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

Graham, ------"The suprnatural is ignored by Science, simply because the supernatural is not productive. Everything we know has come from the material. Can you cite a math formula, cure for a disease etc that was handed to us by Angels?" Can you cite a math formula that was handed to us in the physical world? I'd love to see zero in the flesh. I'll give you my address if you can ship me some of that freedom, love, dignity and honor material. I ran out already. Clive Hayden_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PST}

RDK, ------"Which is odd, because he spent a good 10 posts or so going rounds with me about the immaterial basis of free will." All I did was point out your special pleading and self referential incoherence.Clive Hayden_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PST}

David Kellogg, ------"I’m still amazed that Clive has (as I pointed out in 99 above) embraced methodological naturalism and dismissed so-called non-material science of mind." I don't embrace methodological naturalism, I was just busy this evening and away from the computer while you were putting words into my mouth.Clive Hayden_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PST}

David Kellogg, ------"Well, I think the mind is product of material forces. I may be wrong. But I do think — and you seem to agree — that any science of mind will be a materialist science." I do not agree. I do not agree that there can even be a science of the mind, for the mind would be studying the mind, and you could never "get behind" or "outside" the mind in order to study it. It is a vantage point, subject/object problem.Clive Hayden_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PST}

David Kellogg, ------"Witness Clive (a) embrace methodological naturalism and (b) implicitly classify The Spiritual Brain as unscientific." You misunderstand me. The Spiritual Brain is scientific. The effects of the non-materiality in that book are explained by a negation, that is, no material event causes the outcomes, because it is the mind that causes the outcomes studied. This is discerned not from studying material movements of the mind, but the mind as an explanation via immaterial, without a naturalistic confining methodology. I do not embrace methodological naturalism, for it is based on philosophical naturalism, which is not itself physical. It has a contradiction running all the way through it. Science is not the end all for knowledge, no matter how scientism wants it to be, for without a prior reasoning ability and logic, you would have no science. Science relies on our minds, not our minds on science. And our minds rely on laws of logic and reason, not laws of physics and biochemistry. You've got it all backwards David.Clive Hayden_{June 17, 2009
June
06
Jun
17
17
2009
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PST}

@SingBlueSilver:"I think you’re confused. ‘Natural phenomena’ means ‘things we can test and observe.’ Archeology is science because we can observe artifacts, collect data, form a coherent picture of past civilizations, and make predictions about what other artifacts we should find and where." No, I disagree. "Natural phenomena" refer to what is "natural", what has no purpose. You can't re-invent word and definitions and believing that you can get away with it. As to imply that all natural phenomena are "observable" this is wrong as well: for example, how are you suppose to test if time exist or not, or if yourself you exist or not? But even if your definition of "Natural phenomena" was correct, your application is not. Archeology can observe artifact and collect data the same way than an ID scientist is going to observe nature and collect data. What Archeology does that is beyond the realm of a "naturalist inference" is that it explain the data by refering to an intelligent cause, an intelligent designer that is usually the Human. In that sense, even using your meaning of "Natural phenomena" there is no way Archeology could be classify as science. Human design, by definition, is not a "Natural phenomena". SingBlueSilver:" On the other hand, she assumes that God is not a “natural phenomena”. How can she be so sure of that? Think about it like a homicide detective trying to solve a murder. He can’t figure out how the suspect got away. Do you think the detective should at least CONSIDER the possibility that giant invisible eagles lifted the suspect to safety? Or should he stick to ‘naturalistic’ explanations only? " This is a good example. If the detective need to stick to only a Naturalistic explanation, he will assume that there wasn't a murder and that the guy died of "natural causes". He can't accept other explanation involving other intelligent agent as this would go against its own prejudice. Don't you think that this detective should definitely CONSIDER the possibility that the guy dead with 3 bullet in the head and 2 in the heart my have been killed by an "intelligent being" or should he stick to its "naturalistic explanation" whatever absurd that may sound (he might need a good imagination to explain how someone died of "natural cause" with 5 bullets in his body...).Kyrilluk_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PST}

Mr. English, In your 2008 paper INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION you state: "The design inference has a legal vulnerability arising from the fact that non-natural intelligence is supernatural, and the supernatural is clearly linked with the religious in case law [10, p. 67]. In recent years, the ID movement has shifted to saying that intelligence is natural, but not material. (For an example of earlier usage, see [11].) Given that scientists conventionally regard nature to be material, the ID movement has changed the meaning of natural to suit itself, and for no apparent reason but to gain better legal footing. Similarly, many ID advocates call themselves evolutionists, falling back on a dictionary meaning of the term (a process of change in a given direction), rather than scientists’ conventional interpretation (an undirected process of change deriving from random variation of offspring and natural selection). This chapter will use conventional scientific terminology." Mr. English, ideas evolve from intelligence, and are not necessarily motivated by political expedience. As long as both sides continue to argue in this manner, ID will prevail by political default, and not by its argument. In other words, if we allow it to be a political battle, as you apparently have, then I would say that if that was the motivation behind ID, it will win the political battle due to sheer numbers gaining in support outside the academy - the "simple-minded hoards." But if we allow it to be a battle of ideas, then who knows what the outcome will be? You might suspect that ID will collapse under its own sheer religio-dogmatic weight, while others suspect that it will prevail due to the weight of its argument. Let's stop plotting political-legal spins on this issue, and allow the ideas to speak for themselves. There is plenty of political spin to go around on both sides of the debate, and not much of it is truly enlightening. What I find enlightening is the challenges to our thinking that come from both sides of this debate. That's as it should be. The weakness of ID was when we were allowing human-constructed terms such as "natural" to define the limits of our argument. That we now understand "natural" to be a forced parameter that doesn't necessarily fit with reality, we freed ourselves from its confines. I fail to see how you conclude this as politically motivated. I find that it's more of an adjustment to the terminology in order for ID to be more free from the confines of a particular language and meaning that is limiting to the concepts. The concepts we have always perceived, however, are the same. There is nothing disengenuous in coming to a new understanding that there is a problem with the term "supernatural," as though anything outside of nature is not reality. It's a term forced upon us by a metaphysical assumption. It is therefore, logical and prudent in a debate such as this to do away with constraining terminology in order to better and more precisely describe what ID holds to be true. I would expect the same from the Darwinian camp to stop insisting on a metaphysical assumption to define science. You also state: "...many ID advocates call themselves evolutionists, falling back on a dictionary meaning of the term (a process of change in a given direction), rather than scientists’ conventional interpretation (an undirected process of change deriving from random variation of offspring and natural selection)." What's the problem with 'falling back' on the dictionary meaning, if that's precisely what Darwinists do with evolution doubters in their attempt to process them over to the larger concept of RM + NS? I don't think I need to reference this, as I'm sure that most on the ID side here can give examples. I have a few from my own experience with debating Darwinists. It's a common occurrence. It's a game of flip-flopping definitions. Is that an example of a politically motivated expedience? Perhaps not, but you can see how the ID side can come up with some perceived political motivations as much as the Darwinian side can.CannuckianYankee_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PST}

Pav @25: "My thoughts here turn to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Here is an image that clearly had a ‘designer’, yet which is part of our world, meaning it can be tested. As such, what does science have to say about this image after having tested it? Well, science tells us that they have no explanation whatsoever for how the image was formed." I think you seriously mis-heard science. Joe Nickell talks about The Virgin: http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-06/guadalupe.html "... new evidence confirms skeptics' claims that the image is merely a native artist's painting, the tale apocryphal, and "Juan Diego" probably fictitious." "The image itself also yields evidence of considerable borrowing. It is a traditional portrait of Mary, replete with standard artistic motifs and in fact clearly derived from earlier Spanish paintings. Yet some proponents of the image have suggested that the obvious artistic elements were later additions and that the "original" portions-the face, hands, robe, and mantle-are therefore "inexplicable" and even "miraculous" (Callahan 1981). Actually, infrared photographs show that the hands have been modified, and close-up photography shows that pigment has been applied to the highlight areas of the face sufficiently heavily so as to obscure the texture of the cloth. There is also obvious cracking and flaking of paint all along a vertical seam, and the infrared photos reveal in the robe's fold what appear to be sketch lines, suggesting that an artist roughed out the figure before painting it. Portrait artist Glenn Taylor has pointed out that the part in the Virgin's hair is off-center; that her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, as they often do in paintings, but not in nature, and that these outlines appear to have been done with a brush; and that much other evidence suggests the picture was probably copied by an inexpert artist from an expertly done original." "In fact, during a formal investigation of the cloth in 1556, it was stated that the image was "painted yesteryear by an Indian," specifically "the Indian painter Marcos." This was probably the Aztec painter Marcos Cipac de Aquino who was active in Mexico at the time the Image of Guadalupe appeared." "Recently our findings were confirmed when the Spanish-language magazine Proceso reported the results of a secret study of the Image of Guadalupe. It had been conducted - secretly - in 1982 by art restoration expert José Sol Rosales. Rosales examined the cloth with a stereomicroscope and observed that the canvas appeared to be a mixture of linen and hemp or cactus fiber. It had been prepared with a brush coat of white primer (calcium sulfate), and the image was then rendered in distemper (i.e., paint consisting of pigment, water, and a binding medium). The artist used a "very limited palette," the expert stated, consisting of black (from pine soot), white, blue, green, various earth colors ("tierras"), reds (including carmine), and gold. Rosales concluded that the image did not originate supernaturally but was instead the work of an artist who used the materials and methods of the sixteenth century (El Vaticano 2002)." PaV @ 25: "It seems to me that the whole question of this image of Our Lady of Guadalupe puts the entire ID vs. the naturalistic methodology of Darwinism into proper focus." herb @ 32: "That’s a great example of how ID works." herb @ 62: "I think all we can say (with near certainty) is that the origin is supernatural." Yes indeedy.djmullen_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PST}

Hi Kellogg,
I’m still amazed that Clive has (as I pointed out in 99 above) embraced methodological naturalism and dismissed so-called non-material science of mind.
Which is odd, because he spent a good 10 posts or so going rounds with me about the immaterial basis of free will.RDK_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PST}

Pubdef: "I suppose I’d have to say that there is no line between the natural and the supernatural, because, as far as I can tell, if something exists, it is 'natural.' If something is fantasized or made up out of whole cloth, I suppose you could call it 'supernatural' (but that raises the question of whether anything that doesn’t exist has a correct name" So far that's exacly correct. But then you say: "What about abstractions, like love, fear, math, language? Perhaps they are not “entities,” but I see no reason to call them 'supernatural.'" Why then do you allow anyone to call God "supernatural?" This is the problem with methodological naturalism; it assumes that what is immaterial like God is necessarily "supernatural," thus ruling out the possibility that empiricism can detect the nature of his effects. Just as Joseph pointed out above, it IS a form of radical empiricism. We should not assume any forced conclusions on what is natural. It's merely a game of semantics - a construct of mind; absurdities emerge in the extreme. Why not rather say: "I don't know if God exists, but I cannot rule out that He could be a part of natural reality, and therefore, His effects could be quantifiable, regardless of what I currently know or experience as 'natural'" This is the difference between agnosticism and hard atheism. The agnostics at least don't rule out the possible. This is why we declare that methodological naturalism is a metaphysical assumption, and not an empirical reality. Could it be an empirical reality? Of course, but currently we do not know, and we have evidence that it is probably not. That's the challenge of ID. All the arguments regarding who the designer is, then are irrelevant. ID is concerned with detecting the nature of the intelligence behind the effects of the designer, not the designer himself. I would say that Darwinism is also concerned with detecting the nature of the intelligence behind the effects of the designer, as well. The only difference, is that Darwinism assumes sui generis, that the designer is nature itself, and that the intelligence is RM + NS, without considering other options. And then when other options are brought to the table, labels such as "supernatural" are forced on the alternative hypotheses, rendering them outside of the forced and unscientific metaphysical definition of science found in methodological naturalism.CannuckianYankee_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PST}

I'm still amazed that Clive has (as I pointed out in 99 above) embraced methodological naturalism and dismissed so-called non-material science of mind.David Kellogg_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PST}

"They problem is that they had not sufficiently thought it through or considered the implications. On the other hand, they did, at least, know what their position is with respect to the line of demarcation between natural and supernatural. Perhaps if you would tell me where you think that line is, we could discuss it." What condescending claptrap.David Kellogg_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PST}

Mr Joseph, The effects of intelligence (agency) can be quantified. It’s called counterflow The material you link to provides a simple definition of counterflow, and a basic typology of counterflow, but not a way to measure counterflow.Nakashima_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PST}

Stephen B said:
So, do you think that one cluster of clanging molecules comes to agreement with another cluster of clanging molecules? Can these clusters of clanging molecules [or quantum events or whatever you like] choose not to come to a meeting of the minds?
I honestly don't have a fixed opinion on "choice;" it certainly feels like I can decide whether to continue writing this or go walk the dog, but I don't think the arguments against free will are trivial. As far as clanging molecules are concerned -- I know of no evidence that we are anything else, so, yeah, I guess I do think that "one cluster of clanging molecules comes to agreement with another cluster of clanging molecules." Ain't it great?pubdef_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PST}

Oramus: "If the ‘effects’ of intelligence can be quantified, then the ‘effects’ of intelligent design can also be quantified." Exactly what I was thinking when I wrote #83. If we can detect intelligence via a quotient, then..... Why is the obvious so far out of our thinking sometimes? Perhaps it's a measure of our intelligence? :)CannuckianYankee_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PST}

Stephen B said:
What you are talking about is radical empiricism, which is the epistemological counterpart to materialist metaphysics. In case you are not familiar with it, radical empiricism holds that all knowledge is arrived at through sense experience and no knowledge is arrived at through the mind. What is your evidence for holding that position?
If I ever hold that position, I'll tell you what my evidence for it is. For now, I'll say that I don't have the vaguest notion how you concluded, from anything I've said, that I hold that position. It is also entirely a mystery to me why you think that "methodological naturalism" is equivalent to "radical empiricism."pubdef_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PST}

To pubdef: Science points to something outside reality (StephenB at #119) I agree. What on earth does that mean ?Graham_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PST}

Stephen B said:
How do you, as a believer in methodological naturalism, establish the boundary between natural and supernatural?
And:
On the other hand, they did, at least, know what their position is with respect to the line of demarcation between natural and supernatural. Perhaps if you would tell me where you think that line is, we could discuss it.
I suppose I'd have to say that there is no line between the natural and the supernatural, because, as far as I can tell, if something exists, it is "natural." If something is fantasized or made up out of whole cloth, I suppose you could call it "supernatural" (but that raises the question of whether anything that doesn't exist has a correct name; it reminds me of questions like "Did Spock have a human mother?"). I don't know or understand much about quantum physics, but I'm comfortable saying, for the most part, that if some entity exists there should be some empirical evidence of it. What about abstractions, like love, fear, math, language? Perhaps they are not "entities," but I see no reason to call them "supernatural."pubdef_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PST}

Again, I think you are confusing the methodological naturalism with science. Your side is saying that we must do science as if nature is all there is. We are saying that there may be more. If science points to something outside of itself or other than physical reality, there is no reason in the world why we should not be open to it.
Let's suppose that you've convinced me. OK, I'm open to it. Let's do some science. What are we going to do next? Alright, I'm back again, not convinced. When did science point to something outside of itself or other than physical reality? What does it mean to say that? How does science point to something that is not science?pubdef_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PST}

To StephenB: Can you measure spirit? No, but that doesnt make it supernatural. Just like we cant measure hunger, happiness, etc etc. None of these are supernatural, they are all things we feel, and result from the current (physical) state of our brain. No mind needed. This is pretty simple to demonstrate: when treated by drugs, we can affect all these things. Are you suggesting that the (physical) drug somehow wafts off into the ether to affect our 'spirit' ?Graham_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PST}

Hi Stephen,
Again, I think you are confusing the methodological naturalism with science. Your side is saying that we must do science as if nature is all there is. We are saying that there may be more. If science points to something outside of itself or other than physical reality, there is no reason in the world why we should not be open to it.
Science is methodological naturalism. Science has no comment on the supernatural. The supernatural cannot be falsified, and can't even be separated from the natural in any quantifiable way. Why the need for a distinction? When irrational concepts like gods or deities come into the explanations for things without any sound reason or prompt, then science is useless. There's no point in explaining anything because Yahweh did it, or Shiva did it, or Loki did it. And can you even describe what "supernatural" entails that "natural" doesn't? Do you view existence as some sort of snow-globe where everything outside of it is supernatural?RDK_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PST}

----Pubdef: “That is a classic example of the “when did you stop beating your wife” type of question. If I don’t recognize “the carpenter’s act of using his mmaterial mind to design a house,” it makes no sense to talk about whether it constitutes a supernatural event. If you want to know whether I think there is anything “supernatural” about a carpenter designing and building a house, I can easily say that the answer is “no.” No, I am not asking you that kind of question. I am simply hoping that you will tell me what you think rather than what you don’t think. In this case the question would be the one which defines the thread: How do you, as a believer in methodological naturalism, establish the boundary between natural and supernatural?” ----“I suppose someone said something like that, but I don’t think I would. I like to stay away from “anything that [A] is [B]” statements; certainly, in this instances, it goes beyond what is necessary to make a coherent point.” They did not say it right away. I had to, [how should I put this] encourage them to answer a few questions in order to bring to them that point. They problem is that they had not sufficiently thought it through or considered the implications. On the other hand, they did, at least, know what their position is with respect to the line of demarcation between natural and supernatural. Perhaps if you would tell me where you think that line is, we could discuss it. ----“The crux of the issue, I think, is not the definition of “supernatural” but rather the identification of the boundaries of “the relative epistemological safety of knowledge,” which Forrest identifies as that which can be known through methodological naturalism.” What you are talking about is radical empiricism, which is the epistemological counterpart to materialist metaphysics. In case you are not familiar with it, radical empiricism holds that all knowledge is arrived at through sense experience and no knowledge is arrived at through the mind. What is your evidence for holding that position? ----“Be that as it may, the next point of contention I have with your formulation is your designation of “the mind” as included in the set of “anything that cannot be measured.” Even if the mind cannot be measured precisely or completely, I think that my examples defeat the proposal that it “cannot be measured” at all.” How would you measure a non-material entity? Can you measure spirit? -----Is there any empirical evidence of a mind operating without a brain? You seem to misunderstand. No one is talking about a mind operating without a brain. The issue is, can the mind influence the brain and do things the brain can’t do? One example would be the “placebo effect.” Another would be the human capacity for self control. ----“I think that the only coherent conception of an “immaterial” mind “doing” something would be analogous to what we mean when we say “two divides eight.” We can have a meeting of the minds (well, maybe not we, exactly), but I’m satisfied, until I see evidence of the contrary, that such an agreement corresponds to an event involving matter and energy in our brains.” So, do you think that one cluster of clanging molecules comes to agreement with another cluster of clanging molecules? Can these clusters of clanging molecules [or quantum events or whatever you like] choose not to come to a meeting of the minds? ----“Do you believe in a non-matter?” Of course. I have a free will or the capacity for volition, which is totally non-material. Otherwise, I could not resist, redirect, or otherwise refuse to ratify the brain’s impulses and promtings, which may bid me to do something else. ----“There is a real “talking in circles” quality to this, in that I and my kind are asserting, I think, that “natural” and “can be studied scientifically” are synonymous; you guys want to criticize this, but I think that would obligate you to conceive of, and describe, science that goes outside of methodological naturalism. I think you are trying to establish that there is a married bachelor.” Again, I think you are confusing the methodological naturalism with science. Your side is saying that we must do science as if nature is all there is. We are saying that there may be more. If science points to something outside of itself or other than physical reality, there is no reason in the world why we should not be open to it.StephenB_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PST}

To Cornelius: The suprnatural is ignored by Science, simply because the supernatural is not productive. Everything we know has come from the material. Can you cite a math formula, cure for a disease etc that was handed to us by Angels ? If the supernatural could provide us with anything useful, then theres nothing stopping some well-funded body (such as the church) from establishing some institution that daily hands out cures for MS, solution to string theory, etc etc. Why dont they do this ? They would leave (material) Science with egg all over its face, and actually do humanity some good.Graham_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PST}

Joseph:
Just in case anyone missed this: Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links: Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it’s unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
Wow. It looks like birds didn't descend from anything. Clearly, they or portions of their DNA were formed ex nihilo. Honestly, I wish I could celebrate how amazing that find truly is, but when I know that the only thing some folks will take from it is what I wrote above, a small part of me dies. Anyway, science is about small piles of evidence, and despite how the article is written, this find is by no means a trump card one way or another, ending all future discussion — it just opens a totally new door. Whoosh! Science! Awesome! There, I'm better now. :)Lenoxus_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PST}

---David: “How could a study of the supernatural be replicated?” Are we talking about a real supernatural event, such as Moses parting the waters, or are we talking about a Darwinist supernatural event such as a carpenter building a house? Are we talking about studying the immaterial agent or the effects produced by the immaterial agent? ---"OK, how could a study of the immaterial be replicated?" Either way is OK, supernatural or immaterial. In general, I think that it is a great thing to set up experiments in such a way that the results are reproducible. A rigorous methodology tends to enhance the reliability of a physical experiment. In many cases, however, that would not be possible. A musician, for example, [A] designs from his mind, [B] produces physical events which, in turn, [C] cause musical sounds. Imagine trying to capture the essence of a jazz musician’s creative effort by putting him back on the same stage with the same audience in hopes of getting the same sequence of notes. As Louis Armstrong once said, “it’s like walking up to a nightingale and saying, ‘how’s that again.’”StephenB_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PST}

Mr. Hunter, I would tell Ms. Forrest that there is no boundary between the natural and supernatural. Rather, the physical world is an effect of the supernatural. The universe cannot function independent of the supernatural. We can understand the unity of the natural and supernatural from Christ's words: "The kingdom of God is within you." Therefore, in order to understand the world around us, we must first know ourselves. Barbara Forrest has it backwards, thinking it is science that can tell us who, what, we are.Oramus_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PST}

Stephen B --
You can begin by telling me if you agree with your colleagues on the following proposition: The carpenter’s act of using his immaterial mind to design a house constitutes a supernatural event.
That is a classic example of the "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question. If I don't recognize "the carpenter's act of using his mmaterial mind to design a house," it makes no sense to talk about whether it constitutes a supernatural event. If you want to know whether I think there is anything "supernatural" about a carpenter designing and building a house, I can easily say that the answer is "no."
That calculation, by the way, is a necessary result of believing that anything that cannot be measured is, by definition, supernatural, which is the argument they have presented.
I suppose someone said something like that, but I don't think I would. I like to stay away from "anything that [A] is [B]" statements; certainly, in this instances, it goes beyond what is necessary to make a coherent point. The crux of the issue, I think, is not the definition of "supernatural" but rather the identification of the boundaries of "the relative epistemological safety of knowledge," which Forrest identifies as that which can be known through methodological naturalism. Be that as it may, the next point of contention I have with your formulation is your designation of "the mind" as included in the set of "anything that cannot be measured." Even if the mind cannot be measured precisely or completely, I think that my examples defeat the proposal that it "cannot be measured" at all.
You seem to be forgetting about the role of the brain and its mysterious relationship with the mind. True, some believe that mind/body dualism is “rubbish,” but others would argue that, while the mind depends on the brain to operate some extent, it can, nevertheless, do things that the brain cannot do [exercise self control, produce the “placebo effect” etc].
To some extent? Is there any empirical evidence of a mind operating without a brain? Further, what evidence is there that "the brain cannot do" these things? I think that the only coherent conception of an "immaterial" mind "doing" something would be analogous to what we mean when we say "two divides eight." We can have a meeting of the minds (well, maybe not we, exactly), but I'm satisfied, until I see evidence of the contrary, that such an agreement corresponds to an event involving matter and energy in our brains.
As has become clear, Darwinists cannot successfully identify the boundary between supernatural and natural. That would not be a crime except for the fact that they presume to use it as the definitive line of demarcation between science and non-science.
There is a real "talking in circles" quality to this, in that I and my kind are asserting, I think, that "natural" and "can be studied scientifically" are synonymous; you guys want to criticize this, but I think that would obligate you to conceive of, and describe, science that goes outside of methodological naturalism. I think you are trying to establish that there is a married bachelor.pubdef_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PST}

The effects of intelligence (agency) can be quantified. It's called counterflow.Joseph_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PST}

David / Khan, Seriously, in the abundance of water, the fool is thirsty.Oramus_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PST}

Just in case anyone missed this: Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links:
Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
Joseph_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply