Culture Intelligent Design Popular culture Science

Brian Keating on the problem with “Follow the Science”

Spread the love

Readers might remember that Brian Keating recently interviewed Steve Meyer but here he himself is interviewed:

As another example, Keating reminds us that “In the 20th century some of the most respected scientists in the world, including Nobel prize winners, believed in eugenics, the reprehensible idea that the human race could be improved by selective breeding. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the Rockefeller Foundation supported it. By the middle of the century it had been thoroughly rejected as quackery. No reputable scientist would have anything to with this idea.”

“So, we all need to get over this notion that just because someone — be it a politician, a bureaucrat, or even a scientist — employs the phrase ‘science says’ means whatever they’re saying is right,” Keating notes. “It might be right. But it might also be wrong. And if it’s wrong, it won’t necessarily be a bunch of scientists who say it’s wrong. It might be one guy.”

Keating then references Einstein, who quipped after 100 German scientists argued that his theory of relativity was flawed, “If I were wrong, then one would’ve been enough.” Prager U, “Scientist Unpacks The Problem With ‘Follow The Science’” at DailyWire

The craziness around COVID-19 will either cure people of “trust the science” for good or demonstrate that they are unable to think critically and therefore beyond help.

See also: Asked of Steve Meyer: If humans are so important to God, why did they take so long to develop? In the book, Meyer argues from three scientific discoveries to an inference to a personal God. If God is the creator, Keating wants to know, why was He so patient as to wait billions of years, during which not much that was very interesting happened, for the fulfillment of His purpose in initiating the universe to begin with?

61 Replies to “Brian Keating on the problem with “Follow the Science”

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    A semantic distinction:

    Eugenics isn’t invalid science. Selective breeding can unquestionably bring out certain traits and eliminate others. Eugenics is valid science used for evil purposes.

    The “virus” crap is perfectly invalid science. Every scrap of knowledge about real viruses and real immunity, acquired by centuries of painful experimentation, has been flipped upside down and used for genocide. The demons aren’t clueless. The demons are able to ruin us and kill us efficiently BECAUSE they know the real scientific facts.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Like the seemingly pithy saying “Follow The Science”, likewise, in response to the question, ‘Do you believe in God?”, many times atheist will answer, “I believe in Science”.

    I saw a similar seemingly pithy saying on a sign in somebody’s front yard yesterday which stated, (among other statements of faith on the sign), “Science is Real”.

    Here is the sign that I saw yesterday:

    “SCIENCE IS REAL”
    https://www.etsy.com/listing/830794484/auto-magnet-science-is-real-black-lives

    Yesterday, when I saw the sign it immediately struck me that, number one, atheists are using the word science as a stand in for belief in God,,, please note how easily, and aptly, the word ‘science’ is replaced with the word ‘God’,

    “Follow God”
    “I believe in God”
    “God is Real”

    And secondly, I also realized that, without God, science, nor anything else, can be actually be “real” for the atheist in the first place.

    Without God to ground his definition of what is ‘real’ in the first place, then everything in the atheist’s naturalistic worldview dissolves into a world of illusion and fantasy with no discernible anchor for ‘reality’ to hand his hat on.

    I’ve listed the following list several times before, but here is what happens when atheists forsake God as the foundation for what they consider to be ‘real’.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,

    And I recently made a fairly detailed defense of each of those claims in the following posts

    April 2021 – Defence of each claim
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327

    What I did not do in the preceding defense of the fact that, without God, everything dissolves into a world of illusion and fantasy for the atheist,,, what I did not do in that defense is also point out the fact that science, (which the atheist supposedly believes in, and even believes to be quote-unquote ‘real’), has now shown that even what the atheist regards as being unquestionably ‘real’, (namely the ‘concrete’ material particles themselves),,,, likewise these supposedly ‘concrete’ atoms also turn out be illusory and abstract.

    When I point out that, according to our best science from quantum mechanics, the most fundamental definition of reality is now considered to be immaterial information, not material particles,,,

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    – Vlatko Vedral – Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Oxford and Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT) at the National University of Singapore

    ,,, when I point that fact out, Seversky, our resident atheist, often likes to recount the following episode with Phillip Johnson, (who was a early, and prominent, ID advocate)

    Furthermore, in his The Life of Samuel Johnson James Boswell recounts the following episode:
    “After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it — “I refute it thus.”
    The reality is that, if you kick a stone hard now, it will hurt your foot just as much as it did in Johnson’s day. Quantum theory has not changed that one jot.”

    What Seversky, and apparently Phillip Johnson, both fail to realize in the preceding episode is that without consciousness there can be no experience of hardness, nor any experience of pain from kicking a rock with your foot, in the first place.

    You can drop a rock as hard as you want on an unconscious person and he will feel absolutely nothing. PERIOD!

    Every experience of the world that we may have, and especially any abstract scientific model of ‘reality’ that we may construct, presupposes the existence of consciousness, and does not presuppose the existence of ‘concrete’ material particles.

    As the quantum luminaries, Planck, Schroedinger, and Wigner all noted, consciousness MUST be fundamental to any definition of reality we put forth.

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    Max Planck (1858–1947), one of the primary founders of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    – Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.?

    “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists.”
    – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.

    And even Werner Heisenberg himself, another quantum luminary, was very close to saying the exact same thing when he stated,

    “I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
    – Werner Heisenberg – As quoted in The New York Times Book Review (March 8, 1992). – “Uncertainty,” David C. Cassidy’s biography of my father, Werner Heisenberg

    Yet, even though Seversky apparently believes material particles to be concrete and ‘real’, (and believes consciousness to be derivative from ‘real’ material particles, and does not believe material particles to be derivative from consciousness, as Max Planck himself held), these supposedly concrete and ‘real’ material particles themselves, the closer science has looked at them, dissolve into a world of complete abstraction and defeats the atheist’s belief that material particles are irreducibly ‘concrete’

    That is to say, although Seversky, as a reductive materialist, may be clinging to a 19th and early 20th century construct of atoms, in which atoms were thought to be concrete little billiard balls, that billiard ball construct of atoms has now long been known to be false conception of atoms.

    Instead of a billiard ball model of atoms, we now have a far more ‘ethereal’ quantum cloud model of atoms. You can see this on this timeline that depicts how our models of atoms have changed over time:

    History of the Atom – timeline image
    http://thehistoryoftheatom.weebly.com

    As well in this modern picture of atoms, you can see for yourself that atoms are far more ethereal and ‘non-concrete’ than was originally depicted in our early billiard ball model of atoms:

    Depiction of a ‘non-particle’ atom,
    http://researcher.watson.ibm.c...../stm15.jpg

    As well, in the following video, at the 24:31 minute mark, you can also see close up pictures of atoms that clearly get this ‘ethereal’, i.e. non-concrete’, point about atoms across.

    Discovering Science: Uncertain Principles – video – 24:31 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/iu6kqO4L0KQ?t=1471

    Science itself, which atheists claim to resolutely follow, has now unequivocally shown that there simply are no ‘concrete billiard ball’ particles in the atom to be found, as we had originally, and erroneously, presupposed in our models of atoms.

    As Bernardo Kastrup explains, “according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,”

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

    And as Werner Heisenberg himself stated, “The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things.”

    “The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things.”
    – Werner Heisenberg (1962). “Physics and philosophy: the revolution in modern science”, Harpercollins College Div.)

    These ‘non-concrete’, abstract, and ethereal, properties of atoms puts the die-hard materialist, (such as Seversky), in quite the conundrum because, as Bernardo Kastrup further explains in his article, to make sense of this non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. i.e. we must ultimately appeal to God!

    As Kastrup himself put it, “The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness”

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: “To make sense of this conundrum,,, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.,,,
    Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,,
    As I elaborate extensively in my new book, The Idea of the World, none of this implies solipsism. The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation. This mental universe is what physics is leading us to, not the hand-waving word games of information realism.
    – ibid

    Or to put the situation that quantum mechanics has presented to us much more simply, and as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”

    The mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry
    The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
    Excerpt: “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”
    – Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    And as if this realm of pure abstraction was not already bad enough for the atheistic materialist’s belief that atoms, and/or sub-atomic material particles, are ‘concrete’, quantum mechanics adds even further insult to injury to the atheist’s belief and shows us that, prior to measurement, atoms do not even exist.

    As the following Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment that was done with atoms demonstrated, ”It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” and as the researcher added, “”Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,”

    Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015
    Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.
    Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide?
    Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips.
    The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler’s original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light.
    “Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-05-q.....dness.html

    And as Anton Zeilinger stated in the following interview, “there are situations where it is completely undefined where the particle is.,,, and it is not just us (we ourselves) that don’t know where the particle is, the particle itself does not know where it is.,,, This “nonexistence” is an objective feature of reality.,,,”

    Anton Zeilinger interviewed about Quantum Mechanics – video – 2018
    (The essence of Quantum Physics for a general audience)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82XCvgnpmA
    40 sec: Every object has to be in a definite place is not true anymore.,,,
    The thought that a particle can be at two places at the same time is (also) not good language.
    The good language is that there are situations where it is completely undefined where the particle is. (and it is not just us (we ourselves) that don’t know where the particle is, the particle itself does not know where it is). This “nonexistence” is an objective feature of reality.,,,
    5:10 min:,,, superposition is not limited to small systems,,,

    It is hard to imagine a more complete and thorough ‘scientific’ falsification of the atheist’s materialistic belief, (that ‘concrete’ particles are the most fundamental ‘stuff’ of the universe that everything else in the universe derives from), than the fact that atoms themselves do not even exist prior to our measurement of them.

    But exactly where is the atom prior to measurement?

    Well, according to quantum mechanics, and prior to measurement, the atom, and/or photon, is mathematically defined as existing in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. A infinite dimensional Hilbert space which also happens to take an infinite amount of information to describe properly.

    Now being ‘mathematically’ required to describe the atom, prior to measurement, as being in a ‘infinite dimensional’ and ‘infinite information’ state, certainly sounds very much like the atom, though not existing in the physical realm, is existing in the omnipresent and omniscient Mind of God prior to measurement.

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Thus in conclusion, although atheists may claim that they ‘believe in Science’, rather than believing in God, the fact of the matter is that without God, nothing, not even material particles themselves, turn out to be ‘real’ for the atheist.

    In short, if the atheist truly wants to believe in ‘reality’, and not in illusions and abstractions, he is forced to believe in God. Only with God can anything truly be held to be ‘real’ for the atheist, or for anyone else.

    Acts 17:24-25
    The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands. Nor is He served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.

    Here is a fitting poem for our materialistic friends:

    A Dream Within a Dream
    BY EDGAR ALLAN POE
    Take this kiss upon the brow!
    And, in parting from you now,
    Thus much let me avow —
    You are not wrong, who deem
    That my days have been a dream;
    Yet if hope has flown away
    In a night, or in a day,
    In a vision, or in none,
    Is it therefore the less gone?
    All that we see or seem
    Is but a dream within a dream.

    I stand amid the roar
    Of a surf-tormented shore,
    And I hold within my hand
    Grains of the golden sand —
    How few! yet how they creep
    Through my fingers to the deep,
    While I weep — while I weep!
    O God! Can I not grasp
    Them with a tighter clasp?
    O God! can I not save
    One from the pitiless wave?
    Is all that we see or seem
    But a dream within a dream?

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    From a week ago on this question. It’s politics not science.

    There is also the expression “follow the science” or “I believe in science” which populate the popular press or people’s front lawns.

    There are extremely wide interpretations of the same facts by different scientists. The question becomes then which scientist to believe when they are interpreting the “facts” of science. I asked a neighbor who proudly displayed a sign about believing in science what science he meant.

    He said climate science, evolution, C19 and threw in elections too. I smiled and said good bye. It was useless to engage such a person. He also had a BLM sign on his lawn too.

    This is the bigger issue not the facts themselves. It’s all about politics not science

    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/we-are-urged-to-believe-in-the-facts-of-science-yet-historically-these-facts-often-change/#comment-726945

  5. 5
    Viola Lee says:

    BA writes, “And as if this realm of pure abstraction was not already bad enough for the atheistic materialist’s belief that atoms, and/or sub-atomic material particles, are ‘concrete’”

    I don’t believe any knowledgeable person, “atheistic materialist” or not, believes that atoms or sub-atomic particles are “concrete”, and probably haven’t for close to 100 years. I think you are tilting at a very old and out-dated windmill.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Viola Lee, instead of you assuming that you know what other people believe, I think you need to read my posts where I specifically quoted Seversky’s belief in materialism being ‘concrete’.

    Specifically this portion,

    ,,, When I point out that, according to our best science from quantum mechanics, the most fundamental definition of reality is now considered to be immaterial information, not material particles,,,

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    – Vlatko Vedral – Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Oxford and Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT) at the National University of Singapore

    ,,, when I point that fact out, Seversky, our resident atheist, often likes to recount the following episode with Phillip Johnson, (who was a early, and prominent, ID advocate)

    Furthermore, in his The Life of Samuel Johnson James Boswell recounts the following episode:
    “After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it — “I refute it thus.”
    The reality is that, if you kick a stone hard now, it will hurt your foot just as much as it did in Johnson’s day. Quantum theory has not changed that one jot.”

    What Seversky, and apparently Phillip Johnson, both fail to realize in the preceding episode is that without consciousness there can be no experience of hardness, nor any experience of pain from kicking a rock with your foot, in the first place.

    You can drop a rock as hard as you want on an unconscious person and he will feel absolutely nothing. PERIOD!,,

    etc.. etc..

    I then go on to point out that there is nothing that can be considered concrete in the atom. And how all this ‘non-concreteness’ of the material realm fits perfectly into my Judeo-Christian view of reality, (and how it is extremely antagonistic to Seversky’s materialistic conception of reality)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727672

    Sure, when confronted with the scientific evidence, Seversky will, from time to time, try to backpedal a bit on his straight up materialism, and try to find a work-a-round for his atheism, but since their really can be no work-a-round, he always ends up coming back to straight up materialism.

  7. 7
    Viola Lee says:

    The story you quote about Johnson does not mean that Johnson, or Seversky, believes that ultimately matter is “concrete”. Yes, it is true that experientially, at the macro level, concrete is concrete, but that is very different than believing that “atoms, and/or sub-atomic material particles, are ‘concrete’”

    You are drawing an erroneous conclusion from the Johnson story.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Viola Lee tries to find a work-a-round for atheistic materialism and states this,

    “Yes, it is true that experientially, at the macro level, concrete is concrete,”

    I guess VL is trying to postulate that ‘concreteness’ is simply a ’emergent property’ from some type of materialistic basis as long as you have enough of these microscopic ‘non-concrete’ particles to overcome their intrinsic ‘non-concreteness’. ? 🙂

    I don’t know what others may think of VL’s answer, but that certainly sounds very much like the hand-waving excuses we encounter from atheistic materialists whenever we ask them to try to explain the origin of consciousness from a materialistic basis.

    But anyways,,, interestingly, VL used the word “experientially” in his response.

    I guess he wanted to sound “scientific” in his answer.

    But alas for VL, the word ‘experimentally’ opens VL up to questioning.

    i.e. Exactly which scientific experiment is VL referring to when he says, “Yes, it is true that experientially, at the macro level, concrete is concrete”.

    It certainly is not this following experiment:

    Experiments testing macroscopic quantum superpositions must be slow – 2016
    Excerpt: Introduction
    The existence of coherent superpositions is a fundamental postulate of quantum mechanics but, apparently, implies very counterintuitive consequences when extended to macroscopic systems. This problem, already pointed out since the beginning of quantum theory through the famous Schrödinger cat paradox1, has been the subject of a large scientific debate which is still open and very active.
    Nowadays there is no doubt about the existence of quantum superpositions. Indeed this effect has been demonstrated in a number of experiments involving microscopic systems (photons2,3, electrons4,5, neutrons6, atoms7,8, molecules9,10, etc.). However, at least in principle, the standard theory of quantum mechanics is valid at any scale and does not put any limit on the size of the system: if you can delocalize a molecule then nothing should forbid you to delocalize a cat, apart from technical difficulties. Such difficulties are usually associated with the impossibility of isolating the system from its environment, because it is well known that any weak interaction changing the state of the environment is sufficient to destroy the initial coherence of the system.,,,
    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep22777

    Leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger also disagrees with VL assessment and says that this quantum ‘non-concreteness’ witnessed at the microscopic level of particles is also present in macroscopically large objects.

    In fact, I’ve heard Zeilinger jokingly say that his ability to demonstrate superposition for macroscopically larger and larger objects, even as large as planets, is only limited by the amount of money in his budget.

    More seriously, in the following interview Zeilinger simply states that, “superposition is not limited to small systems,,,”

    Anton Zeilinger interviewed about Quantum Mechanics – video – 2018
    (The essence of Quantum Physics for a general audience)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82XCvgnpmA
    5:10 min quote:,,, superposition is not limited to small systems,,,

    And here is Zeilinger’s experimental work, thus far, disproving the oft repeated false claim from atheistic materialists that quantum effects are limited to only microscopic systems and are not applicable to macroscopically large systems.

    Macroscopic quantum superposition
    Zeilinger is also interested to extend quantum mechanics into the macroscopic domain. In the early 1990s, he started experiments in the field of atom optics. He developed a number of ways to coherently manipulate atomic beams, many of which, like the coherent energy shift of an atomic De Broglie wave upon diffraction at a time-modulated light wave, have become cornerstones of today’s ultracold atom experiments. In 1999, Zeilinger abandoned atom optics for experiments with very complex and massive macro-molecules – fullerenes. The successful demonstration of quantum interference for these C60 and C70 molecules[25] in 1999 opened up a very active field of research. Key results include the most precise quantitative study to date of decoherence by thermal radiation and by atomic collisions and the first quantum interference of complex biological macro-molecules. This work is continued by Markus Arndt.
    In 2005, Zeilinger with his group again started a new field, the quantum physics of mechanical cantilevers. The group was the first – in the year 2006 along with work from Heidmann in Paris and Kippenberg in Garching – to demonstrate experimentally the self-cooling of a micro-mirror by radiation pressure, that is, without feedback.[26] That phenomenon can be seen as a consequence of the coupling of a high-entropy mechanical system with a low-entropy radiation field. This work is now continued independently by Markus Aspelmeyer.
    Most recently, using orbital angular momentum states, he was able to demonstrate entanglement of angular momentum up to 300 ?.[27]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Zeilinger#Macroscopic_quantum_superposition

    Thus, contrary to what VL claimed, I certainly have not heard of any scientific experiment that has ever definitely shown us exactly where the supposed ‘concreteness’ kicks in for macroscopically large objects.

    All experiments that I am aware of thus far in quantum mechanics have only proven that quantum mechanics is also applicable to macroscopically large objects, with no foreseeable intrinsic limit for how large the macroscopic system may be. i.e. ‘Concreteness’ never kicks in for VL at the macroscopic scale.

    As Vlatko Vedral stated, “The division between the quantum and classical worlds appears not to be fundamental. It is just a question of experimental ingenuity, and few physicists now think that classical physics will ever really make a comeback at any scale.,,,
    Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales.”

    LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD – Vlatko Vedral – 2011
    Excerpt: experiments now leave very little room for such processes to operate. The division between the quantum and classical worlds appears not to be fundamental. It is just a question of experimental ingenuity, and few physicists now think that classical physics will ever really make a comeback at any scale.,,,
    Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.
    http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchan.....611038.pdf
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Oxford and Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT) at the National University of Singapore

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Since ‘concreteness’ is not a property of atoms, and since ‘concreteness’ does not ’emerge’ in a macroscopic collection of microscopic ‘non-concrete’ atoms in a rock, the question now becomes ‘just where does ‘concreteness’ in a rock come from?’

    Well, to cut to the chase, it is the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants of the universe, which are immaterial and ‘unseen’, that tell the energy and matter of the rock exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, that can be said to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising “thing” in the rock that is giving the rock its property of ‘concreteness.’

    Thus, ‘concreteness’ is not some intrinsic property of the atoms of the rock, but is a extrinsic property that is imparted to the rock by the unseen, unchanging, and immaterial laws of the universe.

    And the unseen and immaterial,, laws of the universe, contrary to what atheists try to claim, are from God. They are definitely NOT from some ‘bottom-up’ materialistic process as atheists try to claim.

    At the 28:09 minute mark of the following video, Dr Hugh Ross speaks of the 7 places in the bible that speak of unchanging universal constants.

    Symposium 2015 : Scientific Evidence For God’s Existence – Hugh Ross – video
    https://youtu.be/4mEKZRm1xXg?t=1689

    Here is one example out of the seven verses cited by Dr. Ross:

    Psalm 119:89-91
    Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans.

    In fact, modern science was born, in large measure, from the Christian presupposition that God imposed law on nature,

    The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show – Monday, Aug. 2012
    Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”
    http://www.christianpost.com/n.....how-80307/

    Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007
    Excerpt:,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, ,,,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....avies.html

    Atheistic materialists try to explain everything, including the laws of nature themselves, with bottom-up’ materialistic explanations. A shining example of this is inflationary theory which seeks to explain the macroscopic structures of this universe.

    They fail in their attempts to try to explain the laws of nature.

    Without getting too far into the weeds, lets just say that Atheists simply have no clue how these unseen, immaterial, laws of nature can possibly emerge from some ‘bottom-up’ materialistic explanation.

    “There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations.
    Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws.
    Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.”
    Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.”
    – Origenes

    Thus in conclusion, the ‘concreteness’ that we perceive in a rock is due to, not the atoms of the rock, nor some ’emergent’ property of a large collection of atoms that compose the rock, but is instead due to the unseen, unchanging, and immaterial, laws of the universe,,,, and these unseen, unchanging, immaterial, laws of the universe come from God.

    In short, the rock receives any ‘concreteness’ that it may be perceived to have from God.

    Psalm 119:89
    Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.

    Matthew 7:24-27
    “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

  10. 10
    Viola Lee says:

    Hi BA.

    1. I am not a materialist. I’m sure I’ve explained that a number of times, and sometimes to you. I also am quite aware that at the quantum level there are no solid particles as were thought to be the constituent basis of reality in the past. That idea has been gone for 100 years. Perhaps you can remember both these things in the future.

    2. You write,

    But anyways,,, interestingly, VL used the word “experientially” in his response.

    I guess he wanted to sound “scientific” in his answer.

    But alas for VL, the word ‘experimentally’ opens VL up to questioning.

    i.e. Exactly which scientific experiment is VL referring to when he says, “Yes, it is true that experientially, at the macro level, concrete is concrete”.

    Experientially and experimentally are two different words. I didn’t say “experimentally”.

    You write,

    I guess VL is trying to postulate that ‘concreteness’ is simply a ’emergent property’ from some type of materialistic basis as long as you have enough of these microscopic ‘non-concrete’ particles to overcome their intrinsic ‘non-concreteness’.”

    I am just talking about our everyday experience: we experience a world of solid objects: we set a lamp on a table, and the lamps just sits there. From a practical point of view, we say the table is a solid object even though we know it is not. It is from this practical, experiential view that we say matter exists even though the knowledgeable person knows that solid matter does not exist. Yes, what is really going on is countless numbers of quantum events, but we don’t experience them: we experience the lamp sitting on the table.

    Do you agree that this is just everyday language that is separate from scientific exactness. In your everyday life I’m sure you live as if some things are solid matter, putting things on the table, not trying to walk through walls, etc., even though you know, scientifically, that no solid matter really exists

    This practical, experiential everyday language and event is the kind of thing the Johnson story is about.

    I just see that BA posted something while I was writing. I may take a look at that.

  11. 11
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Viola Lee “ Hi BA. 1. I am not a materialist.”

    You would think that he would catch on after the fiftieth time you told him. 🙂

    Sadly, there are a few who automatically assign people to a specific category after they disagree with them on something. I guess it makes it easier to dismiss their views. It’s lazy, but if it makes them feel better with their lives. Who are we to argue.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Viola Lee, “I am not a materialist.”

    Then do not step in and suppose you can speak for Seversky, who toes the materialistic party line every chance he gets.

    He is more than capable of stating his own materialistic position and certainly doesn’t need you to tell me what you think his position is.

    I for one, would be interested in knowing exactly where Seversky, not you, thinks the ‘concreteness’ of the rock comes from in his materialistic worldview.

  13. 13
    Viola Lee says:

    BA writes,

    Since ‘concreteness’ is not a property of atoms, and since ‘concreteness’ does not ’emerge’ in a macroscopic collection of microscopic ‘non-concrete’ atoms in a rock, the question now becomes ‘just where does ‘concreteness’ in a rock come from?’ [Note: this is a good question.]

    Well, to cut to the chase, it is the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants of the universe, which are immaterial and ‘unseen’, that tell the energy and matter of the rock exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, that can be said to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising “thing” in the rock that is giving the rock its property of ‘concreteness.’ And the unseen and immaterial,, laws of the universe, contrary to what atheists try to claim, are from God. They are definitely NOT from some ‘bottom-up’ materialistic process as atheists try to claim.

    Well, this is a religious view, and not scientific, so it doesn’t mean much to me.

    But BA presents a false dichotomy when he writes, “They are definitely NOT from some ‘bottom-up’ materialistic process as atheists try to claim”. The scientific view is that “concreteness’ and other properties are built from the “bottom up” – from quantum events-but that those quantum events are NOT “materialistic” in the out-dated way BA continues to use that word. The properties of the world are built-up from quantum events, which are very different from the “little bits of matter” view of 100 years ago.

    BA inserts God into his interpretation about why quantum events are as they are, but that is a metaphysical overlay that adds nothing to scientifically understanding the situation.

  14. 14
    Viola Lee says:

    BA, I “stepped in” because you mischaracterized the meaning of the Johnson anecdote. (“Stepping in” is sometimes called “replying.”) The fact that Seversky’s name was involved was incidental to the main point. Johnson wasn’t an atheistic materialist, as I’m sure you know, and it is a story about him.

    You write, “He is more than capable of stating his own position and certainly doesn’t need you to tell me what you think his position is.”

    I wasn’t telling you what I think Seversky thinks, I was telling you what I think.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    SA2, I suggest you find someone else to troll.

  16. 16
    Viola Lee says:

    Thanks for the support, Steve. I think one thing that is hard for BA to accept, because it doesn’t fit his dichotomous worldview, is that I am a non-materialistic atheist in the sense that I have described myself in other posts. I accept the “reality” of the fundamental quantum world, and I understand that it brings up many unresolved issues about what in fact reality is. I understand that his Christian theistic interpretation is one metaphysical possibility, but just one of many, and in my opinion very unlikely to have an impact on the body of quantum physicists philosophizing about the nature of reality as hinted at by quantum mechanics.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    VL states, “Well, this is a religious view, and not scientific, so it doesn’t mean much to me.”

    Funny, science itself is impossible without presuppositions that can only be based in the Theistic worldview.

    So VL’s claim that he is being ‘scientific’ and I am not, does not mean that much to me other than meaning that VL has no real clue what science actually is.

    Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion – Michael Egnor – June 2011
    Excerpt: The scientific method — the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature — has nothing to so with some religious inspirations — Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature (that enabled the rise of modern science).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47431.html

    Methodological Naturalism, in particular, is simply insane as the supposed ‘scientific’ worldview

    Although the Darwinian atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinian atheists, without God, are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    April 2021 – Detailed Defence of each claim
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327

    In fact, as I have pointed out in this very thread, atoms themselves lack any concrete ‘realness’ to them,,,

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  18. 18
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Bornagain77 “ SA2, I suggest you find someone else to troll.

    If by “troll” you mean pointing out the blatantly obvious, I plead guilty. Or do you deny that you label people as a tactic in your arguments? Before you respond, I strongly recommend that you look back over your last 100 or 200 thousand words posted. Don’t worry, you shouldn’t have to look back further that April 5th.

  19. 19
    Viola Lee says:

    In your everyday life, BA, how do you experience your understanding when you put a lamp on the table. Do you implicitly think, “The table is solid so the map will stay there,” or do you implicitly think, “The Mind of God is manifesting through a whole bunch of immaterial quantum events that keeps the lamp on the table,” or what? When you aren’t arguing philosophy, but just living, how do feel about the solidity of the table?

  20. 20
    count of crisco says:

    I’m not sure what BA77’s background is, but she obviously doesn’t have half the intelligence, education or reasoning power that Viola Lee does. Any fool can cut-and-paste massive tracts of cherry-picked nonsense, but it takes an intelligent person, like Viola, to actually ask pertinent questions, listen to the responses, and develop an opinion, rather than selectively pick the data that supports your pre-determined opinion.

  21. 21
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Ouch. Fifteen yards for piling on. 🙂

    A paranoid person might conclude that Viola Lee, Count of Crisco and myself are actually the same person and beg the moderator to ban us all. 🙂

  22. 22
    Seversky says:

    Just to clear up any confusion, the Johnson referred to in the anecdote about kicking a rock is Dr Samuel Johnson, the eighteenth-century English scholar and lexicographer, not Phillip Johnson, the twentieth-century American lawyer and proponent of Intelligent Design. Neither Johnson was an atheist.

    Viola Lee, unlike me, has denied being a materialist and I would suggest that, as a matter of courtesy, you should take her at her word. In most other respects, she and SA2 and I are in agreement and I am happy to let her words stand for what I believe.

    On the question of “materialism”, the word broadly has two meanings. The first is what is sometimes referred to as “classical materialism” and is the belief that everything is made of matter, understood as little lumps of hard stuff. In the second meaning “materialism” is used interchangeably with “physicalism” understood as the physical nature of the Universe we observe as revealed by physics being all that there is. In other words, this is the many arrangements of matter and energy that make up the macroscopic world, the domain of quantum phenomena which underlie it and the “laws” by which it is all ordered.

    I am a materialist by the second meaning although, given the current limitations of our scientific knowledge and theories, I am open to the possibility that there is much more out there that we have yet to discover, even that it is all something like WJM’s MRT. I am an atheist inasmuch as I don’t believe in any of the various gods that people have believed – and do believe – in but I am agnostic in the sense that i believe we do not know enough to be able to rule out such beings absolutely.

    For me, the point of the anecdote about Dr Samuel Johnson kicking the rock is that it hurt his foot in the eighteenth century just as it would in the twentieth. He knew nothing about quantum theory in his day but all our current knowledge about the underlying quantum nature of a rock does not change the reality that it will still hurt your toe if you kick it. It’s not like in The Matrix where the enlightened ones who understand it’s a giant simulation are able to change the rules by which it’s organized and bend it to their will.

    When our most advanced technology was the telephone exchange we used that as an analogy for how the human brain worked. When the electronic computer was developed we tried to understand the brain in those terms. When we developed virtual reality software we began to speculate that the Universe could be some giant simulation. With the elaboration of information theory we have begun to talk about the Universe being nothing but information at its root. Perhaps that’s true or perhaps we have just run out of analogies for the present.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev. thanks for clearing up the Johnson confusion.

    In your response I noticed one thing, you never quite got around to explaining exactly how the rock derives its ‘concreteness’ that we consciously perceive it to have.

    As I noted, it is not intrinsic to the ‘material’ of the rock, (whatever that material ‘stuff’ of the rock may be defined as being), but is extrinsic to it. So from what extrinsic source does the rock derive it’s ‘concreteness’?

    As you know, I have my answer, i.e. God imparts ‘concreteness’ to the rock via the immaterial laws of the universe, but I’m curious as to what contortions you might put yourself through trying to explain exactly how ‘material’ and/or ‘physical’ processes can possibly generate immaterial universal laws so as to give other ‘material’ and/or physical entities the property of ‘concreteness’ .

    Seems like a twisted explanation at first glance, and I’m sure it will not get any better for you if you try to clearly explain just how it is all suppose to work.

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, you said it, that you are thinking in terms of sock puppetry speaks tellingly. KF

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    VL et al, actually, materialism does have a significant problem you are collectively side-stepping. Here is J B S Haldane:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

    As to the strawman that materialism speaks to billiard ball like atoms no one still believes in, materialism is also commonly used to denote what some call physicalism, whatever lies behind the London force type inter-molecular repulsion. Which is what gives rise to macro solidity. As in solids have a definite volume and shape, liquids flow under their weight but have a definite volume and gases will fill available volume.

    So, no that side step does not address the problem of reducing mind [ground-consequent inference] to computational [cause-effect, dynamic-stochastic] substrate.

    BA77 has a valid point and the OP on follow the lab coat clad ideology is bang on.

    Eventually, this sort of ideology is going to discredit genuine science. Indeed, the suspicion that those dressing up in lab coats too often fail to do homework adequately and have ideological axes to grind is leading to a good slice of the skepticism directed towards the current vaccines push.

    As for Eugenics, it was ethically dubious but was lab coat clad and used the star power of Darwin’s family to promote it. 100 years ago, the age of international eugenics conferences there was but a handfull or less of the alleged benighted among the chattering credentialed classes who objected, starting with one certain G K Chesterton.

    It is after the horrors of the holocaust were exposed that the mystique was broken.

    The parallels to our own time, looks like, are going to be coming out more and more in coming months. Not just science and medicine, but statist[r]ics and big tech are likely to find themselves in the position of the IJN striking force at Midway.

    KF

    KF

  26. 26
    William J Murray says:

    It’s not like in The Matrix where the enlightened ones who understand it’s a giant simulation are able to change the rules by which it’s organized and bend it to their will.

    It’s not?

  27. 27
    William J Murray says:

    Ooops! Forgot to quote-ify the above:
    Sev said:

    It’s not like in The Matrix where the enlightened ones who understand it’s a giant simulation are able to change the rules by which it’s organized and bend it to their will.

    It’s not?

  28. 28
    jerry says:

    I do not read most of what BA77 writes. It’s too TLDR. But when I do, it is usually very content full and relevant.

    Is all he is saying that for our understanding of the world through science, two (maybe more) things are necessary that are inexplicable.

    One is consciousness or the ability of some entities to reflect and organize the material world and find some amazing things about it that are unaccountable.

    Which leads to the second inexplicable thing is that the world is composed of some mysterious particles/elements/entities that are held together with even more mysterious forces with extreme preciseness.

    Both of these conditions of the universe seem so outlandishly unlikely to just exist or happen that one postulates some intelligence behind it that made them happen.

    So science can not take place without these inexplicable events. The more important thing is that maybe we should be focused on the intelligence behind these inexplicable events.

    Through most of history we were focused on this intelligence until a few became so enamored with the end product that we ignored who made the product itself.

    I once posted a very long comment that transcribed an article on this. If I can find it, I will link to it understanding that most will not read it because it’s TLDR.

    Here is the link to the comment about this change in emphasis in history.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rush-limbaugh-reviews-expelled-on-talk-radio/#comment-190514

  29. 29
    asauber says:

    “it takes an intelligent person, like Viola, to actually ask pertinent questions”

    Translated:

    It takes a troll to troll.

    Andrew

  30. 30
    ET says:

    I would think the intelligent person is the one who answers the questions, not the one who asks them.

  31. 31
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CofC 20

    BA77 does not merely cut-paste, but instead he does ask many pertinent questions and he offers his opinion frequently.

    He made his opinion clear in #23:

    As you know, I have my answer, i.e. God imparts ‘concreteness’ to the rock via the immaterial laws of the universe

    For agnostics and everyone else who struggles to answer the origin of how we perceive concreteness from immaterial structures (effects) … why is BA77’s opinion here not a philosophically consistent and comprehensive one? What’s the alternative? (That’s actually the question he is asking).

  32. 32
    jerry says:

    Here is true “Follow the Science.” From Scott Adams.

    I find the quality of this study to be excellent because it agrees with the opinion I already held. That’s called science, and you better not deny it.

  33. 33
    asauber says:

    “So, we all need to get over this notion that just because someone — be it a politician, a bureaucrat, or even a scientist — employs the phrase ‘science says’ means whatever they’re saying is right,” Keating notes.

    Well, if you see it (“science says”) in pop media these days, turn on your Woke Translator and it will read “hostile to Christianity” every time.

    Andrew

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    Of further note to the atheistic mantras of, “Follow the Science”, “I Believe in Science”, and, “Science is Real”.

    As noted yesterday, the atheist, when he says these things, is using the ‘science’ as a stand in for, even as a rival to, God.,,, again, please note how easily, and aptly, the word ‘science’ is replaced with the word ‘God’,

    “Follow God”
    “I believe in God”
    “God is Real”

    Yet, as I also noted yesterday, modern science, to the chagrin of all other worldviews, was uniquely born out of the Christian worldview.

    And as I also noted yesterday, the Atheist’s naturalistic worldview certainly did not lead to the birth of modern science, but instead his atheistic worldview leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science,,, in that the Atheist’s naturalistic worldview dissolves into an ocean of fantasy and imagination, and leaves the Atheistic Naturalist no place to hang his definition of ‘reality’ on.

    Thus, it is more than a little bit curious to find that atheist’s have now replaced God with “Science” as, basically, being an object of worship. A false Idol even.

    Thus, since modern science is the proud child of the Christian worldview, and since Atheistic Naturalism is deeply antagonistic towards modern science, exactly how did atheists ever come to view modern science as somehow being a rival to God rather than a path to Him?

    Well, as with everything else in the atheist’s worldview, it turns out that the switch from God to “Science” as being the object of worship, is all based on a pack of lies.

    The biggest lie, out of the pack of lies that are told, is the lie that the ‘enlightened’ reasoning of atheism saved us from the ‘Dark Ages’ of medieval Christian superstition.

    As Dan Peterson pointed out in his review of Rodney Stark’s book, “For the Glory of God”, “The attempt to equate science with materialism (methodological naturalism) is a quite recent development, coming chiefly to the fore in the 20th century. Contrary to widespread propaganda, science is not something that arose after the dark, obscurantist forces of religion were defeated by an “enlightened” nontheistic worldview. The facts of history show otherwise. In his recent book, For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark argues “not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.”,,,

    What’s the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?
    by DAN PETERSON – December 22, 2005
    Excerpt: The attempt to equate science with materialism (methodological naturalism) is a quite recent development, coming chiefly to the fore in the 20th century. Contrary to widespread propaganda, science is not something that arose after the dark, obscurantist forces of religion were defeated by an “enlightened” nontheistic worldview. The facts of history show otherwise.
    In his recent book, For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark argues “not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.”,,,
    https://spectator.org/47614_whats-big-deal-about-intelligent-design/

    Atheistic reasoning saving us from Christianity? What an unbelievably bad joke! Atheistic naturalism can’t even provide a coherent foundation for ‘reasoning’ in the first place, (JBS Haldane, CS Lewis), much less can it provide a foundation for modern science.

    The belief that the Middle Ages were a ‘Dark Age” of Christian superstition, that supposedly suppressed the rise of modern science is simply not true.

    One glaringly obvious fact that this is not true is the fact that Modern Science itself was born right in the middle of the so called ‘Dark Ages” of Medieval Christian Europe” by men who were, by and large, devoutly Christian in their beliefs.

    Exactly how is that suppose to even be possible if Christianity was supposedly suppressing the rise of modern science?

    The Middle Ages, contrary to what atheists try to claim, and as the following short video makes clear, were instead a remarkable time of social progress, not a time of social repression.

    How Dark Were the Dark Ages? PragerU – video
    What do we owe to the Middle (“Dark”)Ages:
    1. The University System
    2. Modern Science
    3. Architecture
    4. Art and Literature
    5. Musical Notation
    6. The establishment of schools, orphanages and hospitals.
    “Instead of the Middle Ages being called the ‘Dark Age’ it should instead be called the “Brilliant Age”
    – Anthony Esolen, English Literature professor at Providence College
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqzq01i2O3U

    Another ancient historian, Tom Holland, also finds that the atheistic narrative that the ‘enlightenment reasoning’ saved western civilization from the ‘dark ages’ of Medieval Christianity to also be a false revisionist whig history.

    According to Dr. Holland, the truth is that Christianity saved western civilization from the ‘dark ages’ of the excessively brutal and repressive morality of the Greeks and Romans.

    Tom Holland: Why I was wrong about Christianity – 2016
    It took me a long time to realise my morals are not Greek or Roman, but thoroughly, and proudly, Christian.
    Excerpt: The longer I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, the more alien and unsettling I came to find it. The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics, and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more. It was not just the extremes of callousness that I came to find shocking, but the lack of a sense that the poor or the weak might have any intrinsic value. As such, the founding conviction of the Enlightenment – that it owed nothing to the faith into which most of its greatest figures had been born – increasingly came to seem to me unsustainable.
    “Every sensible man,” Voltaire wrote, “every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.” Rather than acknowledge that his ethical principles might owe anything to Christianity, he preferred to derive them from a range of other sources – not just classical literature, but Chinese philosophy and his own powers of reason. Yet Voltaire, in his concern for the weak and ­oppressed, was marked more enduringly by the stamp of biblical ethics than he cared to admit. His defiance of the Christian God, in a paradox that was certainly not unique to him, drew on motivations that were, in part at least, recognisably Christian.
    “We preach Christ crucified,” St Paul declared, “unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” He was right. Nothing could have run more counter to the most profoundly held assumptions of Paul’s contemporaries – Jews, or Greeks, or Romans. The notion that a god might have suffered torture and death on a cross was so shocking as to appear repulsive. Familiarity with the biblical narrative of the Crucifixion has dulled our sense of just how completely novel a deity Christ was. In the ancient world, it was the role of gods who laid claim to ruling the universe to uphold its order by inflicting punishment – not to suffer it themselves.
    Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian.
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity

    There are several false myths that are currently told by atheists to try to create the false impression that there is some type perennial ‘war’ that is going on between science and Christianity.

    Tim O’Neill, an ancient historian, who also happens to be an atheist himself, does an excellent job deconstructing many of these false myths that are told by atheists about science supposedly being in perennial conflict with Christianity.

    THE GREAT MYTHS – Tim O’Neill
    History for Atheists’ “Great Myths” series is a collection of longer articles that addresses the most persistent and widespread myths about history that tend to be used by anti-theist activists. This is an ongoing project, so the list below will be added to as the series continues, with new additions made about every two to three months.
    The Great Myths Series
    The Great Myths 1: The Medieval Flat Earth
    The Great Myths 2: Christmas, Mithras and Paganism
    The Great Myths 3: Giordano Bruno was a Martyr for Science
    The Great Myths 4: Constantine, Nicea and the Bible
    The Great Myths 5: The Destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria
    The Great Myths 6: Copernicus’ Deathbed Publication
    The Great Myths 7: “Hitler’s Pope”?
    The Great Myths 8: The Loss of Ancient Learning
    The Great Myths 9: Hypatia of Alexandria
    The Great Myths 10: Soviet Atheism
    https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/

    Thus in conclusion, the atheistic belief that science and Christianity are at war with each is complete and utter garbage. That belief is based, overwhelmingly, on a pack of lies.

    In fact, (as pointed out earlier in this thread), it is the atheist’s own ‘illusory’ belief system of naturalism that is truly at war with science.

    But this leads to the question of “why do atheists fight so hard defending such an easily refuted pack of lies and attacking Christianity in the process?

    Well, although the following quote may be a bit of hyperbole, I find the quote to be pretty much on the mark as to explaining why atheists would do such a thing,,,, “the myth-making “science” invoked by “ideological atheists” — isn’t content to describe the territory; it’s after your heart.”

    James K. A. Smith on The Territories of Science and Religion – July 2015
    Excerpt: There is no perennial conflict between “science” and “religion” because the phenomena didn’t exist to war with one another before the 17th century. But they do exist now, and if there is a conflict between them (now) it’s because “science” — the myth-making “science” invoked by “ideological atheists” — isn’t content to describe the territory; it’s after your heart. Thus Harrison closes by suggesting these “skirmishes” are less conflicts between science and religion and more like “theological controversies waged by means of science.”
    https://lareviewofbooks.org/review/a-therapeutic-cartography

    Verse:

    Matthew 24:4
    And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

  35. 35
    jerry says:

    Who invented survival of the fittest snd natural selection? Science in the 18th century by Diderot. A 100 years before Darwin published.

    In his oblique fashion, Diderot gave thanks for the biblical account of Creation. If people had been left to their own speculations, he said, the best they could do would be to infer that the elements of living beings had been mingled with other elements from all eternity in the total mass, and that they have joined together to form beasts and people “merely because it was possible for it to happen!” He allowed himself to speculate that a species of animals might come into being, reach maturity, and perish—just as happens in the case of individual members of a species. Giving full rein to his imagination, he suggested that living beings must have passed through infinite stages of development, acquiring in turn “movement, sensation, imagination, thought, reflection, consciousness, sentiments, passions, signs, gestures, sounds, articulate sounds, speech, laws, sciences, and arts,” with millions of years between each of these acquisitions—that perhaps still other developments are yet to come, of which we are ignorant; that the process may come to a standstill; and that eventually the product of these transformations may disappear from nature forever. “Religion,” he said, “spares us all these wanderings and the mental labor which it would require to follow them out.”

    Diderot’s interest in biological evolution was not merely of this speculative sort. Familiar with comparative anatomy, he observed that every one of the quadrupeds is patterned on the same “prototype,” that nature merely lengthens, shortens, modifies, or multiplies the same organs. “Imagine the fingers of a hand bound together and the material of the nails increased to envelop the whole: in place of a man’s hand you would have a horse’s hoof.” Such considerations led him to conclude that there is no real division between the animal kingdoms. Nature, he said, is like a woman who loves to vary her costume. She does not require many different outfits because she knows how, by varying a sleeve or a collar, adding a pleat or letting down a hem, to achieve an infinite number of effects while using the same pattern.

    This mish mash contains all the ideas for “The Origin of Species.” I would bet Darwin read Diderot but didn’t acknowledge him for his ideas.

    It’s interesting to note that Richard Dawkin’s ideas appear in Diderot as Dawkins envisioned all species just a succession of small changes here snd there to create everything just as Diderot hypothesize the elements of all living things were hidden in the particles of nature and it just took time for them for them to coalesce into a species.

    Now all bogus due to science which says all these ideas of Diderot, Darwin and Dawkins are impossible.

    Diderot is credited with being one of the major initiators of the materialist revolution.

    So yes, let’s follow the science.

    It leads away from materialism.

  36. 36
    jerry says:

    It’s not follow the Science.

    It’s

    Follow the $cience

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    I’m 15 minutes into this recent interview of Stephen Meyer, and I am sold. It is a very good interview:

    Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    Via Stephen Meyer’s new book, here are the three necessary presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour
    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 theses separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”
    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler
    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

  39. 39
    Viola Lee says:

    For some reason my posts quit appearing Tuesday night, but it appears that I have access again, so here is the response that I had drafted when I lost access.

    Sev makes some good points at 22:

    On the question of “materialism”, the word broadly has two meanings. The first is what is sometimes referred to as “classical materialism” and is the belief that everything is made of matter, understood as little lumps of hard stuff.

    Yes, this is the out-dated dead horse that doesn’t need to be beaten anymore. No one believes in this type of materialism anymore.

    In the second meaning “materialism” is used interchangeably with “physicalism” understood as the physical nature of the Universe we observe as revealed by physics being all that there is. In other words, this is the many arrangements of matter and energy that make up the macroscopic world, the domain of quantum phenomena which underlie it and the “laws” by which it is all ordered.”

    Yes, I consider all of what we know about quantum events to be an extended understanding of the physical world. I think I read the phrase neo-materialism someplace for this view. My non-materialistic speculations involve consciousness, primarily, plus the very existence of the universe and the way things in it can combine to make new things, including life. However, I also speculate that both the physical world, of this neo-materialistic sort, and consciousness may arise from the same underlying fundamental oneness. But that is not for discussion here: I mention it to make clear that I accept the neo-materialistic view but think there is also likely to be more than what the quantum events that we are aware of provide to the world.

  40. 40
    Silver Asiatic says:

    VL

    I also speculate that both the physical world, of this neo-materialistic sort, and consciousness may arise from the same underlying fundamental oneness. But that is not for discussion here:

    To me that’s the most interesting part of what you said. You seem to be hinting that materialist monism does not work and an underlying unity is required for much of what we encounter in reality (non-reducible to matter). Seems like a great discussion point to me.

  41. 41
    Viola Lee says:

    Thanks. Possibly a good discussion point, but it didn’t really follow from the discussion that we were in at the time. That’s why I added that disclaimer.

  42. 42
    Seversky says:

    William J Murray/27

    Sev said:

    It’s not like in The Matrix where the enlightened ones who understand it’s a giant simulation are able to change the rules by which it’s organized and bend it to their will.

    It’s not?

    Not in my experience.

  43. 43
    Seversky says:

    Silver Asiatic/31

    BA77 does not merely cut-paste, but instead he does ask many pertinent questions and he offers his opinion frequently

    A lot of what he posts are cut and pasted quotes and passages of text.

    He made his opinion clear in #23:

    As you know, I have my answer, i.e. God imparts ‘concreteness’ to the rock via the immaterial laws of the universe

    In other words, his explanation of any mystery is “God did it”. But that just tells us ‘who’ not ‘how’, doesn’t it?

  44. 44
    RavenT says:

    I am confused, isn’t BA sentence @23 contained both?

    “God” (WHO) imparts ‘concreteness’ to the rock via “the immaterial laws of the universe”(HOW)

  45. 45
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/34

    Yet, as I also noted yesterday, modern science, to the chagrin of all other worldviews, was uniquely born out of the Christian worldview

    No, it was not. Modern science was fostered in Christian Europe and was undoubtedly influenced by Christian thinking but its roots can be traced back through Islam to ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, India and China. It’s only Christian hubris that would suggest otherwise.

    Thus, since modern science is the proud child of the Christian worldview, and since Atheistic Naturalism is deeply antagonistic towards modern science, exactly how did atheists ever come to view modern science as somehow being a rival to God rather than a path to Him?

    Hard as it may be for you to understand, we don’t believe there is a god for science to be a rival to or a path towards. We’re on our own.

    The biggest lie, out of the pack of lies that are told, is the lie that the ‘enlightened’ reasoning of atheism saved us from the ‘Dark Ages’ of medieval Christian superstition.

    You’re beating another of your army of strawmen here.

    In his recent book, For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark argues “not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.”,,,

    If Young Earth Creationists believe the world is only about 10,000 years old but evidence from archeology, paleontology, physics and cosmology point to a world that is billions of years old then there is conflict. If the Bible contains accounts of people and events for which research can find scant or no evidence then there is conflict.

  46. 46
    BobRyan says:

    Seversky:

    There were three dark periods of Egypt where there is no evidence to tell us anything that happened during those times. Does that mean Egypt ceased to exist during those periods? There are about 400 years of British history that is largely unknown after Rome left. The belief was that the Angles and Saxons, two distinct groups, not one, invaded and war broke out. Recent archaeology proves there was no invasion, but a slow movement of settlements where the various groups farmed and lived together.

    Just because there is no current evidence, does not mean something did not happen. Entire empires have come and gone leaving very little to show in the records.

  47. 47
    ET says:

    seversky:

    No, it was not. Modern science was fostered in Christian Europe and was undoubtedly influenced by Christian thinking but its roots can be traced back through Islam to ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, India and China.

    You have reading comprehension issues. He said MODERN SCIENCE. And seeing that Newton is considered the father of MODERN SCIENCE, you are quack and a crackpot.

    Hard as it may be for you to understand, we don’t believe there is a god for science to be a rival to or a path towards. We’re on our own.

    And you don’t have any science to support your position.

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    Unsurprisingly and as usual, Seversky tries to distance Christian meta-physics, and/or Christian presuppositions, away from the founding of modern science. But despite Seversky’s wish to portray Christianity as being of somewhat negligible influence to the rise of modern science, the fact of the matter is that Christian presuppositions were indispensable to, and necessary for, the rise of modern science. PERIOD!

    To quote the Dan Peterson article again, “A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just “what happens to be” does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered.”

    What’s the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?
    by DAN PETERSON – December 22, 2005
    Excerpt: The attempt to equate science with materialism (methodological naturalism) is a quite recent development, coming chiefly to the fore in the 20th century. Contrary to widespread propaganda, science is not something that arose after the dark, obscurantist forces of religion were defeated by an “enlightened” nontheistic worldview. The facts of history show otherwise.
    IN HIS RECENT BOOK For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark argues “not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.”,,,
    Sometimes the most obvious facts are the easiest to overlook. Here is one that ought to be stunningly obvious: science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in the history of Earth. Where was that? Although other civilizations have contributed technical achievements or isolated innovations, the invention of science as a cumulative, rigorous, systematic, and ongoing investigation into the laws of nature occurred only in Europe; that is, in the civilization then known as Christendom. Science arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook.
    There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as “a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension.” That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just “what happens to be” does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered.
    https://spectator.org/47614_whats-big-deal-about-intelligent-design/

    And as also mentioned previously in this thread, Stephen Meyer, in his new book, listed the three necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe as such: Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature, Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature, and Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour
    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 theses separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”
    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler
    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

    Again, none of the other worldviews, and especially Seversky’s atheism and/or naturalism itself, hold these presuppositions as being true.

    In fact, Atheism and/or naturalism, which all our leading universities, and Seversky in particular, unquestionably hold as being the one and only true ‘scientific’ worldview, (i.e. ‘methodological naturalism’), denies all three of these necessary presuppositions that were necessary for the rise of modern science, (and which, I might add, are also necessary for the continued success of science).

    For instance, to focus in on the contingency of the universe in particular, Atheistic naturalism holds that the universe has always existed and that the physical universe is not contingent upon anything else for its own existence.

    In fact, the discovery that the universe had a beginning has been strongly resisted by atheists since it directly conflicted with their apriori presupposition that the physical universe was, as Carl Sagan put it, “all that is or was or ever will be.”

    Big Bang Exterminator Wanted, Will Train – Denyse O’Leary – October 20, 2013
    https://evolutionnews.org/2013/10/big_bang_exterm/

    As well, this erroneous atheistic belief that the universe has always existed led Albert Einstein himself to his self-admitted “biggest blunder” in science. A ‘biggest blunder’ in science where he added a Cosmological Constant, i.e. a ‘fudge factor’, to his General Relativity equation in order to reflect a static universe that has always existed, rather than reflecting a universe that had a beginning, as the equations of General Relativity ‘naturally’ predicted without his ‘fudge factor’:

    Cosmological constant
    Excerpt: Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant.[1] However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedmann (and Lemaître), working on the Einstein equations of general-relatvity. Einstein later referred to his failure to accept the validaton of his equations; when they had predicted the expansion of the universe in theory, before it was demonstrated in observation of the cosmological red shift, as the “biggest blunder” of his life.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....nt#History?

    The Tangled History of Big Bang Science – John Farrell – Feb 10, 2017
    Excerpt: But Lemaître wasn’t satisfied. By 1931, he had come to believe that Einstein’s “initial condition” state could not be stable. Reaching back to Friedmann, he proposed his Primeval Atom hypothesis, essentially the Big Bang 1.0, that the universe must have initially started from a fantastically dense kernel and expanded outward. “The Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation,” was how the priest phrased it.
    This was too much for Einstein, Eddington, and their other colleagues. They disliked the metaphysical implications of a universe with a temporal origin—it was too tempting for some to see God lurking behind it.
    Progress stalled at this point as Nazism dramatically changed the priorities of scientists around the world. And although Lemaître didn’t know it, his own part in the saga, like Friedmann’s, was over. For physicists, work on general relativity and cosmology took a back seat to the war effort and the growing interest in quantum mechanics. Lemaître, confined to Belgium under German occupation (and narrowly surviving Allied bombing), turned his attention to computers and problems in celestial mechanics.
    But during this period, the Big Bang idea caught on with George Gamow, the colorful Ukrainian physicist who fled the Soviet Union in the 1930s and came to America. (More.,,,)
    http://nautil.us/blog/the-tang.....ng-science

    Likewise Fred Hoyle, who was a staunch atheist, (but who ended up converting to Theism later on in his life), initially strongly resisted the belief that the universe had a beginning, and put forth his erroneous ‘steady state’ theory.

    His theory was finally overturned with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background by Penzias and Wilson in, I believe, 1964.

    And atheistic presuppositions continue to negatively impact concepts about the creation of the universe.

    Fred Hoyle, besides postulating the ‘steady state’ theory, was also the one who coined the term ‘Big Bang’ as a derogatory term for the belief that the universe had a beginning..

    Which was a very unfortunate thing for him to do since it conveys, to the general public, a completely erroneous conception of what the creation of the universe was actually like.

    It simply is not true that the Big Bang was an explosion:

    WHY THE BIG BANG IS NOT AN EXPLOSION – By Sten Odenwald – May 14, 1997
    Excerpt: the event that created the universe and everything in it was a very different kind of phenomenon than most people — or, at least, most nonphysicists — imagine. Even the name “Big Bang” originally was a putdown cooked up by a scientist (Hoyle) who didn’t like the concept when it was first put forth. He favored the idea that the universe had always existed in a much more dignified and fundamentally unchanging, steady state. But the name stuck, and with it has come the completely wrong impression that the event was like an explosion. That image leads many of us to imagine that the universe is expanding because the objects in it are being flung apart like fragments of a detonated bomb. That isn’t true.,,,
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1997/05/14/why-the-big-bang-is-not-an-explosion/7164578f-5b06-407b-b69a-e97377145ac5/

    As Prof. Henry F. Schaefer stated, (instead of the creation of the universe being viewed as an explosion), “The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude.”

    “The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this “explosion” reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude.”
    – Prof. Henry F. Schaefer – closing statement of the following video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....age#t=360s

    And in the following video, Dr. Bruce Gordon gives us a glimpse as to just how far the power and care behind the creation of the universe exceeds human mental capacity.

    He states, “you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is.”

    “An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you’ve got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ”
    Dr Bruce Gordon – Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 – video – 1:50 minute mark – video
    https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110

    Thus, besides not even having the correct presupposition, (that was necessary for the rise of modern science), that the universe was contingent, the atheistic worldview has instead fought tooth and nail against that necessary presupposition, and the atheistic worldview even today continues to negatively impact the general publics understanding of what the creation of the universe was actually like.

    In short, the atheistic worldview, far from being the true scientific worldview as Seversky falsely believes, has been, (in regards to the contingency of the universe), a constant impediment and negative influence on the progress of science.

    I will touch upon the other two necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science later, but suffice it for now to say, that things do not get any better for the atheist who believes that only his naturalistic worldview provides the correct metaphysical foundation for ‘doing science’.

    Verse and quotes:

    Genesis 1:1-3
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    – Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    – Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000), ?

    “My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
    – Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    “among all the ‘holy’ books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later ‘holy’ books, such as the Mormon text “Pearl of Great Price” and the Qur’an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact.”
    (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)

  49. 49
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    In other words, his explanation of any mystery is “God did it”. But that just tells us ‘who’ not ‘how’, doesn’t it?

    RavenT answers this @44. The laws of the universe impart features to the physical effects. Laws are a product of mind, not of nature (nature is governed by the laws not the creator of them). They are the mechanism by which some things in nature work.
    But on your first sentence, no. He does not see the explanation of any mystery that way. Making such a generalization suggests that you’re trying to sweep away everything he has to say as if it is entirely ignorant and superstitious.
    BA77 references hundreds of sources. It’s like a well-footnoted research paper. He cites experts in every appropriate field, including anti-ID scholars.
    Saying that “his explanation of any mystery is that God did it” is wildly incorrect.

  50. 50
    Viola Lee says:

    Way back at 9, BA explained where he thinks the “concreteness” of the world comes from since the ultimate quantum foundation of reality is not solid at all in the old-fashioned since of being “material”: i.e., made of matter.

    Since ‘concreteness’ is not a property of atoms, … just where does ‘concreteness’ in a rock come from?

    …It is the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants of the universe, which are immaterial and ‘unseen’, that tell the energy and matter of the rock exactly where to be and what to do in the rock …

    Thus, ‘concreteness’ is not some intrinsic property of the atoms of the rock, but is a extrinsic property that is imparted to the rock by the unseen, unchanging, and immaterial laws of the universe.

    And the unseen and immaterial,, laws of the universe, contrary to what atheists try to claim, are from God. They are definitely NOT from some ‘bottom-up’ materialistic process as atheists try to claim.

    I replied at 13,

    The scientific view is that “concreteness’ and other properties are built from the “bottom up” – from quantum events… BA inserts God into his interpretation about why quantum events are as they are, but that is a metaphysical overlay …]

    As I’ve thought about this, I think there is more here than just a “metaphysical overlay”.

    And now I see that Silver Asiatic has agreed with BA at 49 when he writes, “The laws of the universe impart features to the physical effects. Laws are a product of mind, not of nature (nature is governed by the laws not the creator of them). They are the mechanism by which some things in nature work.”

    There is a perennial philosophical dichotomy about the relationship between the laws of nature and nature itself. I stand on the other side from BA and SA.

    They see the laws as being prescriptive in that the laws cause the constituent parts of nature to behave as they do. The laws are extrinsic and, in BA’s words, “tell the energy and matter of the rock exactly where to be and what to do in the rock …”

    I, and many people on the other side of this issue, see the laws as descriptive: the constituent parts of nature do what they do because of intrinsic properties, and then we describe the regularities in that behavior as laws. But the laws don’t have an existence other than in our abstract descriptions, and the laws don’t cause anything to happen.

    This is a fundamental philosophical difference in perspective that has been around for centuries. Google “are the laws of nature prescriptive or descriptive” to read more. BA’s religious view that all the regularities are caused by immaterial laws not only created by but continuously manifested, or at least upheld, by God, is at one end of the spectrum on this issue. I am on the other end.

  51. 51
    Silver Asiatic says:

    VL

    My view does not begin with laws of physical nature, but with laws of reason. Logic, rationality, etc.
    Those laws govern thought and are not descriptive of it. Those laws are external and independent to the mind and we can work to conform our mind to them. They are not created by human beings.

    we describe the regularities in that behavior as laws. But the laws don’t have an existence other than in our abstract descriptions, and the laws don’t cause anything to happen.

    In this case, the regularities are what cause things to happen. The regularities are what govern the behaviors. So the regularities do not come from nature which is governed by them.

  52. 52
    Viola Lee says:

    SA, I’m not questioning the laws of logic and math that we use to describe the world, nor that the world is amenable to those descriptions. We ourselves are as much a creation of the universe as the physical nature we are describing, so it doesn’t surprise me that our internal tools are compatible with the outside world. (And, as a reminder because seems to be consistently overlooked, it seems to me that consciousness is something other than the physical world).

    Also, you write, “In this case, the regularities are what cause things to happen. The regularities are what govern the behaviors. So the regularities do not come from nature which is governed by them.”

    This is a re-statement of what I disagree about. Each individual event that happens is intrinsically caused. The world is such that these behaviors are consistent (that is not in question), and thus that we observe regularities that we can describe. But the regularities don’t exist as a separate entity of some sort separate from the physical events themselves. In your words (but I wouldn’t put it this way), things govern themselves at every moment by being what they are–by manifesting their nature: they are not “governed” by anything outside themselves.

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    To continue on to the second necessary Christian presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe, that Stephen Meyer has elucidated in his new book i.e. ,

    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler

    As mentioned previously, things only get worse for the atheist the deeper we peer into his worldview.

    Atheism simply does not hold that the universe should be rational, nor does it hold that the minds of men should be rational, much less does atheism hold that humans were ‘made in the image’ of God.

    Atheistic naturalism/materialism simply has no clue why there should even be universal laws governing the universe as a single unified whole in the first place. i.e. Why not innumerable different laws governing the universe in different ways in different places of the universe?

    Innumerable different laws is in fact what is to be expected from the ‘bottom-up’ explanations of Atheistic naturalism.

    As Origenes explained, “There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations.”

    “There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations.
    Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws.
    Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.”
    Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.”
    – Origenes

    But hey, don’t take Origenes word for it, inflation theory proponents themselves, in their failure to explain exactly why this universe has the particular macroscopic properties that it does, have, basically, conceded that Atheistic materialism presupposes that there should be innumerable laws governing this universe when they postulated a veritable infinity of other universes, with different laws governing them, in order to try to explain exactly why this universe has the laws that it has.

    As Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, stated, “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace”

    Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation – 25 September 2014
    Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous,,,
    Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation’s other problems.
    Meet the multiverse
    Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true.
    “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace
    Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. “So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing,” he says. “I think it’s telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it’s going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn’t.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....CajrGl0y00

    As should be needless to say, if in answer to the question of ‘why does this universe have the particular universal laws that it does?” Your answer is, ‘well, you see there are an infinity of other unobservable universes with different universal laws’, then you, besides completely leaving the field of science, have utterly failed to explain exactly why this this universe has the particular universal laws that it does.

    Whereas on the other hand, and once again, (as mentioned in post 9), the Christian Theist knows exactly why the universe has the universal laws that it does.

    The unseen and immaterial,, laws of the universe, contrary to what atheists try to claim, are from God. They are definitely NOT from some ‘bottom-up’ materialistic process as atheists try to claim in their inflation theory.

    At the 28:09 minute mark of the following video, Dr Hugh Ross speaks of the 7 places in the bible that speak of unchanging universal constants.

    Symposium 2015 : Scientific Evidence For God’s Existence – Hugh Ross – video
    https://youtu.be/4mEKZRm1xXg?t=1689

    Here is one example out of the seven verses cited by Dr. Ross:

    Psalm 119:89-91
    Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans.

    And again, to repeat, modern science itself was born, in large measure, from the Christian presupposition that God imposed ‘rational’ laws on nature that could dare me understood by creatures who were ‘made in His image’

    The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show – Monday, Aug. 2012
    Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”
    http://www.christianpost.com/n.....how-80307/

    Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007
    Excerpt:,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, ,,,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....avies.html

    In short, atheistic naturalism did not predict, nor expect, there to be universal laws, nor do atheists currently have any realistic clue why there should even be universal laws in the first place, (never mind the fact that the universal laws are exquisitely fine-tuned for life).

    Whereas on the other hand, the Christians founders of modern science expected, and discovered, the universal laws of science that gave rise to modern science precisely because of their Christian presuppositions.

    The recent finding that the laws are exquisitely fine-tuned for life is only a cherry on top that further confirms the Christian worldview to be correct in its presuppositions. Specifically, the necessary presupposition that God created a rational universe.

    As to the second part of the second presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe, namely, “(God also) designed the human mind to understand it (the rational universe that he had created).” (i.e. human exceptionalism),

    The failure of atheists to be able to explain exactly why the human mind is rational, makes their failure to explain why we have universal laws look mild by comparison

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    April 2021 – Detailed Defence of each claim
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327

    For instance of the catastrophic epistemological failure inherent in the Atheist’s worldview, a shining example of this is the failure of Atheistic naturalists, (i.e. Darwinists) to be able to give an adequate explanation for why any beliefs that we may have about reality might be true.

    In fact, the Darwinian naturalist, because of his presuppositions, is forced to believe that his beliefs about reality are unreliable, that is to say he is forced to believe that any beliefs that he may have about reality may very well be illusory and not true, and that he has no way to differentiate which ones are which.

    Don’t take my word for it.,,, From the horses’s mouths,,,

    “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”?Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”

    “the illusion that our brains evolved to have, a very compelling and persistent illusion – namely that the reality we perceive is real, rather than a constructed representation.”
    – Steven Novella – academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine

    “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.”
    – Steven Pinker

    “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.”
    – John Gray

    “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.”
    – Francis Crick

    “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.”
    – Eric Baum

    The belief that any beliefs we may have about reality may be illusory, and that we have no way to differentiate between the two beliefs, simply undercuts the entire scientific enterprise itself.

    As Nancy Pearcey explains, “Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.”

    Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself
    Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015
    Excerpt: An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.
    But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.,,,
    Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,,
    Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/

    Thus in conclusion, the second presupposition that underlay the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe, namely that God created a rational universe, and also created rational ‘made in His image’ creature that could dare understand that rationality, was simply never predicted nor expected under Atheistic Naturalism.

    In fact, both presuppositions are explicitly denied by Atheists.

    Atheism simply has no realistic explanation for why we even have universal laws in the first place, and, on top of that, Darwinian naturalism directly undermines human rationality altogether.

    As should be needless to say, Seversky’s claim that ‘methodological naturalism’ is the only tried and true scientific worldview is long on deceptive rhetoric and VERY short on any actual substance.

    Verse and Quotes

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

    of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic?

    What is the Logos?
    Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,,
    In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.”
    https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html

    “Atheists can give no reason why they should value reason, and Christians can show how anyone who believes in reason must also believe in God.”
    Cogito; Ergo Deus Est by Charles Edward White
    Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn’t Dead

  54. 54
    Viola Lee says:

    This is interesting. Barry Arrington, in the latest post about Hawking, agrees with me about the relationship between laws of nature and nature itself. He writes,

    First, he [Hawking]committed the error of reification (ascribing concrete properties to abstract concepts). The law of gravity does not do anything. Like all laws of science, it is a mathematical model of observed regularities. Why the regularities scientists observe should be such as they are and how those regularities came to be in the first place is beyond the realm of science.

    I agree with all that. Laws of nature aren’t causal: they are descriptions, or models, of observed regularities. Furthermore, why the regularities are as they are and came to be that way is “beyond the realm of science.”

    Therefore, saying that objects do what they do because God created the laws they follow is both wrong–the laws don’t cause the behavior–and not science.

  55. 55
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Viola Lee

    The world is such that these behaviors are consistent (that is not in question), and thus that we observe regularities that we can describe. But the regularities don’t exist as a separate entity of some sort separate from the physical events themselves. In your words (but I wouldn’t put it this way), things govern themselves at every moment by being what they are–by manifesting their nature: they are not “governed” by anything outside themselves.

    But the fact that “the world is such that these behaviors are consistent” indicates that it is something outside that does make things happen the way they do (govern them). The world could be different and these things would not be consistent.

  56. 56
    Viola Lee says:

    No, that is not a necessary correlation. The creative power of the universe, whatever that might be, could have created the basic constituent parts of the universe to behave in certain ways appropriate to their kind, so that the motive power for that behavior comes from within. It does not have to be regulated continually by something extrinsic to those parts. You can have one–a creative power responsible for creating the parts which behave in a regular fashion– without having the other–external laws which are continually causing those regular behaviors.

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    Ans finally, as to the third necessary Christian presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe, as laid out by Dr. Stephen Meyer in his new book,

    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”

    And indeed, in Emily Morales’s research on Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, she notes that, “It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,,
    Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement:”

    Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – Emily Morales – December 2019
    Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,,
    Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement:
    https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass

    Bacon’s inductive methodology, which he introduced as a check and balance against humanity’s fallen sinful nature, was a radically different form of ‘bottom up’ reasoning that was, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks which had preceded it. A form of reasoning in which people “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”

    “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
    – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415

    Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph
    https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg

    Inductive reasoning
    Excerpt: Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

    Again, this new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, was first elucidated and championed by Francis Bacon in 1620 in his book that was entitled Novum Organum. Which is translated as ‘New Method’.

    In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work Organon, which was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, Organum was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.

    The Organon and the logic perspective of computation – 2016
    Excerpt: The works of Aristotle on logic are collectively known as the Organon, that is, the ” instrument ” or ” tool ” of thought. In the ” Prior Analytics “, Aristotle introduced a list of inference rules that concern with the relation of premises to conclusion in arguments (syllogisms). His aim was to determine which kinds of arguments are valid. The validity of an argument is characterized and inferred based on its logical form (deduction) and for this reason Aristotle is considered as the father of formal logic.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303407444_The_Organon_and_the_logic_perspective_of_computation

    And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was specifically and directly championing a entirely new method of inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning, (where one’s apriori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.

    Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Bacon vs Aristotle – Scientific Revolution) – video
    Excerpt: Deductive reasoning, which uses general premises to arrive at a certain conclusion, has been around since Aristotle. In his book Novum Organum (1620, translated ‘new method’), Sir Francis Bacon advanced a new way of philosophical inquiry known as inductive reasoning, in which the inquirer comes to a probable conclusion based on several specific observations.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE

    And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning.

    Francis Bacon, 1561–1626
    Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water.
    https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    And, (in what should not be surprising for anyone who has debated Darwinists for any length of time), it turns out that Darwinian evolution itself is not based on Bacon’s Inductive form of reasoning, (which is too say that Darwin’s theory itself is not based on the scientific method), but Darwin’s theory is instead based, in large measure, on the Deductive form of reasoning that Bacon had specifically shunned because of the fallibleness of man’s fallen sinful nature.

    As Dr. Richard Nelson noted in his book ‘Darwin, Then and Now’, Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”

    Darwin Dilemma by Dr. Richard William Nelson
    The theory of biological evolution Charles Darwin argued for in the Origin of Species now presents a litany of problems for twenty-first-century evolution scientists – known as the Darwin Dilemma. The dilemma stems from the method of reasoning Darwin selected.
    Dilemma Origins: For investigating the laws of nature, Charles Darwin selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning. The method of reasoning is critical when investigating the secrets of nature.
    Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning minimizes the dogma and bias of the investigator. Inductive reasoning is the defining element of what has become known as the scientific method. Details of Darwin’s reasoning method are discussed in Darwin, Then and Now.
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/

    In fact, Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce any “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.

    Darwin on the Origin of Species (1860)
    Reviewed by Richard Owen for Edinburg Review
    Excerpt: The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’ But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived.
    http://www.victorianweb.org/sc.....rigin.html

    In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”.

    And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.”

    OUCH! That had to leave a mark! 🙂

    Moreover, Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”

    From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859
    Cambridge
    My dear Darwin,
    Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted – after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?-
    As to your grand principle – natural selection – what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,,
    ,,, (your conclusions are not) “ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
    Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    And it was not as if Darwin was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book.

    Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”

    Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857
    My dear Gray,
    ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml

    In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”

    Scientific Method
    Excerpt: Darwin was concerned about the effect of abandoning the scientific method. To console Darwin, just two weeks before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Erasmus Darwin, his brother wrote:
    “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/scientific-method/

    In short, when Darwin published his book, and in regards to inductive reasoning itself, Darwin did not do, or have, any original experimental research that would actually establish his theory as being scientifically true. i.e. Darwin had failed to use the scientific method!

    And now, over a century and a half later, the situation still has not changed for Darwinists who proclaim ‘I believe in science”. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true,

    As Dr Richard Nelson further noted in his book’ Darwin, Then and Now’, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”

    Darwin, Then and Now – by Dr. Richard William Nelson – Book Preview
    Excerpt: as a theology graduate from Christ’s College, Darwin set out on a mission to discover the natural laws of evolution with a passion. Darwin Then and Now reveals how the emerging nineteenth century philosophies influenced Darwin to eventually abandon the Scientific Method. Darwin conceded that The Origin of Species was just “one long argument from the beginning to the end”—not a scientific treatise. DARWIN, THEN AND NOW highlights Darwin’s top 15 contradictions in arguing for natural selection.
    Just two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin confided, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” With more than 300 quotations from Darwin, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW is an exposé on what Darwin actually said concerning his “point of view” on the origin of species.
    After 150 years of research with more than 700 references from scientists, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW chronicles how the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Even the popular twentieth-century Central Dogma theoretical mechanism of evolution has been abandoned. Today, a cohesive mechanism of evolution and evidence of a Tree of Life continues to remain as elusive as Darwin infamous drawing – “I Think.”
    – ibid

    Moreover, Darwinian evolution, (besides not having any real time empirical evidence establishing that it is true, or even that it is remotely feasible), is simply not needed in as a guiding principle, and/or as a heuristic, in biology.

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”?
    Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005?

    In fact, in so far as Darwinian evolution has been used as a guiding principle and/or heuristic in science, it had grossly misled scientists into blind alleys, such as with its false prediction of junk DNA, vestigial organs, eugenics, etc.. etc…

    It is also very interesting to note that Francis Bacon, (who was, again, the father of the scientific method), in his book “Novum Organum”, also stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’.

    Specifically Bacon stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”

    Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? – January 8, 2019
    Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately?
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/

    Scientifically speaking, Darwinian evolution has been a bust. Even Jerry Coyne admits as much

    “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
    (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006)

    And in regards to society at large, and 150 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, (masquerading as a empirical science), and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinian ideology, we can now accurately surmise that, Darwinian ideology has been a complete and utter disaster for man that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.

    Atheism’s Body Count *
    It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.
    – Atheism’s Tendency Towards Totalitarianism Rather Than Freedom
    What is so strange and odd that in spite of their outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, they feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and “re-education” centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the “Dear Leader.” Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale. While proclaiming freedom to the masses, they institute the most methodical efforts to completely eliminate freedom from the people, and they do so all “on behalf” of the proletariat. A completely ordered and totally unfree totalitarian State is routinely set up in place of religion, because it is obviously so profoundly better society. It is also strange that Stalin was a seminarian who rejected Christianity and went on to set up himself as an object of worship. It seems that impulse to religious devotion is present in all, whether that be in traditional forms or secular inventions.
    https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology –
    July 2020
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831

    In short, Darwinian evolution, instead of ever producing any ‘good fruit’ for man, (as good empirical sciences normally do), has instead produced nothing but ‘bad fruit’ for man.

    Verse:

    Matthew 7:18-20
    A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

  59. 59
    Silver Asiatic says:

    VL

    The creative power of the universe, whatever that might be, could have created the basic constituent parts of the universe to behave in certain ways appropriate to their kind, so that the motive power for that behavior comes from within.

    But it’s a contradiction to say that the creative power built the parts “to behave in certain ways” and therefore governing power comes from within. Obviously, the behavior came from the creative power which ordered the universe to observe law-like behaviors. Whether the governance is built in or external is not really an essential distinction in this argument. The laws (which come from the mind of God) cause the regularities. It’s not nature that creates itself and therefore governs itself. The governance had to be built in from an external power.

    It does not have to be regulated continually by something extrinsic to those parts.

    Whether regulated continually or regulated at the creation is a different matter. The laws come from the creator (law maker). In my view, nothing could exist unless it was maintained in existence by God. Nothing has within it the power to create itself, or to maintain itself in existence. Without God sustaining the universe continually, it would not exist.

    You can have one–a creative power responsible for creating the parts which behave in a regular fashion– without having the other–external laws which are continually causing those regular behaviors.

    Yes, again – the question of “continually causing” is separate from the governance by laws.
    You cannot have a creative power responsible for creating parts which are governed by regularities (behaving in a regular fashion) and not have an external law-maker who supplied that governance.
    The idea that:
    “The laws of the universe impart features to the physical effects.”
    Can be seen either as those laws having been built into things or as laws external to the things (as with laws of logic and reason). For this particular argument, both views are consistent.
    For the argument about the governance of the world, and whether the creative power intervenes or that everything that would develop was built into the beginning of the universe – that’s a different debate. That latter view it held by most theistic evolutionists, for example – following Aristotle.
    Although Aquinas did not hold that the universe was so totally ordered at the beginning that God does not intervene in nature later. He believed in singularities similiar to the big bang, but in nature (the creation of life itself, the creation of mammalian life, the creation of human beings).

  60. 60
    Viola Lee says:

    First, SA, I appreciate your thoughtful, thought-provoking, and civil posts. They are a refreshing change from some other discussions that sometimes take place.

    One of the interesting issue here is the idea of “governing”, but I’d like note that in passing, accept the terminology for now, and return to it at a leter time.

    You write,

    But it’s a contradiction to say that the creative power built the parts “to behave in certain ways” and therefore governing power comes from within. Obviously, the behavior came from the creative power which ordered the universe to observe law-like behaviors. Whether the governance is built in or external is not really essential. The laws (which come from the mind of God) cause the regularities. It’s not nature that creates itself and therefore governs itself. The governance had to be built in from an external power.

    You say, “Whether the governance is built in or external is not really essential”, but that seems to be the issue we are discussing. We are assuming some creative power created “entities” (quantum that they might be) that behave in certain regular ways. But once created, those entities need not need further “governance”. We can assume that nature did not create itself, but there seems to me no reason why things in nature, once created, cannot manifest the nature they were given without any further outside interaction.

    This is the key issue, to me, that is essential philosophically. The “governance” might be “built in from an external power”, but that external power doesn’t need to continue, continuously, impart more guidance: the parts, once created, manifest their innate behavior. They “act on their own”, so to speak, although that is a bad metaphor, as it implies agency. The just “be what they are”, as they were created to be, and the world goes on. Once created, they don’t need continued “governance”.

    I know this is different from the orthodox theistic view, which you state well when you write, “In my view, nothing could exist unless it was maintained in existence by God. Nothing has within it the power to create itself, or to maintain itself in existence. Without God sustaining the universe continually, it would not exist.”

    I am not a theist, and so the continual maintenance and sustenance by God is not part of my view. But, most importantly for this discussion, I think separating the idea of creation from the idea of continual maintenance is an essential distinction, not “not really essential” as you said. I see no reason why the creative power could not have created things as it wanted them to be, with the internal wherewithal to behave continuously in a regular manner, and then let the world play out, moment by moment, from the interaction of all its parts. No maintenance necessary.

    And last, because it seems like this is necessary to repeat, I’m not a materialist, as I accept, based on my own internal experience, that consciousness is somehow part of the world. But whatever it is, I think my remarks above apply to it as well as the physical world.

  61. 61
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Viola Lee

    Thanks for a thoughtful and detailed reply. Yes I combined a few issues together so it seemed like I was talking past the topic and not addressing it.
    But still, I think you presented two ideas and not just one.
    The first: Are the regularities intrinsic (your view) or extrinsic (coming from outside of the thing).
    The second; Does either view require or exclude the idea of “ongoing maintenance” (interaction).

    What I was getting at was the meaning of the idea that “the laws impart effects”. For me, the question of whether the regularities are intrinsic or extrinsic will end with the same result. That’s because of the regularities, either built in or imposed later by the creative power, the effects can be observed. I think you’re agreeing with that because your argument stressed the other aspect. Whether the creative power must intervene/interact or whether nature operates according to an “initial plan” as things just function as they were created to function.

    I see no reason why the creative power could not have created things as it wanted them to be, with the internal wherewithal to behave continuously in a regular manner, and then let the world play out, moment by moment, from the interaction of all its parts. No maintenance necessary.

    Yes, that’s looking at how the laws are applied. I was pointing to the creation of the laws. I use the terms laws and regularities interchangeably because the laws are just describing the regularities, which means that the regularities operate like active laws which create the regular behaviors.

    With regards to the idea that God must sustain all things continually, that’s a philosophical idea and not theistic-religious as such.
    Ed Feser does a good job explaining this. It’s a question of causality. In the common view, God is the first cause – so in your scenario, the first creative power that set things up. Then the idea is, once the plan was established, everything acts “independently” without requiring any “support” so to speak from the creative power.
    But the Thomistic view is not a linear, sequential causalty (as in, a long time ago, things were created so we go back and back to find that first intervention), but instead it’s a “vertical causality” or “hierarchical”. The chain of causes occurs in the present day.
    The example is, the coffee cup with hot coffee on your desk.
    Linear causality would say, “that coffee has nothing to do with the first cause even eons ago” – so it’s seen as independent. The coffee came from beans, was roasted, brewed, poured into cup, is sitting on desk getting cooler. All of those are independent, as the one view sees it.

    However, with hierarchical causality, which holds that God is necessary to sustain existence at all times, it’s not linear to the past, but a vertical cause for each moment in time.
    The coffee cup on your desk, it dependent on the desk sitting there at this moment. Without the desk, the coffee falls to the floor. Something has to sustain the desk – that’s the floor. Without the floor, the desk falls. Something sustains the floor – the earth. The coffee cup derives its position and existence on your desk today, from the existence of the earth. Without that, it cannot exist there. So the earth is the same. It derives its position from the universe and the molecules that comprise it. It’s existence in time is derivative and not self-caused.
    The universe and its molecular motion require continual energy and movement (it is not self-existing or self-moving).
    Thus, God must sustain this entire hierarchical chain in existence at every moment.

    This idea is consistent with the idea that all the regularities can be traced back to a beginning. But it conflicts with the idea that the material universe is self-sustaining without the continual existential support of the first cause (creative power).

    I accept, based on my own internal experience, that consciousness is somehow part of the world. But whatever it is, I think my remarks above apply to it as well as the physical world.

    I agree that consciousness and other immaterial entities also are bounded, even though we might say that humans have free will, it still occurs within a structure of laws (like moral laws, laws of logic) like we would have in the physical world.

Leave a Reply