Blind Leap of Faith Materialism

_{Barry Arrington

October 5, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

From: Origin of life on earth and Shannon’s theory of communication.

“If the historic process of the origin and evolution of life could be followed, it would prove to be a purely chemical process . . . The question is whether this historic process or any reasonable part of it is available to human experiment and reasoning; there is no requirement that Nature’s laws be plausible or even known to mankind.”

This statement is fascinating. It is perhaps the most astonishing leap of blind faith I have ever seen in a scientific paper. It is glaring materialist fideism* in its most crystalline form. One wonders if the author is so blinded by his materialist faith commitment that he does not realize this. One also wonders if the author has ever sneered at a religious fundamentalist. Oh, how ironic that would have been.

HT: Mung

*From Merriam-Webster: “reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth”

Comments

In the OP, Barry quotes Hubert P. Yockey. The implication is at least present from the title of the OP that Yockey is/was a materialist. Yet Yockey wrote:
...and therefore information is measurable although it is not material. - Information theory and molecular biology p. 6
I'm not trying to fault Barry. He was commenting based on what he read. But like I said in my @2, Yockey is no friend of the materialists.Mung_{October 7, 2013
October
10
Oct
7
07
2013
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Oh gosh Mung, I forgot to ask AGAIN: what is your proposed alternative to evolutionary theory? Shall I take a non-answer to mean that you haven't got one? If so can I then relegate you to the amusing but harmless division?Jerad_{October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Helllllooooooo Mung!! Are you saying that you can't give a coherent description of some part of the history of life on earth? And you haven't said whether or not ID is even interested in explaining the past. You're being a naughty Mung bringing up questions and then not sticking around to deal with the follow-on questions. (Frankly, I get your tactic: pop up here and there and spread confusion and then disappear but I have to ask these questions to satisfy my overlords. It's tough being a materialist thrall you know. So much paperwork . . . )Jerad_{October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Jerad, ID isn’t engaged in historical story-telling under the guise of science, that’s Darwinism.
Ooooo, let me write that down . . . . Now, I don't want to put words in your mouth or anything. That wouldn't be fair. But I'd like some clarification . . . . Does that mean ID is not interested in explaining the past? I might be wrong but I did think that was the point. I will give you points for avoiding ever answering questions about your proposed alternative to evolutionary theory. You won't win a Nobel Prize but you might win a dancing competition.Jerad_{October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Jerad, ID isn't engaged in historical story-telling under the guise of science, that's Darwinism. If it's stories you're after I can recommend the following: Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution And only 8 bucks on Kindle.Mung_{October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

History (natural history included) is about what actually happened; it’s not about what had to happen; or even about what would happen if Mother Nature were to try again. What had to happen is the domain of theory, not of history; and there isn’t any theory of evolution. – What Darwin Got Wrong
So, can you say what exactly happened? I mean if ID is superior to evolutionary theory then I would think it would really want that slam dunk.Jerad_{October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

History (natural history included) is about what actually happened; it's not about what had to happen; or even about what would happen if Mother Nature were to try again. What had to happen is the domain of theory, not of history; and there isn't any theory of evolution. - What Darwin Got Wrong
Mung_{October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Jerad, of course, fails to note the import of the point that if something is incoherent, it is incoherent all by itself. In this case, on the implicit proud declaration that science is testable and falsifiable,we see on origin of life in the evo mat school of thought that, well, it ain't, not in any reasonable sense. Not to mention refusing to acknowledge the distinction between being able to identify a process -- design -- on tested reliable signs, as opposed tot eh further reasoned step that designs in our experience come from designers. Thus, evidence of design per reliable observable signs [such as FSCO/I in its various forms and under whatever labels], is evidence that points to a designer; just as evidence of arson per reliable points onwards to an arsonist even if we do not otherwise know of the arsonist. KFkairosfocus_{October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

Oh by the way . . . why have comments been closed on the Elisabeth Liddle thread? Or is it just me? Don't want to accuse you of shutting down dialogue if you haven't. But you did ban Dr Liddle didn't you? What was the reason for that? You weren't really clear.Jerad_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

Mapou: "Guided by natural law" is in practice highly loaded in an era of predominant a priori materialism. Similarly, testability and falsifiability are not quite equivalent, and they are of course routinely used in a biased way through the willful substitution of "natural vs supernatural" for "nature vs art." (And don't tell those in thralldom to evolutionary materialist scientism and secularism that there are some supernatural things that are testable, tested and well supported as millions know.) KFkairosfocus_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

This statement is fascinating. It is perhaps the most astonishing leap of blind faith I have ever seen in a scientific paper. It is glaring materialist fideism* in its most crystalline form. One wonders if the author is so blinded by his materialist faith commitment that he does not realize this. One also wonders if the author has ever sneered at a religious fundamentalist. Oh, how ironic that would have been.
I can help but notice that you don't elucidate your reasoned alternative. Or is it just: some unknown, undefined, undetected designer did . . . something at sometime? If your model/explanation is based on faith then it can't be science can it?Jerad_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

All of which a priori materialists are ever so militantly committed to opposing, by whatever means deemed necessary, plainly up to and including the sort of kulturkampf that is so obvious all around us. Complete with grotesque conspiracy narratives to "explain" design thinking and dismiss the scientific design inference, in a context where there is an obvious and reasonable alternative view, as just outlined. So, while we try to focus on teh sort of pattern of evidence and warrant backed up by the sort of worldviews analysis just outlined, we must not forget that here are those out there who plainly -- per conspiracy theories -- deem us the moral and ideological equivalent of nazis and will oppose with any and all ruthless means they think are "necessary" to eliminate what they imagine is a demonic threat to "rationality," "science" [in reality, typically scientism] and "progress" [to what? the goal and the means are both to be examined before we accept any claim of "progress"]. So, let us never forget the very wise caution given in a famous sermon: "if the light in you is darkness, how great is that darkness." Let us always be aware of the possibility of en-darkenment under the false impression that we have been enlightened. And that brings me to the sobering counsel of Locke in the introduction to his essay on human understanding:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Emphases added. Text references also added, to document the sources of Locke's biblical allusions and citations. Yes, they are indeed patently there.]
KF PS: Partial Internet "out" in progress here.kairosfocus_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

CS, re:
ALL ~~believe systems~~ [worldviews] have a ~~gap that requires blind faith~~ [finitely remote foundation that rests on first plausibles]. Period. You know it.
While I elaborate here on (including discussing Barry's turtles all the way down) we must appreciate that he need for ultimate faith commitments is not confined to theism or "religious" worldviews. And, we should never be gulled into the notion that such are necessarily a BLIND leap. Just as in science properly understand we come to believe some things are empirically reliable, well warranted and credibly true -- such as the second law of thermodynamics -- without proof beyond dispute and in a context where such are, strictly, provisional. Fundamentally, take an abstract claim that we accept, A. Why? Because of B, a set of other claims, observations, etc that we accept as warranting A. Why accept B? C. Thence D, etc. So, we face one of three options: (1) infinite regress -- turtles all the way down, (2) circularity -- turtles in a circle, (3) a final foundation on which the last turtle stands. In practice, 1 is patently absurd and impossible. We try to avoid circularity but must have a finitely remote foundation of first plausibles. Where also nothing in this line of reasoning is peculiar to religious worldviews or the like. To avoid worldview level question-begging, we need to use comparative difficulties analysis [the basic "method" of philosophy], recognising that all worldviews will have difficulties. So, we look at factual adequacy, coherence and elegant explanatory power -- simple not ad hoc and not simplistic. So, we cannot avoid faith, especially in a world where so much of our knowledge is inductively based, but faith needs not be blind. Ironically, that faith known as scientism -- the exaggeration of the prestige of science to the point where one imagines that science is effectively the sole or the chief and only main source of credible knowledge -- is a capital example of blind and blindingly irrational faith. A good starting point to expose that is to see that the claim that science is the only begetter of truth is a claim about science not a claim of science, and so it refers to itself in a self contradictory way and cuts its own throat. Similarly, the claim that would privilege science and put it on a pedestal forgets that the methods and reasoning science uses come from somewhere else, logic, mathematics and philosophy, with a good deal of old fashioned common sense tossed in too. In the light of all this, BA is quite correct to highlight that the declaration cited in the original post (it seems from Yockey, I am having Internet difficulties and cannot see the paper) is indeed an example of blind faith:
If the historic process of the origin and evolution of life could be followed, it would prove to be a purely chemical process . . . The question is whether this historic process or any reasonable part of it is available to human experiment and reasoning; there is no requirement that Nature’s laws be plausible or even known to mankind.
In truth, we cannot observe the actual deep past of origins, at most we can reason about it on observed causal patterns and processes that lead to consequences that are materially similar to credible traces from that past. But int eh case of OOL, we do not have any reasonable account whereby blind physics and chemistry in a warm little pond or the like, would spontaneously organise itself into a gated, encapsulated metabolic automaton with an integral code and algorithm based self replicating facility. And I freely use "code," as what is in mRNA is plainly object code executed in implementing machinery. We do have a well observed cause adequate to account for FSCO/I, which is abundantly present in life from the living cell on up. A priori materialists' determination not to acknowledge this notwithstanding, the abundant, easily observed and e4mpirically reliable evidence is that FSCO/I is the product of design. Indeed, it is a reliable signature of design wherever we can directly observe the cause, and we can see from a needle in haystack or monkeys at keyboards analysis, why that is plausibly so. We simply do not have available atomic and temporal resources in our solar system or observed cosmos to plausibly blindly stumble on FSCO/I. And beyond the world of life the finely tuned organisation of the observed cosmos that enables such life, itself strongly points to design as most credible causal explanation. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

TESTkairosfocus_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT}

I meant items 3 and 5, not 3 and 4. Sorry.Mapou_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

Barry @29, Note that items 3 and 4 on the list are essentially the same thing. Personally, even as a Christian, I would not have a problem with these requirements if they were applied judiciously across the board. In other words, given the above, Darwinian evolution should not be allowed in the classroom for the simple reason that it is unfalsifiable.Mapou_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

Here is an example of Karl Popper’s influence on American Establishment Clause jurisprudence. In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education the court held that in order to pass constitutional muster, the science curriculum must have certain essential characteristics. The court wrote:
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are: (1) It is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) It is testable against the empirical world; (4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and (5) It is falsifiable.
Barry Arrington_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

Central @ 25: “ALL belief systems have a gap that requires blind faith. Period. You know it.” You probably remember the story of the scientist who gave a lecture on cosmology. At the end a lady came up and said, “Rubbish, the world is supported by a giant turtle.” The scientist asked, “And what is that turtle standing on?” To which the woman replied, “Silly, it’s turtles all the way down.” Now that’s a blind faith commitment, and Yockey’s “it’s purely chemical processes all the way down” has the same epistemic standing as the lady’s “it’s turtles all the way down.” Both are based on unreasoned, blind leaps of faith. The lady’s faith is in her turtle myth. Yockey’s faith is in materialism. You are correct that all belief systems come to rest at some point on a faith commitment. Sure, I know that. But I hope my faith commitment is not of the “blind leap” variety but of the “reasoned” variety. The point of the post is not that some people have faith commitments and others don’t. Everyone does. The point of the post is that Yockey lays his blind leap of faith out there for all to see, and he probably does not even recognize it as such.Barry Arrington_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Barry (11), and Kantian Naturalist (19): Good points in both posts. Following up on Barry's complaint, note the following: According to Eugenie Scott, the NCSE, Judge Jones, etc., it is both appropriate to the subject matter, and constitutional, to discuss, in a science class, this statement: "Random mutations, filtered by natural selection, are capable of turning a land animal into a whale in 10 million years." While, on the other hand, according to Eugenie Scott, the NCSE, Judge Jones, etc., it is neither appropriate to the subject matter, nor constitutional, to discuss, in a science class, this statement: "Random mutations, filtered by natural selection, are not capable of turning a land animal into a whale in 10 million years." You see, the second statement is a "religious" one, and therefore must be treated differently. Since he is a philosopher, not a member of an advocacy group or a judge/lawyer, it would be interesting to hear Kantian Naturalist's detached analysis of the difference between these statements. Do they actually fall into different epistemological categories, such that the second warrants not only different intellectual treatment, but also different legal treatment? P.S. It should go without saying that by "discuss" I do not mean "endorse," but merely "consider, analyze, and critically evaluate."Timaeus_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer, actually faith in God is a 'reasonable' faith, not a blind faith, since, among many other things, reason itself is not possible without God (CS Lewis). Whereas, atheists have to have a literal blind faith since, among other things, they literally believe 'blind' undirected processes can accomplish the miraculous. The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. - Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - video http://vimeo.com/34468027bornagain77_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Barry, Barry, ya know I love ya... But ALL believe systems have a gap that requires blind faith. Period. You know it. All things considered, DNA/ribosomic replicator given the the probabilistic resources of the universe and physics as we know it coming into existence are preposterously low. I would even say INSANELY low. (The "materialists" know this, and they hate it.) But, Barry, please don't bark about blind faith, because at some point all of us take the leap. One way or another. Barry. PLEASE. Be consistent. I love ya!CentralScrutinizer_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

The superstitious belief that humans manifested from a worm via innumerable culled genetic accidents over hundreds of millions of years is about as metaphysical as you could possibly get.
Yet I seem to recall singing songs about what a worm I am. =P http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/At_the_Cross_Hudson/Mung_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

"because the theory of evolution, correctly understood, is completely neutral about whether or not any religious or metaphysical doctrine is true. "
The superstitious belief that humans manifested from a worm via innumerable culled genetic accidents over hundreds of millions of years is about as metaphysical as you could possibly get.lifepsy_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Since the topic is on the incoherence of materialism/atheism, I think this recent, and very good, video, which I posted previously on another thread today, deserves a repost here: Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas Digital Physics Argument Premise 1: Simulations can only exist is a computer or a mind. Premise 2: The universe is a simulation. Premise 3: A simulation on a computer still must be simulated in a mind. Premise 4: Therefore, the universe is a simulation in a mind (2,3). Premise 5: This mind is what we call God.bornagain77_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

This is so lame "Perhaps scientists will come closer and closer to the riddle of how life emerged on Earth, but, like Zeno's Achilles, never achieve a complete solution" We hear life came from reactions of simple chemicals. But these Einsteins, for 80 years, they cant demonstrate reactions of simple chemicals? At 10 cent pressures and temperatures you can get in a kitchen? I figure maybe theyre wrong. Life didnt come from reactions of simple chemicals Anyhow, I'm from Missouri so I need to be shown. Until they got something to show, I figure all they got is BS " is wrongchris haynes_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

KN, where are you??? I devoted an entire post to an issue you raised and even quoted you at length. (I refer, of course, to “Yes KN. It is a Literal Code”). I prepared a nice cozy sandbox for us to play in, and you don’t seem to have any interest. Sadness. :-(
I didn't mean to be discourteous. I've been following the discussion and sorting through my own confusions about semantics and semiotics. I'll participate in due course.Kantian Naturalist_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

This is true but misses the point. As we have discussed here recently, our society privileges ideas that can be fit under the rubric of “science.” Therefore, shunting ID off to a religious studies class is in a sense saying of ID, “this is one of the amusing things the wild-eyed religious nuts believe.” It tilts the playing field so radically as to end the debate before it starts.
I wasn't thinking about ID at all in this context. I was just talking about how Christianity, Judaism, and Islam can be (and, I think, should be) taught in public schools. As for the claim that "our society privileges ideas that can be fit under the rubric of 'science'," surely the cure for that is better teaching about how science is done. If the modest, pragmatic conception of science I've been promoting here were central to public-school science education, I don't think there would even be a problem of according excessive or inappropriate authority to scientists. And we'd have better trained citizen-scientists.
I would say this is nonsense on steroids but for the modifier “correctly understood,” because I don’t know what you mean by that. In the real world in which we live, the TOE is taught as applied metaphysical naturalism, and Mapou’s point is well taken.
All I meant by "correctly understood" is that the theory of evolution tells us two things: (1) all things being equal, if there is a heritable variation in a population of organisms, then if there are selective pressures on that population, the distribution of traits across that population will vary over time in response to the selective pressures; (2) the processes mentioned in (1) are necessary (though perhaps not sufficient) to account for adaptation and speciation. And I think that one accept (1) and (2) without committing oneself one way or the other to any of the big metaphysical questions, such as whether God exists, whether there is free will, if the soul exists and persists after death, whether or not there is natural law, and so on. Put otherwise: the debate between theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists is a debate about metaphysics, not about the science, precisely because the science is silent on the metaphysics. Now, I do think that public-school science teachers are more afraid than they should be about lawsuits or about infringing on parental authority, and so they tend to close down the space for questioning about the relation between science and metaphysics. I think that this is one of those areas where philosophers could help public-school science teachers a lot. And I've been told (but I cannot give you a citation -- I looked for it this morning but couldn't find one) that public-school teachers err too much on the side of caution when it comes to the Establishment Clause. I think it's tricky, because on the one hand, there are really good reasons for wanting a secular state (i.e. we don't want the government to play favorites among comprehensive doctrines). But on the other hand, we all do have comprehensive doctrines, naturalists and religionists alike, and we all want those doctrines to be respected and acknowledged in public spaces. (I won't speak for any other secularists here, but as a secularist, I find laicite far too extreme. I prefer Jurgen Habermas' "post-secularism".) So a wise and fair public-school education policy has to acknowledge that there will be students whose comprehensive doctrines will be threatened by a purely materialistic interpretation of evolutionary theory, and those students deserve to be in the public space of a classroom just as much as anyone else.Kantian Naturalist_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

KN, regarding your "But how is the law actually phrased?" I am leaving just now, but if you will remind me I will address it later. It is an very interesting question of law.Barry Arrington_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

KN, where are you??? I devoted an entire post to an issue you raised and even quoted you at length. (I refer, of course, to "Yes KN. It is a Literal Code"). I prepared a nice cozy sandbox for us to play in, and you don't seem to have any interest. Sadness. :-(Barry Arrington_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Barry:
As we have discussed here recently, our society privileges ideas that can be fit under the rubric of “science.” Therefore, shunting ID off to a religious studies class is in a sense saying of ID, “this is one of the amusing things the wild-eyed religious nuts believe.” It tilts the playing field so radically as to end the debate before it starts.
If they can do it to ID, we can do it to Darwinism/materialism, which is nothing but a religion of dirt worshippers.Mapou_{October 5, 2013
October
10
Oct
5
05
2013
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply