afoul of a priori evolutionary materialism, imposed via the trojan horse of the seemingly reasonable methodological naturalism, the a priori commitment to materialism that Lewontin highlighted censors the content of science, and frustrates inference to best explanation on the credible causal factors responsible for, say, life. 9 --> For instance, dFSCI is a plainly routine and reliable sign of design, on our observation, stand to witness the whole field of computer technology. And, we have very strong reasons linked to the statistical foundation of the second law of thermodynamics to see that it is not credible to see undirected chance configurations and changes acting with equally undirected forces of mechanical necessity on the gamut of our observed cosmos, spontaneously getting us to the sorts of islands of function that are needed to have metabolising, self-replicating cell based life using DNA, RNA and effecting machines. 10 --> So, what is the response? First, censorship [and even expulsion of dissenters]. 11 --> Second, suddenly we see ad hoc proposals of quasi-infinite multiverses -- for which there is not an iota of solid independent observational evidence, and in some cases the proposals would rule out such observations -- that work to try to expand the scope of space and matter to undertake configurations. 12 --> With some pretty bizarre and even absurd consequences. But, evolutionary materialism is the worldview-tinged hard core to be defended at all costs, it seems. Never mind question-begging and self-referential incoherence of this philosophical agenda -- it most certainly is not primarily science, though nowadays it is usually dressed up in a lab coat. 13 --> But, instead, if we reject this a priorism which is why "naturalism" is a priori evolutionary materialism, we have an alternative. 14 --> Namely, we can start with the humble step by step process of scientific warrant of basic facts and hypotheses. 15 --> Careful observation will show that there are empirically reliable signs of intelligent design, such as digitally coded, functionally specific complex information. Such dFSCI is a commonplace in textual information, and in now ubiquitous computer and digital information system technology. 16 --> So we are well warranted to infer that dFSCI is a well-rested, reliable sign of intelligent design. 17 --> Thence, to use it freely -- albeit provisionally [a counter-instance would falsify!] -- as a recognised signature of such design: intelligently directed configuration of informational and information-processing elements towards function. 18 --> And so, when we see the joint presence of metabolism and a von Neumann type self-replicating mechanism in life forms, we are well-warranted to provisionally infer that they are designed. Not on a priorism about the world, but on empirical data and inductively warranted inference from such. 19 --> Does that mean that he cosmos as a who9le is not designed, or that the chance mechanisms we see or the mechanical laws of our cosmos are not equally designed? No, it is just a question of empirical warrant eon publicly accessible in-common evidence. And that life on earth is designed does not tell us who did it, or whether that designer or set of designers are within or beyond our observed cosmos. As has been openly stated since Thaxton et al, TMLO, 1984. 20 --> And in fact, on other empirical signs of design, i.e. the presence of fine-tuned operating points for multipart, complex functional systems, we have good enough reason to infer that the cosmos is designed, too. Without getting into metaphysical debates. 21 --> So, GP's empirical warrant based approach is very important and useful. ___________________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I don’t think we should expect everyone who associates himself with the ID paradigms to be a responsible metaphysician. Indeed, a great many prominent scientists know next to nothing about philosophy and often demonstrate that fact in public. Bostrom's a philosopher I believe, though if you shoot back "that doesn't mean he knows a damn thing about philosophy", I'd be inclined to agree. :) Nor do I think ID or ID proponents should 'associate themselves' with anyone in particular. But, I also think an ID argument is an ID argument, no matter how radical. Don't you agree? On the other hand, ID science, AS SCIENCE, is committed to neutrality on metaphysical questions about lawgivers. Why would you expect otherwise? As one who doesn’t even think that ID can do what it claims it can do [measure the effects of design] why would you expect it to do something it knows it can’t do [identify a lawgiver as a lawgiver]? Two things. I don't expect otherwise. In fact, I'm saying that you should call a spade a spade, and Bostrom and Gribbin should be tagged as employing ID arguments. In fact I have written repeatedly for my *admiration* for Dembski in his willingness to say just how broad the ID tent is in principle (platonic demiurges, simulated universes, impersonal telic processes, etc). My point was that if Gribbin and Bostrom count as ID proponents (and there are others who could be added to that list) - and I have to say, fringe as they are, they seem to qualify - then there are some ID proponents who seemingly would deny the existence of 'lawgivers'. Second, I don't believe I've said that ID arguments can't 'measure the effects of design'. In fact, my understanding is that ID doesn't even try to prove design, but infer it. And I believe design can be inferred, strongly and powerfully. I'm even saying that ID proponents should regard and argue that mundane processes and parts of nature are in fact artifacts, or at the very least not concede that these things are unguided, without purpose, etc. My position is that ID is not science and that it fails to be so because science is rightly far more anemic than most people appreciate. Further, my position has always been a bit nuanced and conditional: I have said outright that if talking about 'totally unguided, impersonal' processes and mechanisms, and claims that there are no design in nature (even in minute areas) are 'scientific', then ID is science as well. Darwinism as Darwin and Jerry Coyne know it, in my view, is not science either. As I indicated earlier, detecting design patterns in the universe does not require or even encourage the ID advocate to suggest that other physical processes are not designed. I honestly don’t know why you would think otherwise. I don't think ID requires this. I think it just happens to be the case. More on that below. ID does not conflict with Thomism at all. Sorry, that's not what I meant. I am making no claims here that thomism is 'opposed' to ID. I am simply contrasting two different methods of 'design detection', for lack of a better phrase. Yes, and I suspect that most ID proponents, when they don their philosopher’s hat, would likely say the same thing. For what it is worth, I would, and do. You do, yes. I can think of a few others who may. I don't think this is a majority position. Look, I follow ID news constantly. Not just on here - I hit intelligentdesign.org regularly, I'm on the mailing list. All I can say is that I at least somewhat often see 'evolution' derided - not merely Darwinism, but evolution - or natural processes placed *in opposition* to ID. Are you honestly going to tell me that there are not regular claims where ID ideas are proposed, and the challenge is for atheists and naturalists to show how 'unguided and natural processes' could account for this or that feat? When I see ID proponents point out the amazing architecture in cells, or the existence (and technology!) of the genetic code, and various other things - and then say 'Now the naturalist has to show how these things came about through unguided and purposeless processes!', I cringe. It's like watching a guy play blackjack, hit 21, and yell "Hit me!" Not because natural processes as we know them can accomplish these things, but because it's a useless step that distracts from their strongest points. The capability of natural processes to accomplish these things hardly matters except for specific design proposals. The offenders that you refer to are self-described naturalists who would NOT be inclined to know better. Do you have any local examples of this phenomenon you describe? Are there any ID proponents who regularly visit this site that would fall into this category of unwittingly supporting the materialist position? Let me ask you clearly. What do you want me to provide to show you what I'm speaking of, and that it isn't just self-described naturalists? Would quotes of ID proponents saying that natural processes of various types are unguided and purposeless (and thus could never accomplish certain things) suffice? I'm not trying to hold anyone accountable for anyone else's problems here. I'm stating my case and citing some of what I've seen for why I'm stating my case. As for credit being given to atheism and naturalism, I've been arguing about it here - the idea that 'naturalism' is anything more than intellectual clay that can be molded into anything whatsoever so long as it rejects particular religious beliefs. The idea that even 'physicalism' is well-defined anymore. And of course my worry that ID proponents regularly at least seem to me to cede that evolution and natural processes and objects are not themselves instances of design, or that no design can be inferred from them.nullasalus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

---nullasalus: “Nick Bostrom argues that it’s possible we live in a computer simulation, that our whole universe is an intentionally created program. He’s also a self-described naturalist, and argues his simulation argument is not only compatible with ‘materialism’ but requires it. John Gribbin proposes that, given a multiverse, intelligence will come to dominate and become the principle means by which new universes propagate (they will create universes, etc).” I don’t think we should expect everyone who associates himself with the ID paradigms to be a responsible metaphysician. Indeed, a great many prominent scientists know next to nothing about philosophy and often demonstrate that fact in public. ---"These seem to be ID ideas. But if we’re going to allow simulation theories and ‘creating universes’ on the table, then yes, the idea of an ultimate lawgiver in the sense you mean is an open question in ID.” Intelligent Design science, if understood within a reasonable metaphysical framework, would certainly be consistent with any argument that proposes a lawgiver. However, the ID community is hardly in a position to insist that everyone who carries its banner should also be a responsible metaphysician. On the other hand, ID science, AS SCIENCE, is committed to neutrality on metaphysical questions about lawgivers. Why would you expect otherwise? As one who doesn't even think that ID can do what it claims it can do [measure the effects of design] why would you expect it to do something it knows it can't do [identify a lawgiver as a lawgiver]? ----“But that does have the odd side effect of conflicting with a core commitment stated on this site, about the opposition to materialism.” This site is committed to opposing materialistic ideology that intrudes itself in the scientific process. It is not necessarily committed to the practice of condemning all materialists who claim to support ID science. A materialist who believes in intelligent design, though not philosophically coherent, is obviously not committed to materialist ideology, which refuses to consider intelligent design as a scientific option. ----“I would be shocked if, even among the ID proponents here, evolution and other more mundane physical processes are anything but ‘purposeless’ and ‘mindless’. That's interesting, because I would be shocked if ANY regular ID contributor on this site thinks that physical processes are purposeless. ---“ I would be very pleased if they even went so far as to say science is incapable of making the determination of whether these ‘mundane’ processes and mechanisms are themselves artifacts, but that certain more particular things (flagellum, etc) are different cases. But the contrast I entirely see is ID versus ‘unguided, purposeless processes’, with the assumption that evolution, chemical interactions, etc are exactly that.” As I indicated earlier, detecting design patterns in the universe does not require or even encourage the ID advocate to suggest that other physical processes are not designed. I honestly don't know why you would think otherwise. ---z’That is one thing that appeals to me about thomism versus ID. Z’ ID does not conflict with Thomism at all. I suspect that we have devoted 10-15 threads to that very subject. The more we emphasize the point, the less the theistic evolutionists who make the accusation will engage us on the matter. ---“Thomism is willing to argue that even the mundane processes in the universe show design of a sort.” Yes, and I suspect that most ID proponents, when they don their philosopher’s hat, would likely say the same thing. For what it is worth, I would, and do. The nature of things and the way they behave [not the sensibly perceptible ID patterns] also indicate design, albeit not a scientifically detectable design. Final causes are not at war with formal causes—they are both part of the same reality. Truth is unified. It is the theistic evolutionists who want to split things up and compartmentalize. ---“But I really do see many ID proponents (keeping in mind Dembski’s claim that ID does not rule out that ‘everything is guided’) immediately conceding that these various aspects of nature are exactly what many atheists, materialists and naturalists say they are.” This seems like a very strange interpretation to me. Why not simply take Dembski at his word and assume that all other major players are of the same mind? With respect to those on the fringe, I know of no way to insure that everyone who associates himself with ID science will also be a good philosopher or an worthy ambassador. ---“Believe me, I want that not to be the case. It’s part of the reason I’m in this thread – because I see so much, too much, credit given to atheism and naturalism, but the people who should know better.” The offenders that you refer to are self-described naturalists who would NOT be inclined to know better. Do you have any local examples of this phenomenon you describe? Are there any ID proponents who regularly visit this site that would fall into this category of unwittingly supporting the materialist position? The next time it happens, if it does, please call my attention to it so we can catch that person in the act. My guess is that we will have a long wait. Better still, why not simply go with the many ID proponents who do good philosophy and eschew the few who do not? Surely, you would not want to hold the former group accountable for the irrational behavior of the latter group.StephenB_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler, Yes, though add the Dennett quote to the list. The universe created itself ex nihilo? Good Lord. I think someone once told me he wrote/thought that, and I wrote it off as "Heh, they're kidding probably. He wouldn't be that crazy."nullasalus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

argh. nullasalus re. "fantastic find" was that in reference to naturalism definitions?tgpeeler_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Daniel Dennett is the Richard Dawkins of philosophy. One could make a career of just following along behind him correcting all of the blatant error he spews onto an unsuspecting public. One of my Dennett favorites is from Breaking The Spell, he says on page 244: "It (the universe) … does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo." This from an alleged philosopher. The universe created itself. I have GOT to go. Adios amigos.tgpeeler_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler, No rush at all. I often hear Searle complimented as 'Fantastic as a critic, not so good at offering solutions', which seems right. Dennett... I have little nice to say about Dennett. That he can get the reputation he has as a philosopher to me says a lot more about academia than about Dennett himself. Have a good trip, and thanks again for the very interesting observations and quotes. Fishing, I really have to try that again sometime.nullasalus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

nullasalus @ 70, "But I think the problems with defining naturalism run deeper here." I've got no problem with that. And I have read Searle, at least three of his books, as far as I know, and several articles. I think he's funny and bright although he gets it wrong in the end. He's a guy with whom I'd love to take a philosophy of mind seminar. His exchanges with Dennett are classic. I wish I had time to reply now but I'm under the gun to get on the road and won't be at a computer again until probably Monday morning. I hope this thread is still active then. Thanks for your comments. I will print them out and take them with me. I'll think about them while I'm fishing. :-) It will give me something to do since I hardly ever catch any fish...tgpeeler_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

StephenB, No ID advocate that I know of would question the proposition that natural laws require a lawgiver. See, that's another worry I have with ID, and I'll give my two favorite recent examples. Nick Bostrom argues that it's possible we live in a computer simulation, that our whole universe is an intentionally created program. He's also a self-described naturalist, and argues his simulation argument is not only compatible with 'materialism' but requires it. John Gribbin proposes that, given a multiverse, intelligence will come to dominate and become the principle means by which new universes propagate (they will create universes, etc). These seem to be ID ideas. But if we're going to allow simulation theories and 'creating universes' on the table, then yes, the idea of an ultimate lawgiver in the sense you mean is an open question in ID. I don't even have a problem with that necessarily - ID is defended as identifying design, and the scope of the designers is very broad. But if it is, then shouldn't it be admitted that those ideas, and the people advancing them, are ID proponents? But that does have the odd side effect of conflicting with a core commitment stated on this site, about the opposition to materialism. Question to a prominent Theistic Darwinist Robert Russell: True or False–”Evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind.” Answer: “True from a scientific perspective; false from a theological perspective.” Ask any ID proponent the same question and he/she will say, unequivocally, “false.” This one, however, I cannot agree with. First, Robert Russell is dead wrong: Science cannot make the determination he suggests it does, and this is *precisely* the sort of metaphysical smuggling that is rife in science. He should know better, or he's a quisling. Second, and more importantly... I would be shocked if, even among the ID proponents here, evolution and other more mundane physical processes are anything but 'purposeless' and 'mindless'. I would be very pleased if they even went so far as to say science is incapable of making the determination of whether these 'mundane' processes and mechanisms are themselves artifacts, but that certain more particular things (flagellum, etc) are different cases. But the contrast I entirely see is ID versus 'unguided, purposeless processes', with the assumption that evolution, chemical interactions, etc are exactly that. That is one thing that appeals to me about thomism versus ID. Thomism is willing to argue that even the mundane processes in the universe show design of a sort. But I really do see many ID proponents (keeping in mind Dembski's claim that ID does not rule out that 'everything is guided') immediately conceding that these various aspects of nature are exactly what many atheists, materialists and naturalists say they are. Believe me, I want that not to be the case. It's part of the reason I'm in this thread - because I see so much, too much, credit given to atheism and naturalism, but the people who should know better.nullasalus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

hey molch @ 69 - "Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here, but it sounds like you are saying that human brains are immaterial???" Yes, you are misunderstanding. I'm saying that brains are physical and that souls are immaterial and that the connection is, as of anything I've read lately, still unexplained. I think it may be unexplainable in principle.tgpeeler_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

tgp re 61 Thanks for those great observations. tgp "If all I am is a physical being, a sensing machine, then all I know MUST BE what I can sense." Here is the rub. In all the discussions Stephenb and others have had with those who deny that rules of right reason are self evident you will find this assumption. They start with the assumption that it is our senses that inform us of reasons rules not the other way around. They dont grasp that all empirical information is after all nothing more than a set of data points. The data , the senses, tell us NOTHING unless subjected to rules of right reason. This is so obvious that one must wonder what else is going on. Of course what is going on is that they are so wedded to their worldview that they are 1) blind to rational argument or 2) willfully defending their worldview even though they know that what they are putting forth is incoherent and absurd. Truth is not important to them it is slain on the altar of their ideology Vividvividbleau_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

---nullasalus: "I say this because, over and over again, I see ID proponents treat nature and natural processes as not designed, or as entirely purposeless, unintelligent processes (With the implication that no intelligence originated these processes, or guided them in any way)." To say that certain features of nature exhibit detectable design patterns is not the same thing as saying that other features that do not have those detectable patterns were not designed. A formal inference to design simply does not require or even encourage that kind of assumption. No ID advocate that I know of would question the proposition that natural laws require a lawgiver. Indeed, it is the ID advocate that must continually remind both Darwinists and Theistic Darwinists about the reasonableness of a guided evolution and the folly of an unguided evolution. Question to a prominent Theistic Darwinist Robert Russell: True or False--"Evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind." Answer: "True from a scientific perspective; false from a theological perspective." Ask any ID proponent the same question and he/she will say, unequivocally, "false."StephenB_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

TGP, That really is a fantastic find, and thank you for reproducing it here. I'm intrigued to see yet more cites showing this curious problem of even defining 'nature' and 'naturalism' is so widespread. Now, I agree with your arguments against materialism so stated - James Ross' "Immaterial Aspects of Thought" and the Argument from Reason, etc, resonate with me. But I think the problems with defining naturalism run deeper here. One problem is this: In trying to tie naturalism to physicalism, the question becomes "Alright. What's physical?" And guess what? The answer there is *almost as up in the air as naturalism*. Have a look at the SEP entry for physicalism, and head down to section 11. Particularly Hempel's Dilemma, and panpsychism, though other problems with even defining 'physical' persist. The money quote on the latter one? The first thing to say in response is that the mere possibility of panpsychism cannot really be what is at issue in this objection. For no matter how implausible and outlandish it sounds, panpsychism per se is not inconsistent with physicalism (cf. Lewis 1983). I have encountered self-declared physicalist, materialist philosophers in discussion. One time I asked one of them just what the physical is. His response was 'Whatever the physicists say it is.' Which brings me to another point, this one made by Noam Chomsky: There is no longer any definite conception of body. Rather, the material world is whatever we discover it to be, with whatever properties it must be assumed to have for the purposes of explanatory theory. Any intelligible theory that offers genuine explanations and that can be assimilated to the core notions of physics becomes part of the theory of the material world, part of our account of body. If we have such a theory in some domain, we seek to assimilate it to the core notions of physics, perhaps modifying these notions as we carry out this enterprise. (p. 144) ... The mind-body problem can therefore not even be formulated. The problem cannot be solved, because there is no clear way to state it. Unless someone proposes a definite concept of body, we cannot ask whether some phenomena exceed its bounds. (Language and Problems of Knowledge, p. 145) Now, Chomsky is only one person, but I think his idea is surprisingly on target - especially given the previously mentioned SEP entry. And how about John Searle. Are you aware of John Searle's response to the mind-body problem? It is to admit that subjectivity exists, that thoughts exist, intentionality, that (if I recall correctly) these things don't reduce to mindless things.. and that they're all physical. Searle is accused of being a property dualist, and Searle denies this. To him, he's no dualist, he's just a physicalist. And really, if panpsychism (once described as 'dualism all the way down') is "not inconsistent with physicalism", then how is Searle? In fact, who CAN be inconsistent with physicalism? Even Berkeley seems to be caught up in that net. And that leads into the second problem. You suggest that naturalism requires physicalism about minds. Putting aside for a moment that I now seriously wonder if 'physicalism' has enough meat in it for that claim to pin anything down, we're left with the problem that Chalmers, Searle, Strawson, and many others either explicitly reject physicalism (Chalmers), or accept a 'materialism' that obviously flies in the face of the meanings I think you require. (Galen Strawson being a panpsychism advocate. Of course, he calls panpsychism 'real materialism'). I'm reminded of a great response Behe had to some of his work, where critics objected to one of his "calculations" about the odds of a particular type of mutation coming to pass in a population. Behe's response was: This calculation is not some off-the-cuff estimation on my part. It is the result of an observed lab experiment. It is not a guess - it is data. In this case, I humbly suggest there is data in the form of numerous self-described naturalists either explicitly rejecting physicalism or radically redefining it, and this must be accounted for. Maybe you'll want to class Bertrand Russell as a supernaturalist (He accepted universals and was not a materialist - he favored neutral monism.) On the flipside, maybe you'll want to brand Bishop Berkeley a materialist (He regarded nature as the thoughts of God, so seemingly God would be included in nature, and since he proposed nothing existed beyond God - and since apparently by some historical twist idealism can be regarded as physicalism - the man was apparently a naturalist.) I'm sure this all sounds nuts. But I maintain this is the state of the field, the fallout from various factors - the onset of quantum physics, the pervasiveness of the problems of the mind (qualia, intentionality, reason, etc), political and academic shifts ('naturalism' and the rejection of traditional religion being judged with favor, often for reasons quite unrelated to rationality), and so on. I say all this while agreeing with you on many points. I think the status of 'laws' in particular is tremendously interesting (if science is not merely description, if laws are taken as 'existing', they are stellar examples of an immaterial thing), the incoherency of a consistent mechanistic-materialism, etc. I certainly agree that one common binding agent of 'naturalism' is, if not atheism, a particular anti-theism aimed squarely at certain religions. The difference is that I think that binding agent, or something like it, is key among naturalists. A kind of "anything but THAT" metaphysic, hence why outright deniers of materialism can call themselves naturalists. Even that 'dogmatic assertion that only the natural world exists' is further dogmatic, because - since it does not start from any reason or first principles, the defining of nature itself is arbitrary! And if it's arbitrary, then it can just as easily include God and gods as anything else. (Indeed, I argue that if one accepts a so-called materialism, and accepts the idea of a simulated universe as compatible with materialism, then pagan gods are entirely compatible with that materialism!)nullasalus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler: a question about this curious statement: "I suppose now is as good a time as any to trash the idea that there is no immaterial part of human beings, apart from (yet related to in some unexplainable way) our brains." Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but it sounds like you are saying that human brains are immaterial???molch_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, GP has put this well: we are dealing with what is empirically warranted, as opposed to speculating on abstract metaphysical possibilities. That would mean the very question of whether we should regard natural processes and objects (natural selection and atoms, say) as artifacts is a question that can't be empirically determined. And frankly, I'm fine with that viewpoint. But that bleeds into these debates from every angle - and, particularly if you think (even due to strictly metaphysical or philosophical argument) that everything in our universe is designed, top to bottom. I think everyone in this thread would agree that metaphysics are really a central part of this entire debate. But I think one looming point, one nasty habit, is the tendency to cede large swaths of ground to atheists and ID critics without warrant. I say this because, over and over again, I see ID proponents treat nature and natural processes as not designed, or as entirely purposeless, unintelligent processes (With the implication that no intelligence originated these processes, or guided them in any way). But if this cannot be empirically determined, as you say, that's the last concession that should be made.nullasalus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Sure. I also love the exception for mathematics, the universal language for the communication of the physical laws of the universe. And then there are the laws of physics themselves, written in that language. But nevertheless... Only material things exist!!!!! Hmmm, wait, except for those things that exist and are immaterial and that no rational person will deny!!! I don't have a mind. I don't have free will. I don't have any purpose for writing anything or doing anything or thinking anything, EVER!!! And you are stupid or insane or wicked if you disagree with me!! But we're the nuts... Yeah, we're the whack jobs here alright... :-)tgpeeler_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

PS: UB, food for thought indeed, too.kairosfocus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Hey Tom, I didn't mean to imply the pdf was making the same argument as you - just covering some of the same thinking. I love the exception given to the abstract of mathematics. Apparently, when something is undeniable, some give an exception based upon the need to give an exception - which is acceptable to those who are accepting of such exceptions. I know it sounds crazy when you say it fast like that. Off on the lake – have a good weekend…Upright BiPed_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Hey Upright, thanks much. I'll read asap. G, thanks, too.tgpeeler_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

TGP: INDEED, YOU HAVE STIRRED THE POT. Well done. The dictionaries on naturalism are especially thought provoking. And, your onward discussion is not far behind. Gkairosfocus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Hello TGP, I read a short paper I found on-line a couple of years ago that has (at least) some of the trappings of your argument (which I agree with by the way). I thougt I might share it... http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ppm/papers/Moretti-Naturalism.pdfUpright BiPed_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

This is a fascinating thread and I'd like to toss out a couple of ideas. The first observation, already noted extensively by reference to the SEP article online, is that naturalism is very hard to pin down. Conveniently, I might add. My Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, page 563, says: “The view, sometimes considered scientific (but an assumption rather than an argued theory) that all that there is, is spatiotemporal (a part of “nature”) and is only knowable through the methods of the sciences, is itself a metaphysics, namely metaphysical naturalism (not to be confused with natural philosophy).” It goes on to say on page 596, that naturalism is: “the twofold view that (1) everything is composed of natural entities – those studied in the sciences (on some versions, the natural sciences) – whose properties determine all the properties of things, persons included (abstracta like possibilia and mathematical objects, if they exist, being constructed of such abstract entities as the sciences allow); and (2) acceptable methods of justification and explanation are contiguous, in some sense, with those in science.” My Oxford Guide to Philosophy says on page 640 that: “In metaphysics naturalism is perhaps most obviously akin to *materialism, but it does not have to be materialistic. What it insists on is that that world of nature should form a single sphere without incursions from outside by souls or spirits, divine or human, and without having to accommodate strange entities like non-natural values or substantive abstract *universals.” And not to be pedantic but to save scrolling, the pertinent quote from the SEP entry on naturalism: “By the middle of the twentieth century, belief in sui generis mental or vital forces had become a minority view. This led to the widespread acceptance of the doctrine now known as the ‘causal closure’ or the ‘causal completeness’ of the physical realm, according to which all physical effects can be accounted for by basic physical causes (where ‘physical’ can be understood as referring to some list of fundamental forces).” What I take from all of the above is the following: 1. There are two distinct aspects to "naturalism," the metaphysical, or more precisely, ontological aspect, and the epistemological aspect. It bears keeping those distinctions in mind. 2. Concerning ontological naturalism (ON), it seems that there are at least two fundamental intellectual commitments the naturalist must make to hold to any kind of meaningful naturalism. The first one is that "nature" (further described in terms of epistemological, or more commonly, methodological naturalism (MN) - more on that later) is all there is. I suggest that it's useful to accept this at face value as true and then examine the obvious implication(s). The first and most obvious being, that if all that exists is "natural" then nothing that exists is "supernatural." God, for example. For now, we need not dive any deeper to consider whether or not minds or souls (I will use souls as I distinguish between acts of the intellect and acts of the will and they are often intimately connected) actually exist. But it is clear to me that naturalism entails atheism. It's true by definition. If natural things are all that exist and God is a supernatural (i.e. a non-natural) thing then He does not exist. Simple enough. The second commitment is that nature is "causally closed." That is, that nothing interferes from "outside" of nature. Things like God, angels, satan and other demons, and even souls have no causal power in nature. So even if souls, for example, should end up being some "emergent" or even real entities, it would not matter as their presence would be undetectable. That is, we cannot sense it. Here is where we see that ON and MN are joined at the hip. They create a vicious circularity that cannot be penetrated. It goes like this. All that exists is natural (ON) and we know that because science (MN) studies natural things, things that can be empirically detected, material things, physical things, natural things and these are the only things that exist. I suppose now is as good a time as any to trash the idea that there is no immaterial part of human beings, apart from (yet related to in some unexplainable way) our brains. In other words, that there is no such thing as a soul. My argument goes like this. If all I am is a physical being, a sensing machine, then all I know MUST BE what I can sense. This is a matter of definition. It is one of our foundational assumptions or premises. Now, if we are going to have intellectual integrity then we must go where our premises take us. We must follow reason wherever it goes. Even Dawkins pays lip service to this. (“Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration.” To a scientist, these are noble words. – From the God Delusion, page 49.) Well, let’s see. Let’s assume for the moment that ON and MN are true. Let’s then try to answer the following questions. How is it that I am even aware of immaterial or abstract things to begin with? How is it that I know that my car is in the driveway even though I cannot see my car? How is it that I know how to get to Skeeters for lunch with my friends today even though I cannot sense either Skeeters or my friends? How is it that I can even conceive of the “future”? How is it that I can remember that I have a car even though I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it right now? How do I know about the past? How do I know that when I put a pencil in a glass of water that the pencil does not bend? How do I know that when I stand on the railroad tracks and look off into the distance that they do not converge even though they look like they converge? Obviously, we cannot answer any of these questions in terms of ON and MN. If ON and MN mean that I am purely a sensing being, and they do, then I all I know is what I sense. (This is all true by definition.) But I know more than this. I know about mathematics and the rules of reason and the moral law and economic laws and symbols, languages, information, justice, love, etc…………. I know where my car is even though I cannot sense it right now, assuming that it has not been stolen. I know how to get to Skeeters even though I cannot see the roads I will take to get there. I know that my friends will be there even though I cannot see them now. I know that a pencil does not bend when I put it in a glass of water and I know that when I take it out it does not magically straighten out. The obvious conclusion to which I am forced, by REASON, is that there IS something more to me than my sensing equipment. There MUST BE another part to me. And since that part cannot be physical it must be not-physical. It MUST BE immaterial. And, as a brief aside, now that I have every good reason to believe that there is an immaterial part to me that reasons, chooses, manipulates symbols, etc… I have every good reason to think that my soul is indestructible. Immaterial things cannot be destroyed. I cannot destroy the Pythagorean theorem by erasing it from the blackboard. If immaterial things cannot be destroyed, and my soul is immaterial, then my soul cannot be destroyed. Now let’s go back to pretending that ON and MN are true. How then, do we explain anything in terms of MN? The "causal closure" of nature doctrine now informs our epistemology. If "nature" is all there is and if "scientific" methods of knowing are the only way to know, then our best science and how we know our best science MUST BE the only way to explain anything. Ignoring for the moment the vicious circularity here, which any competent or honest thinker would have recognized by now, what this means is that the laws of physics, or what may be described by the laws of physics, MUST stand as the ultimate, and only, explanations for everything since nature is everything. So what do the laws of physics explain? And what if the laws of physics change in the future? The laws of physics (I am not a physicist but this seems true to me from what I've read) describe the interactions of sub-atomic particles in energy fields. Of course, this raises the question: What are sub-atomic particles? And what are energy fields? Here's where naturalism necessarily morphs into some sort of materialism. Sub-atomic particles are "material" things that are governed by certain rules (physical laws) and they always act in certain ways. OK, so now we have to answer the question: What is material? Fortunately, I think there is a clear way to do this. We can say that something is material if: it is extended and space and time; if it has mass; if it obeys the laws of physics; if it can be converted to energy; or if it can heat or move matter (is energy). This accounts for, as far as I can tell, all of the particles in the Standard Model and the four fundamental forces and it would, more importantly, account for any future particles or forces that may be discovered. This makes it easy to tell if something is material (thus “natural”) or not. Perhaps the most glaring deficiency of materialism, and there are many, is that the laws of physics themselves are immaterial. That is they are not located “anywhere,” they do not have mass, they do not obey themselves, they cannot be converted to energy, and they cannot do work, i.e. heat or move matter. Be that as it may, our construal of naturalism includes mathematics and the laws of physics as allowable “abstracta and possibilia” so we will let that slide for now. But a strict construal of materialism is demonstrably false. So how can physics explain language, for instance? At its most basic, a language is a set of symbols and set of rules that govern the arrangement of those symbols so that information may be encoded, transmitted, and decoded. We all get this. But physics has nothing to say about either symbols or rules because that’s not what physics is about. Physics is about only what is “natural” and only “natural” things exist (ON, by decree) so according to the necessary implications of ON, language does not exist. But language clearly exists, so ON is false. This is the jist of the madness, to me. ON denies, using language, that "spooky" entities (souls), that have causal power in nature, exist in space and time. But clearly the use of language involves an abstract soul, the exercise of logic, free will, and the manipulation of symbols according to rules, all of which are logically denied by ON. Hmmm. There is another significant implication of the “causal closure” of nature and it is this. If by soul we mean an immaterial part of ourselves, enabled by our brains but apart from our brains, that can manipulate symbols, recognize moral and immoral acts, act “freely” and have causal power in nature (act purposefully), then souls do not exist. We can see this easily enough. If nature is causally closed and that means all explanations for everything are to be found in the laws of nature and souls are apart from the laws of nature then souls do not exist. We are forced to say that soul (or mind in philosophy of mind) = brain. It also follows that there is no free will and no purpose. Other things follow too, but this was going to be a short post. Still, this may not be enough to nail things down. I suggest one final standard for what is “natural” and that is: Can it be detected by means of our five senses, aided by instrumentation? In other words, can we see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or touch it? If so, then it is certainly material and it would certainly be “natural.” I would also note that our senses may and do deceive us and there are several cautionary tales bound up in that truth claim. So where are we now? Granting that there may still be some light housekeeping to do, any serious intellectual commitment (more on what that means in a moment) to naturalism binds the naturalist, at a minimum, to atheism, to physicalism in philosophy of mind, and to materialism plus mathematics and physical laws (at least) in ontology. MN in my view is simply incoherent because ON denies the laws of reason upon which the physical laws are inferred from observations. That said, I also would claim that there are no privileged truth claims and that ultimately, truth is discovered by the application of reason to sense experience. As far as intellectual integrity goes, I think Dawkins defined it acceptably. We go where reason leads. But reason starts somewhere as does everything in this finite universe. WE start with first principles (identity, LNC, excluded middle, causality) that cannot be denied. ON starts with an unargued assumption, or better yet, a dogmatic assertion, that only the natural world exists. Well certainly the natural world exists and science has been very effective in describing and explaining the natural world but from that it does not follow that the "natural" world is all that exists. This is way longer than I had originally intended and even though it is a stream of consciousness post and not precisely written, not to mention woefully incomplete, I’m sure I’ve said enough to stir the pot once again.tgpeeler_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Null: GP has put this well: we are dealing with what is empirically warranted, as opposed to speculating on abstract metaphysical possibilities. I think it was Newton who pointed out that across time, the accumulating body of empirically well-warranted (albeit inevitably provisional) knowledge will help constrain our views on metaphysics. Whatever the ultimate source of chance processes and circumstances, such chance processes [e.g. thermal motion of molecules] collectively are a proximate causal factor that leaves characteristic empirical signs, i.e. we see probabilistic distributions. Similarly, mechanical necessity acting on whatever initial conditions obtain will yield natural regularities: the drops emitted form the buret fall into the flask, and as drops are subtracted, the volume indicated by the meniscus reduces in an exact mass-conservation match. Thirdly, the configuration of the apparatus, the solutions, the indicator, and the structure of the items all bespeak functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information as the proximate cause. Such signs of causal factors are readily observable, testable on reliability, and well-supported. Thus, we can make observations, measurements etc and draw well-warranted conclusions about the causal factors directly at work. This set of inferences does also have ultimate metaphysical import, but that comes in a particular context of circumstances. Namely, the observed cosmos is at a finely tuned operating point that facilitates C-Chemistry intelligent, cell based life. Which life also shows dFSCI in the cell. So, we have cogent -- as opposed to demonstrative [not relevant to matters of fact] -- best explanation on comparative difficulties reason to see a unified cause of cosmos and life in it that is intelligent, purposeful, personal, designing and effective, indeed awesomely powerful: some estimates put the energy density of free space at 10^107 J/cc. A cause that goes beyond the observed cosmos and its beginning. A cause that is then a good candidate for the necessary being that is implicated by a contingent observed cosmos. But at that point the issue is not a scientific one, but a worldview level inference. Design theory is about the far more restricted context of signs of design that are empirically credible and detectable. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, Some quick questions about q. Why shouldn't I determine what you call 'chance' and 'mechanical necessity' to itself be the product of design, or even an instance of design? What stops me from regarding everything you speak of (including the NaOH and HCl, etc), as well as their properties and so on, as if they were artifacts?nullasalus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

PS: It helps to be specific, so let us look at this step by step layout for a titration experiment.kairosfocus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

c --> By "science" of course, is meant evolutionary materialism in a lab coat, conjoined to the sophomoric philosophical blunder Lewontin made: abusing the prestige of science to claim that "science" effectively exhausts the field of credible knowledge. d --> Where, in fact this claim or implication [more usually the latter] is a major -- but disguised -- question-begging philosophical commitment. For the question of how one can warrant beliefs as credibly true (i.e. as knowledge) is inescapably a philosophical one. e --> And the "scientific method" in view, per Lewontin, a priori, is based on evolutionary materialistic worldview level assumptions and narratives. f --> In short, the imposition of methodological naturalism -- the substance, not just the term -- on science is not only question begging and self-defeating (given the breakdown of evo mat through self-undermining discussed on page 2)but it is an imperialistic power grab meant to control the entire field of knowledge and education. g --> Which, JAD, is why it is important to expose what is going on and what is being sacrificed, whether or not those who hope to benefit from the power grab are inclined to be sympathetic. h --> For if we do not understand the magnitude and proximity of a threat, we will be the less inclined to resist it. That is why Churchill's "while England slept" is so telling a phrase. And, it is why Flower of Scotland -- the unofficial national anthem and Rugby song of that great little country -- has such force as a song. i --> Bullies who hope to gain from our lack of clarity, love of peace and wish to get along with "everyone," indeed have little or no inclination to listen to and heed correction. j --> That would run counter to their agendas, and would require repentance and reformation on their part, which of course -- until they have been duly and stoutly resisted and defeated then sent "homewards tae think again" -- they have but little inclination to reflect on. k --> So, our better strategy is to first, expose the hidden agendas, and to point out the dangers that lurk behind the smokescreen of confusing verbiage and sowing of discord among us, and with that, point to a better path. l --> The first point of that better path is to point to the saner understanding of what science at its best is:
the unfettered, ethically and intellectually responsible progressive pursuit of the provisionally warranted, empirically credible truth about our world, based on observation, experiment, modelling and theorising, reasoned analysis, uncensored discussion among the informed, and ongoing empirical testing
m --> The subtle imposition of evolutionary materialism through methodological naturalism censors and fetters that pursuit of the truth, especially on origins science, and by substituting the contrast natural vs supernatural for natural vs artificial, it distorts the key issue highlighted by the rising alternative, design theory. n --> Namely, on origins science, we were not there to directly observe the true world of the deep past. As such our natural history theories and models are based on projecting patterns of the present into the past and checking against such remnants of the past as we may recover in fossil beds etc. o --> And, there are three major empirically warranted causal patterns we observe, mechanical necessity, chance circumstances and processes, and intelligent, intentionally directed configuration, or design aka art [techne], as Plato long since used in the above excerpt, which is well enough known to those at the top of the game that this "natural vs artificial" framing is quite deliberate. p --> Each of the three factors has characteristic, well-known and reliable observable signs. So, for instance when you mix the right amount of NaOH and HCl in a titration experiment, you will get a certain mass of NaCl and H2O and will trigger a colour change in say Phenolphthalein indicator, as the designed circumstances trigger certain chance molecular motion patterns of interaction that call forth ionic forces, yielding a mechanically necessary chemical result and optically observable consequence as one reaches the point of stoichiometric balance and that one drop more shifts pH dramatically. q --> Notice, by properly applying the causal factor filter, we can assign the different aspects of this familiar exercise to their proper category. Design sets up the experiment and manipulates the equipment to yield results, also showing its presence by a finely co-ordinated, functional configuration of apparatus and chemicals that would not have been credible on blind chance and/or necessity. Chance shows itself in the mixing action and interaction at ionic levels. Mechanical necessity shows itself in the results that happen when you open the cock on the buret and the acid drips out drop by drop [duly indicating necessary mass conservation as the meniscus drops along the scale on the buret], and in the inevitability of the colour change once we hit then pass equilibrium. r --> So also -- setting materialistic censorship aside -- we have every scientifically warranted epistemic right to infer with high confidence (tempered as always by the inherent provisionality of all science) to design as a causal factor on signs of intelligence, such as digitally coded, symbolic, functionally specific, complex information. s --> We therefore have a serious alternative, and one that bully-boy ["expelled"] tactics are being used to try to suppress. That censorship and oppression have to be confronted and exposed, and the underlying errors of thought need to be corrected. t --> Such is plainly unpleasant and sometimes even dangerous to one's career, but that does not make it any less necessary or important. __________________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

JAD & Nullasalus: Interesting exchange overnight. Null is right to point out how a word that may well have an innocent, naive interpretation, can be actually heavily loaded. (The p-word from the infamous list of seven comes to mind; I recall as a 6 year old child doing piano lessons, being quite ambivalent about a song about an owl and its friend, as I was even then aware of the other meaning and the loading of double-meanings. And Mr Cooper's apparent personal background loaded the T-word term even more heavily. Orwellian 1984-style double-think/ double-speak is a serious issue, and the less innocent meaning can and often does subtly polarise and poison discourse. Which of course was intended with the T-word.) When we turn to methodological naturalism, it is in fact the thin edge of a wedge, used by those with an agenda to redefine science, especially origins science, as in effect applied atheism. (The so-called new atheists are only the most blatant, and it is no accident that Oxford University's recently retired Simonyi professor for the public understanding of science is both a leading promoter of evolutionary materialism in the name of science and perhaps the most virulent and rhetorically violent of the new atheists. We must ever understand Mr Dawkins in light of his view that those he derides for rejecting his evolutionary materialism are "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." If the atmosphere is polarised and poisoned, we have to face that fact, and understand that the aggressive champions of evolutionary materialism flying the flag of science have to shoulder much of the blame.) That is, the current debates over origins science are close to the heart of the culture wars triggered by aggressive secularists who in recent decades have sought to de-Christianise our civilisation. Nor is this particularly new: Plato exposed and rebuked much the same attitude, confident assertionsin teh name of knowledge and implications for the comunity 2,300 years ago, in his 360 BC The Laws, Bk X: _________________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view!] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might, and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions, these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others, and not in legal subjection to them. >> _________________ Complete with the implications of amorality, radical relativisation of knowledge, ethics/morality and law, the delegitimisation of authority as such [in the end all legitimate authority is rooted in moral capital] etc, and the creation of power-seeking destructive factions, this sounds all too familiar to current events. And yet, somehow, this key passage is well under our radar screens. No prizes for guessing why. Let us therefore look a little closer at some key issues: a --> On the second page of the original post, I cite David Papineau in SEP's article on Naturalism:
The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed ‘naturalists’ from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’ (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003) . . . . [N]aturalism can intuitively be separated into an ontological and a methodological component. The ontological component is concerned with the contents of reality, asserting that reality has no place for ‘supernatural’ or other ‘spooky’ kinds of entity. By contrast, the methodological component is concerned with the ways of investigating reality, and claims some kind of general authority for the scientific method . . . [HT: Nullasalus]
b --> Observe subtext: naturalism starts with a subtle metaphysical agenda of Lewontinian a priori evolutionary materialism and cleverly prioritises prestigious "science" to front that agenda. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply