A Question for Barbara Forrest

_{Cornelius Hunter
June 16, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In her recent paper, The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: Its Implications for Public Policy, evolutionary philosopher Barbara Forrest states that science must be restricted to natural phenomena. In its investigations, science must restrict itself to a naturalistic methodology, where explanations must be strictly naturalistic, dealing with phenomena that are strictly natural. Aside from rare exceptions this is the consensus position of evolutionists. And in typical fashion, Forrest uses this criteria to exclude origins explanations that allow for the supernatural. Only evolutionary explanations, in one form or another, are allowed.

Continue reading here.

Comments

David Kellogg, ------"Don’t forget velocity, Clive! Motion is more important than size. But the answer (cough cough) clearly depends on the one loving and the one being loved." I didn't even remotely mean it that way. I could just as easily used freedom instead of love to prove my point. I bet y'all had a ball with that one over at AtBC. And sure thing David, keep telling yourself that motion is more important than size...Clive Hayden_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PST}

Clive:
What size, shape and length is the “physical counterpart” of love?
Don't forget velocity, Clive! Motion is more important than size. But the answer (cough cough) clearly depends on the one loving and the one being loved.David Kellogg_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PST}

Pubdef, I guess StephenB's answer to your question is no, he can't locate the actual words of Forrest that correspond to his reading. As to methodological naturalism, the term may be new, but so what? It came about as a response to routine abuses of the term naturalism by creationists and early IDers such as Phillip Johnson. The term emerged to clarify and counter a deliberate ambiguity (it is in such clever uses of language, rather than in his handling of evidence, that Johnson's legal training comes through). The concept did not need explaining until that confusion was propogated, since there is no scientific test for a non-materialist hypothessis.David Kellogg_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PST}

----Pubdef: "Stephen B — if you have the time and inclination, could you show us the actual words of Barbara Forrest that come closest to the description of her position that you have given here?" Well, it appears that I tempted you beyond your endurance to stay away. Sorry about that. I guess its just my nature. Let me simply it as much as I can. Methodological naturalism is an arbitrarily established rule which requires the scientist to study nature "as if nature is all there is." No such limitation has ever been imposed in the history of science. The "rule" is only 25 years old, and was codified at exactly the same time ID became known. Did you know that? Beyond that, I can only briefly define the difference between "realistic epistemology, [knowledge by way of intellect and sense experience] rationalism [knowledge by intellect only], and empiricism [knowledge by sense impressions only]. I argue that realism makes sense, and that the later two are extremes, each one leaving out something important that the other has. Thus, Barbara Forrest had expicitly said that "empiricism," which is a philosophical not a scientific formulation should define science. It's in Dr. Hunter's post. Please think about this.StephenB_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PST}

P.S: Clive, the point I'm trying to make is that everything looks exactly the same if you zoom in far enough. It's the level of organization that counts.RDK_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PST}

Hi Clive,
Okay, we’ll take your premises. What size, shape and length is the “physical counterpart” of love? And what, exactly, is a “physical counterpart?” The problem with reducing the mind to material, is that material becomes your master, and there would exist no “you” as a decision maker outside the control of the laws of physics. So there would be no adherence to anything metaphysical like the laws of reason and logic, there would only be material movements, which will have speed and weight, but which have no relation to anything we should call “truth.”
On the contrary, I don't see things such as "love", "frienship", or "forgiveness" as tangible material objects, but as describing words for concepts brought about by material reactions. This is the problem with painting my side as pure reductionism. Dog trainers look at a certain level of organization for their work - the level of the organism, while a biologist may look at a dog and see an entire biological system, down to the various tissues and cells that make up the dog. A molecular biologist may go even further. It all depends on the level of organization. It is my opinion that it is the relationship between these levels that counts when we talk about such things as "free will". Obviously it is passable to talk about things on a reductionist level, but you miss all of the various hierarchies and effects that may not be picked up due to the fact that you're looking at just the colliding of atoms and molecules. There is an entire level above that, and one above that even, that we miss out on. This is the problem we run into with the inner workings of consciousness. Clusters of neurons and other matter that makes up the brain are engaged with another level of organization - the conceptual level - that have no material representation except for the dancing of neurons. This may make it seem like there is an "immaterial" portion to us that makes us who we are, but it is in fact the minute details of the material aspect that creates unique diversity. It is this strange backward causality - neurons interacting along with concepts and ideas, which in turn push around those very same neurons - that makes us human. I went into detail about self-perception a little while back, and I'll try and see if I can collect my thoughts again.RDK_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PST}

----Scott Andrews: “Methodological naturalism wrongly rejects the design inference. No, I’m not OK with that. Does it follow that I should accept any other position that that methodological naturalism opposes?” In all honesty, I think you should read the FAQ. Methodological naturalism was designed specifically to invalidate ID. ----"Dualism is an unrelated premise which must stand or fall on its own evidence." I agree, and I argue for it independently of ID as the most logical philosophical complement, not necessarily the only possible philosophical complement to ID. You are perfectly free to believe in a monistic ID if it makes any sense to you. It will not affect the science one bit. ----"I accept ID because of the evidence, not because of who or what opposes it. You continue to misunderstand. I don't accept ID because Barbara Forrest opposes it. I oppose Barbara Forrest because she wants to define science in ways that will characterize ID as non-scientific.StephenB_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PST}

Clive:
Here’s what I mean in a nut shell. Science can only go so far, the rest of the inference is up to us.
Aside from "inference," which I don't think is necessary, I'm with you. In fact, methodological naturalism is silent on issues on the immaterial or spiritual. If an explanation is to be scientific, it must remain silent. A explanation that seeks to explain scientifically will do so without reference to the immaterial or the spiritual. Point of explanation: by "immaterial" I don't mean "ideas" or "mathematical formulae." Calling such things "immaterial" is an obvious equivocation and unworty of serious rebuttal. I mean immaterial entities or forces that somehow interact with the world of sense.
And pertaining to the Spiritual Brain, it effectively showed that there was no God-center of the brain. That was effectively evidenced, but by a negation, showing that the mind cannot be explained by the material.
I don't think it explained or evidenced anything of the sort. I thought its arguments were weak and poorly supported. (It was also poorly written, in my view, but I have a low assessment of Denyse's writing.)David Kellogg_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PST}

Stephen B:
In other words, you seem to be taking Barbara Forrests position, which may be described as follows: We must do science as if we had no minds, we must study the universe as if it could not have proceeded from mind, and we must study human beings as if they had no minds.
OK, I can't help myself -- I'm back. Stephen B -- if you have the time and inclination, could you show us the actual words of Barbara Forrest that come closest to the description of her position that you have given here? Meanwhile, an off-the-cuff comment from me. We have reasonably good grounds to believe that we have minds and that others have minds, although, as I said before about free will, the arguments against that position are not trivial. Minds are involved in all kinds of things that seem like they could be described as "immaterial" (love, fear, math, logic, architecture, etc.). But, as far as I know and understand, and as I am comfortable accepting on the authority of people I have no reason to suspect of ignorance, perfidy, or insanity -- none of those "immaterial" things could be known or experienced without the physical platform of the brain, and all of those things correspond to the matter and energy inside our skulls. And, probably most pertinent for our larger purposes in this forum, there is no evidence that I have heard of for any "mind" that exists separately from and independent of matter. Another more or less random musing -- do you think that science has learned anything about (to take an arbitrary example) the process of attachment of an infant to a parent? How did it develop such knowledge? Was there any quantitative data involved? Does all this present any challenge to the assertion that "minds" cannot be "measured?"pubdef_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PST}

Tautology: On the one hand, they say God and the supernatural cannot be falsified, yet every day they say God and the supernatural are not real (false). Double standard: ID is not a science because you can't falsify it. Yet, nearly everything they believe about Darwinism is based on unobservable inferences of things which may have happened hundreds of millions of years ago. The only way to falsify evolution is to video tape every species on earth for a few hundred million years and if no major species to species changes occur (such as a fish to a dog) then it is false. Artificial selection and mutation experiments will never substitute for the real thing.magnifyjehovah_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PST}

StephenB Do you believe in ghosts?Echidna.Levy_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PST}

Hi everyone. My first post here to this excellent blog. I just wanted to point out a science that involve the study of something that was design: computer science That is, the study of computer technology and software engineering. All designed by an intelligence. Computer scientists don't study the designers, and don't care. What they study is the computer, and the coding language. Who wrote the language is not important. Who built the computer is not important. I would expect ID is the same way. They study nature and the genetic code, which they perceive is designed.magnifyjehovah_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PST}

----Diffaxial: “Several assumptions expressed in this discussion are rather baffling to me. I see no basis for the assertion that capacities subsumed under the notion of “mind” - such as seeing, recognizing, remembering, thinking, believing, planning, wanting, self-monitoring (and self-restraining), and so forth - cannot be complexly determined natural/cultural phenomena, and instead require a basis in the “non-material” (whatever that is). Indeed, we have many reasons to believe that these capabilities have histories - developmental histories in individual human beings, and an evolutionary history across hominid evolution - and that the subtlety and suppleness of human cognition (including consciousness and cognitive competencies such as noted above) speaks to the subtle, supple complexity of the material organization of the human being, particularly the human brain. And the stuff of which we are in fact composed does not disappoint, as has been amply demonstrated as we progressively unfold the complex neural bases of seeing, recognizing, knowing, self-modeling, planning etc., in the context of our complex enclosing cultures.” Whether one agrees with that propositions or not, the point of the thread is about options. What matters is whether anyone has the right to define science in accordance with dogmatically-held materialistic world views, which cannot be proven and, from my point of view, are not even plausible. Materialists have reasons for believing what they believe and I have reasons for believing what I believe. Indeed, I think the argument for free will is far more compelling that the materialist notion that we are nothing more than “nature’s plaything.” In any case, to codify, mandate, and institutionalize that narrow and stifling world-view in the name of science is an intrusion that free people should not have to live with. That is what Barbara Forrest and the Darwinists seek, and, apparently, what most materialists [yourself included?] have signed on to. -----“As a corollary to the above, I don’t see that the postulate of an “immaterial mind” atop all of the above adds any increment of explanatory power whatsoever. Whereas we are making rapid progress discerning the neural basis of many human cognitive capacities, “immaterial mind” offers no affordances enabling investigation, no specific characteristics or limitations that confer explanatory or predictive power, and indeed no characteristics other than those inherent in verbally constructed definitions of same. You may assert that only an immaterial mind can “restrain” the material brain, but, in addition to that being simply factually incorrect and incomplete (not to mention incoherent), I’ve seen no account whatsoever, no account with any explanatory force or even specific content, that explains how it is that non-material minds accomplish the tasks of which they are putatively capable. As and explanation for human competencies an human experience, the “nonmaterial mind” is a non-starter.” The idea that we have immaterial minds and immaterial wills that allow us to live a self-directed life-style is a far more plausible world view than the notion that we are nothing more than clanging molecules, that our existence is meaningless, and that we have no inherent dignity. If we are mere robots incapable of practicing self control, virtue, vice, or any other human act of volition, then all human discourse is a waste of time, including this present discourse. Why do materialists, who claim we that have no minds to influence or change, come here to influence and change our minds? It makes no sense at all. An immaterial mind provides the individual with the means to change what he is and become what he wants to be. For materialists, there is no rising above circumstances, no hopes of changing from bad to good, no temptation to go from good to bad, indeed, no recognition that good or bad even exists. Everything just is. It has always amazed me that materialists insist that there is no objective "good" in the universe worth pursuing yet they carry on as if science was a good in itself. Even at that, they argue that there is no absolute or objective truth that science ought to pursue, which, under those circumstances, makes it worthless after all. That’s the real non starter----chasing after something that one has already admitted doesn’t exist.StephenB_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PST}

StephenB:
Rejecting dualism does not necessary put one outside the ID camp.
Not necessarily or otherwise. One has nothing to do with the other.
Radical empiricism and methodologial naturalism rules out a design inference in principle no matter what the evidence.
Methodological naturalism wrongly rejects the design inference. No, I'm not OK with that. Does it follow that I should accept any other position that that methodological naturalism opposes? I accept ID because of the evidence, not because of who or what opposes it. Dualism is an unrelated premise which must stand or fall on its own evidence.ScottAndrews_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PST}

---Scott: "So far, any of the evidence I’ve read of a separate mind could be attributed to incomplete knowledge of the brain. Rejecting dualism does not put one in the Barbara Forrest camp. I find the evidence for ID quite convincing. Does she?" That's right. Rejecting dualism does not necessary put one outside the ID camp. On the other hand,I think that you may be getting things backwards. Science does not provide "evidence" for one's epistemological world view; it is through one's epistemological world view that science's evidence is interpreted. Radical empiricism and methodologial naturalism rules out a design inference in principle no matter what the evidence. Are you OK with that?StephenB_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PST}

My last comment was directed at Clive.Echidna.Levy_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PST}

What size, shape and length is the “physical counterpart” of love?
It is the size, shape and length of the set of neurons that are active when "love" is felt.
The problem with reducing the mind to material, is that material becomes your master, and there would exist no “you” as a decision maker outside the control of the laws of physics.
I wonder about this because if your god knows everything in advance then there already exists no "you" as a "decision maker" as you are simply acting out what is unknown to you but known to god, without possibility of deviation. Quite the opposite with my position. There is no god deciding in advance my actions so I am free to choose them.
So there would be no adherence to anything metaphysical like the laws of reason and logic, there would only be material movements, which will have speed and weight, but which have no relation to anything we should call “truth.”
Why does one follow from the other there? Even if we reduce the "mind to the material" why does it follow that "the laws of reason and logic" are thrown out? Your "truth" is a mirage. If it were not then would there not be 2 blocs of people on this blog - the true believers all sharing a single, unified vision and everybody else with their "material" ideas going in all direction?
It would be like if the laws of physics produced every thought, as capable as obtaining truth as the wind through the trees is capable of producing love, or science, for that matter.
Looked at in isolation a single molecule would not appear to be able to generate the things we would call "pressure", "temperature" or "volume". The laws of physics don't "produce" anything in the way that you mean. They enable things to be produced. How do you know a tree is not capable of producing "love"? You wonder at the complexity of a cell but then fail to appreciate how trillions of cells together can be orders of magnitude more complex.
You remove yourself from the equation, and become controlled by the equation, in reality, whatever “you” are would be only an equation.
Yet you are "controlled" by god instead and think that is somehow better. Logically, even if the mind as you contend is non-material (or some component thereof) then there must be some basis for it's action, some set of rules for it (remember, the universe is as it is so we can discover how it works, so it follows then that your non-material realm would also have it's own set of logical rules, right?) So, whatever they are you too with your non-material mind are still following a set of rules, still subject to a equation. So you decry me but fail to see your prison (as prison you see it) is the same as mine but one step removed.
You’re welcome to consider yourself and all your thoughts to be merely physics,”
Does the movement of atoms have anything to do with "pressure"? Yes, it is possible to reduce everything down to the level of "atoms" but then you can't talk about the large scale interactions between atoms that form concepts such as "pressure" and "temperature". What of it? Talking about individual atoms and "love" is like talking about the individual marks on a printout that collectively make up an image. The two are so far away from each other it does not make sense to "reduce" one to the other and then to point at the atoms and say "see! where is your love now? You might as well point at a pixel and say "see - no nose!" Which atom is love indeed. You can talk about atoms at atomic scale, you can talk about love at the scale of the brain.
but don’t expect anyone else to think that the movement of atoms has any relation to what we should call “truth
Do you put "truth" in quotes because you already know the "truth" about "the truth"? That everybody you ask has a different version and you secretly wonder if "the truth" is really "the truth" at all?
for truth is not material movement.
Exactly. It's the relationships between the materials themselves that matter.
You are trying to get an ought from an is.
.Echidna.Levy_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PST}

Several assumptions expressed in this discussion are rather baffling to me. I see no basis for the assertion that capacities subsumed under the notion of "mind" - such as seeing, recognizing, remembering, thinking, believing, planning, wanting, self-monitoring (and self-restraining), and so forth - cannot be complexly determined natural/cultural phenomena, and instead require a basis in the "non-material" (whatever that is). Indeed, we have many reasons to believe that these capabilities have histories - developmental histories in individual human beings, and an evolutionary history across hominid evolution - and that the subtlety and suppleness of human cognition (including consciousness and cognitive competencies such as noted above) speaks to the subtle, supple complexity of the material organization of the human being, particularly the human brain. And the stuff of which we are in fact composed does not disappoint, as has been amply demonstrated as we progressively unfold the complex neural bases of seeing, recognizing, knowing, self-modeling, planning etc., in the context of our complex enclosing cultures. As a corollary to the above, I don't see that the postulate of an "immaterial mind" atop all of the above adds any increment of explanatory power whatsoever. Whereas we are making rapid progress discerning the neural basis of many human cognitive capacities, "immaterial mind" offers no affordances enabling investigation, no specific characteristics or limitations that confer explanatory or predictive power, and indeed no characteristics other than those inherent in verbally constructed definitions of same. You may assert that only an immaterial mind can "restrain" the material brain, but, in addition to that being simply factually incorrect and incomplete (not to mention incoherent), I've seen no account whatsoever, no account with any explanatory force or even specific content, that explains how it is that non-material minds accomplish the tasks of which they are putatively capable. As and explanation for human competencies an human experience, the "nonmaterial mind" is a non-starter.Diffaxial_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PST}

StephenB:
I thought you understood that the hunter used his mind to design the spear and that he used his body to do the work.
I was joking about the hunter willing the spear to sharpen. I forget how that can fall flat in plain text. If I'd used a smiley I could have saved you some typing. :) No one understands the working of the brain enough to conclude that the mind is not in it. So far, any of the evidence I've read of a separate mind could be attributed to incomplete knowledge of the brain. Rejecting dualism does not put one in the Barbara Forrest camp. I find the evidence for ID quite convincing. Does she?ScottAndrews_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PST}

RDK, -------"We’re talking about things that have physical representations - that is, material counterparts - working inside the brain at not only the conceptual level, but the chemical, molecular, and eventually the atomic level. It all depends on how you want to look at it." Okay, we'll take your premises. What size, shape and length is the "physical counterpart" of love? And what, exactly, is a "physical counterpart?" The problem with reducing the mind to material, is that material becomes your master, and there would exist no "you" as a decision maker outside the control of the laws of physics. So there would be no adherence to anything metaphysical like the laws of reason and logic, there would only be material movements, which will have speed and weight, but which have no relation to anything we should call "truth." It would be like if the laws of physics produced every thought, as capable as obtaining truth as the wind through the trees is capable of producing love, or science, for that matter. You remove yourself from the equation, and become controlled by the equation, in reality, whatever "you" are would be only an equation. You're welcome to consider yourself and all your thoughts to be merely physics, but don't expect anyone else to think that the movement of atoms has any relation to what we should call "truth", for truth is not material movement. You are trying to get an ought from an is.Clive Hayden_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PST}

---Scott Andrews: "If you mean that the hunter stared really hard at a rock and willed it to form a sharp point, then yes. -----"If you mean that the hunter used his mental faculties, then the answer depends on whether his mind was material or immaterial. The reasoning can’t support a conclusion it depends upon." I thought you understood that the hunter used his mind to design the spear and that he used his body to do the work. It didn't occur to me that you think I was considering the proposition that he "willed it into existence." So, let me make it clear that he didn't. In any case, I gather from your answer that, if he has a mind, then his act of constructing the spear is a supernatural event. If so, then the archeologist had better close down shop becuase he has been fooling around with the supernatural and invalidating his science. In other words, you seem to be taking Barbara Forrests position, which may be described as follows: We must do science as if we had no minds, we must study the universe as if it could not have proceeded from mind, and we must study human beings as if they had no minds. So, if the archeologist believes that the ancient hunter had a mind, he cannot do science. That's pretty radical.StephenB_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PST}

Hi Nakashima, nice to hear from you again. ----“Far upthread, you were asked where the definition came from that the mind is immaterial. Did you ever answer that? It seems to be assuming what needs to be proven.” The notion of a “material mind” is an oxymoron. If you are talking about the material organ, which has mass and is extended in space, [or whatever] you are talking about the brain; if you are talking about the “ghost in the machine,” as it has been dubbed, you are talking about an immaterial mind. For me, the mind is a non-material organ of knowledge, complementary to sense experience, which is another source of knowledge. I submit that the mind provides knowledge of universals, while the brain via sense experience provides knowledge of particulars. So, if I meet you in person, I perceive the color of your hair, your body shape, and everything else that is unique about you with my sense experience, while, I perceive your humanity, or that which we all have in common, with my mind. Unless I know both components, my knowledge is incomplete. ----“I don’t think being able to enlist one part of the brain in an effort to control another part of the brain is dispositive of anything not of the brain. Is OCD itself a problem of the mind or the brain? How do you “enlist” a part of a brain that has its own agenda to do something different that its momentum bids it to do? Who or what is doing the enlisting? If part [A] of the brain affects part [B] of the brain in a certain way, to what entity does one appeal if he would prefer that if not affect it that way. If, for example, you are addicted to smoking, and part [A] of your brain tells part [B] of your brain that you can’t quit, how do you turn that around. Only a mind can refuse to ratify the brains impulses and promptings, which, in themselves, would continue on as they are without the intervention.StephenB_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PST}

StephenB:
Is an archeologist alluding to the a supernatural if he studies an ancient hunter who used his mind to construct a spear.
If you mean that the hunter stared really hard at a rock and willed it to form a sharp point, then yes. If you mean that the hunter used his mental faculties, then the answer depends on whether his mind was material or immaterial. The reasoning can't support a conclusion it depends upon.ScottAndrews_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PST}

Hi Clive,
That would include your mind, all abstractions whatsoever (like love and forgiveness) the laws of logic and reason, math and philosophy in general. Well done. You’ve proven that science relies on the supernatural, given that it relies on minds that rely on laws of reason and logic and math and philosophy—none of which are scientifically visible in the universe.
See, this is what I find silly about the entire supernaturalist / immaterialist (what have you) position. Assuming that there is no immaterial mind, and that there is only the material, the various patterns and strings of logic that humans use to make sense of the world around them would indeed have no material basis outside of the wiring of the brain. When you say things like "logic" or "forgiveness", or even "love", you're obviously not pointing to a physical, tangible, material thing (or maybe you are; I'm not sure). We're talking about things that have physical representations - that is, material counterparts - working inside the brain at not only the conceptual level, but the chemical, molecular, and eventually the atomic level. It all depends on how you want to look at it. So yes, these concepts do have a materialist grounding, but if you'd like to continue to envision some sort of strange floaty entity invisible to science, by all means be my guest. Hey Stephen B,
I don’t think you are thinking this thing through. Do you consider a non-material human mind to be a supernatural entity? Is an archeologist alluding to the a supernatural if he studies an ancient hunter who used his mind to construct a spear.
On the contrary, I consider the non-material human mind to be nonexistant. The mind is rooted in the material. If we're talking about the conceptual realm, like what Mr. Hayden pointed out (love, forgiveness, etc.) then it is also rooted in the material. These things have physical representations.RDK_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PST}

----Clive Hayden: "Once again, I reject methodological naturalism, for it is based on a philosophy, and by its own criterion should reject the philosophy because the philosophy cannot be studied by methodological naturalism, given that it doesn’t physically exist. It’s like a snake eating its own tail, when it accomplishes its goal, it destroys itself." Very nice, really!StephenB_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PST}

"I’ve already explained my definition of supernatural. It pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe. The thought that you would even consider a supernatural explanation in a discussion of science is very telling of your position." There is some serious discussions in science about other universes and that these universes can interact or affect each other in some ways. Is such a phenomena supernatural? If an intelligence in one of these other universes was able to affect this universe, is this supernatural? If we find an effect somewhere in our universe which did not have any visible origin, could we make the hypothesis that the source of the phenomenon is outside our universe? We can hypothesize dark matter by its effect on light and visible matter. Dark energy is another issue. Could there be intelligences in dark matter? After all it represents about 5-8 times more than the visible universe. If so it gives a whole new meaning to the concept of a ghost.jerry_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PST}

---RDK: "I’ve already explained my definition of supernatural. It pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe. The thought that you would even consider a supernatural explanation in a discussion of science is very telling of your position." I don't think you are thinking this thing through. Do you consider a non-material human mind to be a supernatural entity? Is an archeologist alluding to the a supernatural if he studies an ancient hunter who used his mind to construct a spear. ----"In any case, my question about separating the natural from the supernatural in a quantifiable or meaningful way was geared towards the ID community. I’ve given my personal view on it, now I’d like to hear yours. What exactly does “supernatural” entail to you?" It depends on the context. In origins science, the concept of "supernatural" is an intrusion and a way of displacing ID's well-defined paradigm of law, chance, agency, so that its arguments will not have to be answered. As soon as ID starts talking about "agency," a perfectly understandable concept, the Darwinist simply says that he will not consider anything relative to the "supernatural," as if agency was synonymous with the supernatural, and that is the end of the discussion. On the other hand, if you leave origins science and start talking about medicine, the concept of "supernatural healing" as opposed to natural healing, makes some sense, because it involves extraordinary events. By contrast, there is nothing extraordinary about the operation of a non-material human mind, which you consider to be a supernatural entity. Even at that, I am using the word in conversational terms, which means that I have a certain margin for error. On the other hand, when the Darwinist [or you] presumes to use "supernatural" as a defining and non-negotiable line of demarction between science and non-science [by the way, their definition's, when they offer them, sometimes differs from yours] there is no room for error or disagreement. ----"What do you mean when you say that we should be looking outside of the scientifically visible realm….using science? How do you expect to do so? With what instruments are you going to accomplish this? A dreamcatcher? A smear of lamb’s blood across the door?" You are getting a little hysterical aren't you? In fact, science can point to certain realities outside of itself without commening on them. The big bang, for example, shows that the universe was caused and began to exist. It is, in no way, unscientific or unnatural to say that since the universe began to exist someone or something must have brought it into existence. Darwinists forget that self-evident truths, such as the law of non-contradiction undergird science. Science is distinct from but not separated from metaphysics, protests from materialist Darwinists notwithstanding. Science can do nothing without first assuming metaphysics first principles of right reason. Indeed, that is Dr. Hunter's point. Everyone begins with a leap of faith. ID assumes that the universe is rational; Darwinists assume that it is irrational.StephenB_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PST}

Dr Hunter, I am not sure what Dr Forrest would reply to your question. Have you asked her? She may not be a regular reader of your blog. I would myself also be in the method + realism camp, and be ready to suffer an unkown number of false negatives as a result. (The inverse of Pascal's Wager?) I don't think a boundary can be placed between the natural and the supernatural in advance from a scientific perspective, only that the grey areas can be tested using scientific means, and given low priority for lack of success. For example, research into parapsychology would fall into that category. Research into the healing power of prayer is another matter (for me, anyway) because I don't think there has been enough research in the field, and I don't think the studies I've seen are well designed for the phenomenon. I think the result of any positive results of these kind of borderlands research would result in a temporary dislocation in the reductionist paradigm, similar to the discovery of radioactivity and X-rays at the end of the 19th century. But if the results continued to prove out, they would quickly be assimilated into the reductionist program, if necessary as a new axiom. I see this thread has been another demonstration of the failure of "A or not-A" thinking! Supernatural houses and natural deities, it is all so confusing! :)Nakashima_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PST}

RDK, ------"I’ve already explained my definition of supernatural. It pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe." That would include your mind, all abstractions whatsoever (like love and forgiveness) the laws of logic and reason, math and philosophy in general. Well done. You've proven that science relies on the supernatural, given that it relies on minds that rely on laws of reason and logic and math and philosophy---none of which are scientifically visible in the universe.Clive Hayden_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PST}

David Kellogg, Here's what I mean in a nut shell. Science can only go so far, the rest of the inference is up to us. Just like we don't subject our loved ones to the burdens of scientific proof in a lab before we'll believe what they tell us. It would be morbid to do so, I'm sure you would agree. And pertaining to the Spiritual Brain, it effectively showed that there was no God-center of the brain. That was effectively evidenced, but by a negation, showing that the mind cannot be explained by the material. Have you read the book? Once again, I reject methodological naturalism, for it is based on a philosophy, and by its own criterion should reject the philosophy because the philosophy cannot be studied by methodological naturalism, given that it doesn't physically exist. It's like a snake eating its own tail, when it accomplishes its goal, it destroys itself.Clive Hayden_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply