The hopeless quest of a hopeless theory

_{William Dembski

September 22, 2006

Education, Religion, Science}

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

There’s a big “evolution of religion” conference coming up in Hawaii: http://www.evolutionofreligion.org/index.php. Daniel Dennett is among the featured speakers. Here’s a brief description of another featured speaker:

On Sunday evening the Rev. Michael Dowd, who has been called “North America’s evolutionary evangelist,” will share his experience of teaching and preaching a sacred, meaningful view of cosmic, biological, and human evolution to secular and religious audiences of all ages and across the theological spectrum.

You think ID might be a welcomed perspective at this conference?

Comments

The real world is not as uncivil as cyberspace, in my experience. In the real world, one cannot afford to be as uncivil as one can be in cyberspace. In the real world, there are real consequences for uncivility. In cyberspace, the worst that can befall one is to be banned from a site, and with the proliferation of "socks," even that can next-to-impossible to enforce. I've been told that I often come across as respectful and polite in cyberspace, and I think that's because I use the same 'rules of engagement' as I do in ordinary conventionalized speech.Carlos_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

todd,
Because science must be limited to the natural, it does not follow that science vindicates Naturalism. This is the view I discern from most of the spittle flecked mouths in the Church of Darwin.
I'm going to do what Richard Nixon did back in 1969 -- invoke the silent majority. I think that those you are hearing the most from are not typical. I am acquainted with a biology professor who once debated Behe at Texas Tech University. I have on multiple occasions heard the guy give a creationist advice on how to gain tenure in the biology department. The real world is not as uncivil as cyberspace, in my experience.Tom English_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

17. Ah, this gets back to that overdue response I still owe you, doesn't it? Promissory note: whether or not naturalism and theism are compatible depends on what one's naturalism commits one to and what one's theism commits one to. A suitably odd sort of naturalism and a suitably odd sort of theism could be consistent. Of course, the resulting position might be dissatisfying the majority of naturalists and/or theists, but why care what they think?Carlos_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Likewise, when a militant IDist says that naturalism is an incoherent or irrational position, she is saying that thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no possibility of rational discourse Ã¢â‚¬â€ Actually, I said naturalism is incoherent if the person also holds a belief God. Nor does it follow that rational discourse is impossible.avocationist_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

14. I was unclear in one critical respect. I was using "true believer" as a term of art, in the sense given to that phrase by Erich Hoffer in his book The True Believer. The "true believer" is an ideologue, a fanatic. Every action that is implied by her ideology is righteous, and every belief inconsistent with her ideology is evil. My point is that the attitude of the true believer towards his or her beliefs is detachable from the content -- whether those beliefs are scientific, religious, political, etc. Thus, when a militan atheist says that any belief other than atheism is ipso facto outside the bounds of reason, what she is saying is that there's no possibility of any rational discourse regarding the existence of gods or the role of religious experience in a certain shape of human life. Likewise, when a militant IDist says that naturalism is an incoherent or irrational position, she is saying that there's no possibility of rational discourse -- since someone who holds such a belief is outside the scope of reason. The relation between naturalists and supernaturalists then comes to resemble the relation between the Catholic Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, who excommunicated each other. What I would like to do is maintain a position of a naturalist who nevertheless thinks that supernaturalism is a rational stance, and even though I regard the prepoonderance of evidence and logic to fall on the side of naturalism, I can see how others may evaluate the situation differently. I think that they are wrong to do so, but they are not irrational in doing so. You should be able to detect the difference by how one defends their beliefs. If by "defends" one means "justifies," then yes. On the other hand, some people are very well defended in the psychoanalytic sense. Such people are not amenable to rational discourse with respect to the belief that is well-defended.Carlos_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Carlos, So two views on science are thrown in with a religious belief. A little bit of apples and oranges or are you saying that each is based on faith. Does your comment mean that all believers in something are slavish to that thing. Is there no possibility for reason? You should be able to detect the difference by how one defends their beliefs.jerry_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

I just saw this on Slate:
"If this person were really someone reasonable, he would not agree to remain at his post one minute, but would convert to Islam immediately." --- Mohammed Gaddafi, son of Muammar, on the Pope
This amuses me, because it's exactly like what some Darwinists and IDists say: "If this person really were someone reasonable, they would accept neo-Darwinism immediately" "If this person really were someone reasonable, they would accept ID immediately." I guess all true believers are the same, whether the content of their belief is neo-Darwinism, intelligent design, or Islamicism.Carlos_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Tom, It would be useful if you write us a little paragraph on why there is no clear distinction between self and other. A similar favorite of mine from the apocryphal (probably gnostic) gospel of Thomas is 113: His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look here, or Look there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it." In other words, it's all about perception and consciousness. The material only follows. It means that science is making good headway at explaining life under methodological naturalism. Perhaps, but I draw a distinction between studying life as it really is, for example the krebs cycle and that amazing map of the metabolic pathways that was posted here a few months ago, and the assumptions and extrapolations that go along with it. Assumptions such as that bacterial resistence to antibiotics is evolution in action, that sort of thing. Or that such evolution can be taken as proof that all life arose from similar mechanisms without consciousness or intention. science seems to work better when we assume that causes are to be found in nature. Perhaps someone will make a strong case for readmitting supernaturalism to science- Yes, maybe it does. I think that one problem with prior science may be because there was so much projection and anthropomorphism onto God and his motives, making of God a small ego rather like ourselves. This whole question of God versus nature is quite dicey. My opinion on supernaturalism is that it doesn't exist because that which we think of as supernatural is simply that which we don't understand. Just because the mind of God may be able to bring about results that we cannot is no reason to call it supernatural, any more than our actions are supernatural compared to what animals can do. I can't divide God from nature, even if God is the 'cause' of nature. Since I view God as within and upholding all things all the time, and that all things are actually part of God because they arise quite literally OUT of God, I cannot consider God's actions as supernatural, unless I regard everything in existence as supernatural, which I suppose I do. The idea of God acting outside the laws of nature makes no sense to me and I think it is a fantasy. So, my argument for letting the supernatural into science amounts to saying that if that which we have been calling supernatural exists, it is simply on a continuum unbroken from our three-dimensional world of bodily sense perception, and I fully expect that we will continue to make progress with our instruments and other forms of study into those areas of reality which have hitherto been cut off from our ability to perceive. You mention consciousness research. That is one avenue. Additionally, we know enough now, via the size of the electromagnetic spectrum vs our limited range of perception within it, and our view through microscopes of the tiny world within the cell and the mind-boggling smallness of subatomic particles and quantum physics that there is much more to the world than meets the eye, and that we have not reached bottom. Therefore, it surprises me that materialistic naturalism is rampant now rather than in the past, when a rational person could deny as nearly insane what we accept as commonplace reality today.avocationist_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

By the way, thanks for numbering the posts. Any spell check available? Australian spelling, although different from US spelling, has not evolved far enough to accommodate my frequent mutations.idnet.com.au_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Tom, when is your "Statement on Intelligent Design" going to be available? Does ID necessarily transgress methodological naturalism when it infers intelligence? I wonder if ID may remain in the methodological naturalism stream unless people insist on identifying the Intelligence. I do think the existence of an unevolved intelligence is a very strong implication of ID. String theory has 10^500 universes to play with. Couldn't we posit the possibility that the unevolved Intelligence could have evolved in a universe with different worlds? That would seem to give at least one "material" theoretical possibility to remove the charge of essential supernaturalism from ID.idnet.com.au_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

I think most here are in agreement with you on that point Tom. The problem is when scientists conflate necessary methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Because science must be limited to the natural, it does not follow that science vindicates Naturalism. This is the view I discern from most of the spittle flecked mouths in the Church of Darwin. ;) todd_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

avocationist, Wow, I think we agree on something! Luke 17:20-21 is a key passage for me, and I wish the "within you" translation were certain. A number of people have asked me why I believe in neo-Darwinism. The fact is that I don't believe in it. The particle in makes all the difference. As I see it, there is nothing in science that merits that sort of strong belief. And I oppose the notion that some revision of science would make its explanations something one should believe in. What I believe (no in) about the neo-Darwinian paradigm is that it is yielding new and significant discoveries at a high rate. This does not mean that the paradigm does not have weaknesses or that "naturalism is true." It means that science is making good headway at explaining life under methodological naturalism. My acceptance of methodological naturalism in science in no way indicates that I believe in naturalism. It is purely a matter of pragmatism -- science seems to work better when we assume that causes are to be found in nature. Perhaps someone will make a strong case for readmitting supernaturalism to science -- I am open to that -- but I have not seen it yet.Tom English_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Tom English, you have redeemed yourself. That was a very fine post. I begin to understand you a little, although your arguments in favor of NDE still don't quite make sense to me. It seems to me that Dowd is groping toward something true, but in the wrong place as usual. It is good to speak of the fact that private revelation is given over to the public (with a dose of threat thrown in - i.e., "believe or else") but as you say, trying to make empirical, sense-oriented proofs is probably the wrong way to go, since "the kingdom of heaven is within." He wants to take people from belief to knowledge, and I think that is another very important point, but in my opinion the way to go is to help people have their own inner subjective experience that is powerful enough so that they are not dependent upon others to stoke their faith. And what do you know, when people do have such inner experiences, they will find that they have much commonality after all.avocationist_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Isn't Hawaii the place with some dangerous vulcanos? Then again, seeing what will be discussed, perhaps that's the best place to be.
You think ID might be a welcomed perspective at this conference?
I am afraid not, Bill, since religiously motivated doctrines are not allowed, even if the subject of discussion is religion. We can only have the darwinian view point of religion. We can't allow an intelligent design foot at the door.Mats_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Traditional religion, grounded in private revelation, by its very nature cannot be verified or falsified.Ã¢â‚¬Â Yes this is nightmarish. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Private revelation tends to produce religious believers. Belief is the important thing. Public revelation produces religious knowers.Ã¢â‚¬Â Of course, since we all know there is no belief factor in Darwinism. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not familiar with Rev. Dowd, but from what youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve posted it sounds to me like heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s pushing some type of organized religion for atheists, with a dash of paganism for good measure; the church of Ã¢â‚¬Å“natureÃ¢â‚¬Â.shaner74_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Bill, I do not believe that science needs protection from religion, but that religion needs protection from scientism. The Rev. Michael Dowd is my worst nightmare. His scientized beliefs are virtually identical to those I expect ID to engender. Just substitute design for evolution in the following:
Dowd claims that public revelation will usher religion into its greatness in the 21st century. Traditional religion, grounded in private revelation, by its very nature cannot be verified or falsified. Public revelation is gained via a process where claims about the nature of reality (ideally based on measurable data) are proposed, tested, and modified in light of evidence and concerted attempts to disprove such claims. Such a process typically results in a shared understanding that goes well beyond belief, to factual knowledge. Private revelation tends to produce religious believers. Belief is the important thing. Public revelation produces religious knowers. In a dynamic, passion-filled presentation, Dowd will outline what he calls "the Gospel According to Evolution." A sacred, meaningful experience of cosmic, Earth, biological, and human evolution, he claims: (1) transforms people's lives in a more comprehensive and ongoing way than traditional religion generally can, (2) REAL-izes what were previously imagined to be merely supernatural or otherworldly religious ideals. (3) expands and deepens traditional theology, morality, and ethics, and (4) clarifies our way into the future, personally and collectively Ã¢â‚¬â€œ i.e., it shows how "God's will" is both obvious and universal. [source]
Dowd worships the senses. He places the communal over the individual and the natural over the supernatural. The general idea is that what people can perceive collectively in nature and interpret by consensus is a higher truth than any the individual can achieve through private and subjective experience. Science is no way to the Truth. Science itself tells us that the senses are fallible, and thus undercuts its own empiricism. Reflection upon the nature of consciousness should tell us that there is no clear distinction between self and other. There is no way to escape the ultimately subjective nature of experience, and the only absolute relationship to the Absolute is private.Tom English_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

The tide seems to be turning in favour of ID in the academic world. The IDM needs to make sure it's own perpective is promoted at the same time.Jon_D_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

"Talks will represent a variety of naturalistic and religious traditions, with no particular perspective being privileged" I find that hard to believe! I don't suppose they have thought to invite Dr Dembski?idnet.com.au_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

Can the comments in this new format be numbered? I am getting to talk on ID at a conference of Australian religious educators. The draft talk is 4 pages long. Any willing reviewers? I'd appreciate pre feedback. email info_idnet@yahoo.com.auidnet.com.au_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

Sounds like that Darwin Day stuff when they got all the churches to band together to promote NDE. Not knowing that NDE calls for blind watchmaker, accidents to get from goo to you. Many churches were clueless, joined in, then complained afterwards because it surely didn't fit with the worldview of the church at all. Typing a comment with my browser is very funny. I don't see anything in the comment box- Iactually see NO comment box at all, just the PREVIEW below, so I'm not sure if this will come out right, as my comment preview is under what I can see on the page, and if I scroll down, I have no idea where to click to type stuff in. Slimbrowser is what I'm using by the way. Very nice layout, but very hard to comment. Might try IE or Firefox to see if there's any difference.JasonTheGreek_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply