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?
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.
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:
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’,
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’.
And I recently made a fairly detailed defense of each of those claims in the following posts
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,,,
,,, 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)
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.
And even Werner Heisenberg himself, another quantum luminary, was very close to saying the exact same thing when he stated,
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:
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:
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.
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.,,,”
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.”
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”
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.”
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,”
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.,,,”
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.
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.
Here is a fitting poem for our materialistic friends:
From a week ago on this question. It’s 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
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.
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,,,
,,, 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)
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.
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.
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:
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,,,”
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.
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.”
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.
Here is one example out of the seven verses cited by Dr. Ross:
In fact, modern science was born, in large measure, from the Christian presupposition that God imposed law on nature,
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.
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.
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,
Experientially and experimentally are two different words. I didn’t say “experimentally”.
You write,
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.
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.
BA writes,
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.
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.
SA2, I suggest you find someone else to troll.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. 🙂
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.
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.
SA2, you said it, that you are thinking in terms of sock puppetry speaks tellingly. KF
VL et al, actually, materialism does have a significant problem you are collectively side-stepping. Here is J B S Haldane:
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
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?
Ooops! Forgot to quote-ify the above:
Sev said:
It’s not?
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
“it takes an intelligent person, like Viola, to actually ask pertinent questions”
Translated:
It takes a troll to troll.
Andrew
I would think the intelligent person is the one who answers the questions, not the one who asks them.
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:
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).
Here is true “Follow the Science.” From Scott Adams.
“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
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’,
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.”,,,
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Verse:
Who invented survival of the fittest snd natural selection? Science in the 18th century by Diderot. A 100 years before Darwin published.
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.
It’s not follow the Science.
It’s
I’m 15 minutes into this recent interview of Stephen Meyer, and I am sold. It is a very good interview:
Via Stephen Meyer’s new book, here are the three necessary presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.
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:
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.
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.
VL
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.
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.
William J Murray/27
Not in my experience.
Silver Asiatic/31
A lot of what he posts are cut and pasted quotes and passages of text.
In other words, his explanation of any mystery is “God did it”. But that just tells us ‘who’ not ‘how’, doesn’t it?
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)
Bornagain77/34
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.
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.
You’re beating another of your army of strawmen here.
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.
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.
seversky:
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.
And you don’t have any science to support your position.
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.”
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.
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.”
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’:
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:
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.”
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.”
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:
Seversky
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.
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.
I replied at 13,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ,
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.”
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”
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.
Here is one example out of the seven verses cited by Dr. Ross:
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’
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
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,,,
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.”
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
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,
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.
Viola Lee
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.
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.
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,
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 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.’.
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?”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
Scientifically speaking, Darwinian evolution has been a bust. Even Jerry Coyne admits as much
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.
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:
VL
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.
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.
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).
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,
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.
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.
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 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.