Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can we have an honest discussion about science and God?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Many of us are sick of poisoned wells. Anyway, here’s this:


That was their argument because, until recent years, there was not, in the strictest sense, the kind of evidence science requires. To be sure, there were claims of such evidence, but however sincere those claims may have been, they were not persuasive enough to convince an honest skeptic. The gold standard of science, stated informally, is that a new paradigm is accepted when the evidence is solid enough to convince an objective, unbiased, and qualified person.

It turns out that scientists are as biased as anyone else. Their biases are being exposed by an increasing number of younger, more open-minded scientists. These newcomers are breaking free of the unscientific philosophy, the doctrine of physicalism, that presently dominates their disciplines. They are willing to challenge the notion that nothing exists except the physical. The old guard is resisting. The entrenched establishment is making ever less credible excuses for holding on to its resolute belief that only the physical exists.

Robert Arvay, “Old-guard scientists reveal their biases as new scientists suggest evidence for God” at American Thinker

Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4? That puts you on one side of a growing cultural divide.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

and

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Comments
Jerry @158, Yes, I agree with your points.
Once there is a firmer belief that God is very likely, step 2 is engendering an understanding that there is a purpose in life. Right now that is foreign to most in the Western world.
The common presumption is for a distant, feel-good, karma "God" that created the universe and makes things right for "good people." Among many people, a good deal of superstition or fatalism creeps in. I think what's logically missing is that the God who created the universe along with ridiculously complex genetic codes and interrelated chemical cycles, and conscious intelligence might actually have a superior conscious intelligence. Another way to think of it is that the god of deists is powerful but stupid. Also missing is the source of horrific evil, depravity, and disasters in the world, which is usually attributed to a lack of education, poverty, and "acts of God." Academics often argue that humans have no free will (B.F. Skinner comes to mind) and thus cannot be morally accountable, which is very convenient for them on some occasions, not so convenient in other cases. Perhaps a place to start with is the mind of your pet Labrador retriever trying to comprehend your thoughts, actions, and motives. Have you ever seen how an experienced trainer, such as employed by Guide Dogs for the Blind, start their relationship with and then train a guide dog? It's an amazing process! -QQuerius
January 4, 2021
January
01
Jan
4
04
2021
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Jerry @158:
Most in the US/Western world will say they believe in God but then act as if this God does not exist.
Just because they act as if the God you believe in exists doesn't mean they are acting as if the God they believe in doesn't exist.William J Murray
January 4, 2021
January
01
Jan
4
04
2021
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
But belief in God is fundamentally and significantly different than trust in God for our salvation.
I am not going to disagree. But it is not what my objective in discussing this is. I want to clarify my thoughts on the necessity of uncertainty. Step 1 is to get people to assent to the concept that a creator is highly likely. Most societies in history took this for granted but had different notions of just what this creator was about. But not now. In the Western world this belief is now token. Most in the US/Western world will say they believe in God but then act as if this God does not exist. The creator is irrelevant to their lives and most will doubt there is a life after death. So why bother to do anything based on this very weak assent in a God. Especially if uncertainty is necessary for this life to be meaningful. But this uncertainty actually leads most to the opposite., doubt in any meaningful design by a God. They believe life has no meaning. Since life looks random in a lot of ways this uncertainty feeds into the feeling life has no meaning. So make the best of it since you are in it. They will generally act in a moral way because they realize moral actions are necessary for a stable life for themselves and their children and the society they live in. They will be polite to those who actively participate in religion but are not tempted to do so themselves. They say why? There is nothing really in it. As long as they don’t bother me they can do anything they like. Once there is a firmer belief that God is very likely, step 2 is engendering an understanding that there is a purpose in life. Right now that is foreign to most in the Western world. Since it’s really getting people past step 1, we are a long way from getting to step 2. Step 3 would be assenting to the most likely way God wants one to proceed in this life. Then there is the question would life be meaningful since everyone would act on the same set of basic beliefs and any deviation would be considered dysfunctional and punishable by the powers in charge.jerry
January 4, 2021
January
01
Jan
4
04
2021
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
KF,
What gives us confidence we finally got it right?
Exactly. The history of science should only give us confidence that we’ve never got it right so far, only a bit less completely wrong. In 50 or 100 years, we’ll certainly look back at our scientific “facts” with similar condescension as how we look at what was accepted as scientific fact in the 1800s. Jerry, Good points.
Is uncertainty in God intelligent design?
Here are my perspectives. Belief in the existence of a Creator is practically unavoidable with what science tells us despite the herculean efforts of notable materialistic scientists who are desperate to try to rescue Realism. Werner Heisenberg, wrote the following in his 1958 book, Physics and Philosophy:
In the experiments about atomic events, we have to do with things and facts, the phenomena that are just as real as in daily life. But the atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real. They form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things and facts.
Nevertheless, the obvious implications of quantum mechanics and the conservation of information have been virtually ignored since then. Instead, the focus has been on finding interpretations that rationalize the experimental results with Realism. As a result, you had Albert Einstein hoping that the moon is still there even if he’s not looking at it, and Erwin Schrödinger inventing an unfortunate cat to ridicule quantum superposition. Many others have taken up their crusade since then. Even the dualistic “wave” nature of matter has nothing to do with electromagnetic waves, but rather mathematical probability waves and their interferences and collapses (or at least, extremely leptokurtic probability waves)! Likewise, conservation of information and entropy, have also been waved off with the many worlds interpretation and impossible amounts of luck resulting in the most egregious violation of parsimony (Occam’s razor) possible. But belief in God is fundamentally and significantly different than trust in God for our salvation.
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! – James 2:19 (ESV)
Belief in God, does the demons no good. Incidentally, I prefer the simple word “trust” over the baggage-laden one, “faith.” To me, the paradigm of intelligent design in science is simply the presumption of purpose instead of the presumption of randomness or purposelessness, which leads only to failed ideas such as “vestigial organs” and “junk DNA.” -QQuerius
January 3, 2021
January
01
Jan
3
03
2021
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
We just need to do it with humility.
Several years ago I taught in a business school in New York City as an adjunct. One evening another adjunct and I shared an office. He was an elderly man, a Jewish lawyer and I a Christian. In New York one meets Jewish people every day and the business school had several Jewish faculty. For some strange reason we started discussing God. Hard to imagine as such a discussion in New York is extremely rare especially amongst two people who just met. And I never met him again. He said there was no proof for God that would absolutely convince everyone of His existence especially the intellectuals. It all came down to faith. He defined faith as belief in something that was not certain. Because belief in certainty is not faith and of no value for belief in God. He gave the example of the sun rising in the East every morning. There is no value in this other than we can plan our day around it which is obviously important in the short run. But it took no great assent to do so. He said that belief in God must remain uncertain because if it was exact knowledge as the sun rising, it would be of little value to believe. He then said it would always be this way by design. Because if it wasn’t, there would be no free will and we would be automatons. There will always be countervailing information. As we now use science to demonstrate the high probability of the existence of a creator, the science community is out in force to discredit science if it should support the concept of a creator. This idea or designed uncertainty has been in the back of my mind for years as to how best express it or discuss it. If I were God, would it be necessary to incorporate it in My creation? Must there always be a knife’s edge between belief and non belief? A modern day example which has no relevance to belief in God is whether there was significant fraud in the past presidential election. Is uncertainty in God intelligent design?jerry
January 3, 2021
January
01
Jan
3
03
2021
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Q, I have long since been disabused of ultimacy on scientific theoretical claims, reconstructions of remote past, far cosmological future projections etc. The pessimistic induction gets a powerful boost from my home discipline. The Ptolemaic scheme after 1500 years collapsed, the Newtonian Synthesis barely lasted 200. What gives us confidence we finally got it right? KFkairosfocus
January 3, 2021
January
01
Jan
3
03
2021
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
KF, Excellent observation about Lao-Tsu. All knowledge is abstracted to a certain level of detail, which is fine as long as we acknowledge them as abstractions. And we should also remember that one of the basic assumptions of science is that humans are actually capable of understanding the ultimate truths of nature. What we learn from the scientific method always seems to be a succession of models approximating observed effects. We can only judge these models by their utility. While the discovery of nature through the scientific method may be attainable, to understand God is more in line with Lao-Tsu's statement which was preceded by about 100 years by this quote from Isaiah :
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isaiah 55:8-9 (ESV)
But we enjoy uncovering God's brilliance in creation, one abstraction layer at a time. We just need to do it with humility. -QQuerius
January 2, 2021
January
01
Jan
2
02
2021
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
Q, with all due respect the teacher has erred. Had he said instead that there are realities beyond our ability to describe fully and accurately, yes. But insofar as one accurately describes some facet of reality, that is a statement of truth however limited. To pretend it is all of truth or that we have mastered all truth is error. But even if we see through a glass darkly, we do see. KF PS: Vision works from rods and cones in an array, effectively updated every 1/8 second, and so vision is itself superposed. Ponder the blind spot.kairosfocus
January 2, 2021
January
01
Jan
2
02
2021
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Thank you for your response, KF. . . . and white might only be a low-saturation version of gray/grey. • In the wisdom of Lao-Tsu (Laozi) on the Tao, he asserts that the truth that can be articulated in words is not the truth. • Jesus said “I AM the way, the truth and the life.” • Pilate asked Jesus rhetorically, what is truth. • In his first letter to the believers at Corinth, the apostle Paul, asserted that he determined not to know anything except Christ and him crucified, so that the faith of the believers should not rest on the wisdom of men, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power. Jesus also taught the people
“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. -Matthew 7:15-16
Just look at the fruit in the lives of many vaunted political and religious leaders—their honeyed promises are poisoned with their self-interest or bitterness. And pots of their honey are given away by well-meaning but naïve academics and their followers, and the legacy press promotes its sweetness and covers up the sickness and death that always follows. In terms of looking binary assertions in the mirror, yes indeed. This is exactly why I chose the words “heavily polarized and pixelated perspective.” A beautiful photograph may be displayed as your desktop background with each pixel using a binary code for its color. But what if your monitor could display the image using only 16 large pixels? Or worse yet, only one? -QQuerius
January 2, 2021
January
01
Jan
2
02
2021
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Q, I see you are enjoying Havel. That essay was pivotal in the collapse of the Iron Curtain. On quantum theory, notice my comment on superposition: of what, yielding what. It is at that level that the principle of distinct identity manifests itself, one cannot assert what is or may be without having some distinction recognised. In the equations, the symbols carry meanings and work by distinctions. The observations are distinct also. Yes there is superposition of unresolved states and observations influence how such is resolved, but again and again we rely on distinct identity i/l/o defining characteristics. Pardon, but the widely promoted, sing off the same hymn sheet, relativistic denial and belittling of "binary" thinking rather misses the point: it is not black vs white but White vs non-white, any shade of red, green or purple would do just as well. And, surprise: white is itself a superposition, the result of emission, transmission and [scattered] reflection across the visible spectrum -- specular reflection gives mirror-like effects, and of course the two can be blended . . . superposed. So is purple -- as opposed to violet -- BTW. Sandy, khaki like colours and the famous olive drab are dark yellows and brown is typically a dark orange possibly with other admixtures. Grey is darkened down from white. Colour of course is our perceptual response to a pattern of quantum effects. Aristotle saw that long ago, he spoke of truth saying of what is, that it is and of what is not that it is not. That subtlety opens up room for recognition of complexity without undermining distinct identity. Ironically the dismissive projection of simplistic binary thinking to the despised or belittled other may itself require a look in the mirror. KF PS: My point is, we need to clear up the fallacious patterns embedded in our failed intellectual culture if we are going to make sound progress on the main point.kairosfocus
January 2, 2021
January
01
Jan
2
02
2021
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
Viola Lee @146,
The statement “Do you still beat your spouse?” isn’t “a proposition in math or symbolic logic.”
No, but you can get there with existential logic--the kind with the backwards capital E. : -) KF @148, Thank you. I was objecting to a simplistic binary interpretation of reality. The result is a heavily polarized and pixelated perspective, often wrong, reminiscent of the logical arguments of a Baruch Spinoza, for example. Or in quantum mechanics, there is not 0 or 1 relating to whether a particle exists, but rather a non-deterministic probability wave that can be a normal curve or a far narrower, leptokurtic wave. However, I'm definitely not arguing for the intellectual goo that passes for politically correct discourse. The paper is long (I’m only about half done) and depressing but it has many good observations made by someone completely sick of being marinaded in vacuous ideological slogans for decades under a totalitarian regime. And Havel's country, Czechoslovakia, was considered the country with the mildest form of Communism by a former colleague from the country. Some notable quotes:
It [the ideology] begins to function as the principal instrument of ritual communication within the system of power.
Under totalitarianism, however, these correctives [i.e. realities under public control] disappear, and thus there is nothing to prevent ideology from becoming more and more removed from reality, gradually turning into what it has already become in the post-totalitarian system: a world of appearances, a mere ritual, a formalized language deprived of semantic contact with reality and transformed into a system of ritual signs that replace reality with pseudo-reality.
This type of totalitarian regime is not content to be merely authoritarian, it also demands that the people under its power continually, obediently, and mutually reinforce its ideology throughout the oppressed society, using banal slogans. It turns its people into mindless zombies and willing accomplices in the oppression. It’s not unlike a battered spouse telling their friends and the authorities that they “deserved” the beatings. The downward spiral has now begun in our society. On a long walk through several neighborhoods, I observed a number of political signs in the front windows of houses that were obviously made by children under the direction of their politically fundamentalist teachers. The hand drawn signs had no political diversity—diversity is not an option in this case—but they all were identical except for their fonts and colors. I’m sure if the signs weren’t prominently displayed, the children would be encouraged by their propaganda-machine teachers to rat out their parents as “dissidents.”
Perhaps it is now appropriate to outline some of the reasons why “dissidents” themselves are not very happy to be referred to in this way. In the first place, the word is problematic from an etymological point of view. A “dissident,” we are told in our press, means something like “renegade” or “backslider.” But dissidents do not consider themselves renegades for the simple reason that they are not primarily denying or rejecting anything. On the contrary, they have tried to affirm their own human identity, and if they reject anything at all, then it is merely what was false and alienating in their lives, that aspect of living within a lie.
However, the people emerging from those sorts of societies are often slovenly and incompetent because they’ve been intoxicated by their victimhood and self-justified by their political religion. All their anger and frustration in their miserable little world are a hair-trigger away from their bottomless anger and cruelty against any human who dares tell them the truth. And when the system finally collapses under its own weight, the pseudo-intellectuals in foreign universities all say, “Yes, but that wasn’t true socialism.” Yes, it was. Repeatedly. -QQuerius
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
Folks, see why we need to sort out first principles and duties of reason? That is how bad things now are. KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Q, actually, the wife-beating case is loaded innuendo turning on implicit context and creating a fallacy of the complex question, not a claim about a state of affairs that is either so or not so. Superpositions [of what, yielding what] etc in quantum mechanics do not invalidate that there are recognisable, distinctly identifiable states of affairs which may be accurately said to be the case or may fail of being accurately described. The slipping in of an unannounced, unusual context into a situation is fallacious; e.g. triangle has a normal default meaning, shifting context without announcement is an error at the least. 2 + 2 = 4 has a definite standard sense, but this is now being brought under pressure from the sort of contexts being described, the 1984 example is a satirical classic on such. If you want a more realistic case read Havel's famous essay on the power of the powerless, highlighting the green grocer and the sign in the window. A good slice of the world just got out from that yoke, why do so many want to go back there again? KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Best of luck with your emergency, Vivid. Not a good way to start the new year.Viola Lee
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
The statement "Do you still beat your spouse?" isn't "a proposition in math or symbolic logic." English language statements are full of ambiguity and sometimes meaningless. My statement was about, as I clearly said, propositions in math or symbolic logic.Viola Lee
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
KF “Above, Vivid was overawed by use of discovery of non euclidean geometries,” Overawed, thats at’s a bit of an overstatement. Off to the hospital. Vividvividbleau
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Going off on a bit of a tangent . . .
If it is known that a proposition must either be either true or false, such as propositions in math or symbolic logic, then if it cannot be untrue it must be true, because those are the only two possibilities.
Nope. T or F: Do you still beat your spouse? The word "still" makes this impossible to answer if you never beat your spouse. It's also ambiguous--my wife usually beats me at backgammon on our game nights, but she's never beaten me at chess. In the Bible, there's a scene in which the Israelite military leader, Joshua, just lost a stupid battle when "the angel of the Lord" appeared to him. Joshua asked him, "Are you for us or against us?" A binary choice. The angel of the Lord, replied, "No." Having more than binary answers is analogous of curved space, where things get interesting. Have you ever noticed that Pi is a variable in curved space? For example , in a spherical space, the value of Pi depends on the relative size of the circle you're measuring. In quantum mechanics, superposition (which has now been visually observed in a paddle experiment), there are states where something is both true and false. -QQuerius
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
SA, food for thought. KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Jerry
Actually very relevant to OP. Are there actual beliefs that rational people can agree on. This should be one of them.
Exactly. Viola was trying to say "nobody denies this" so it's irrelevant and ridiculous for the OP to present it. But there are many ways in which 2+2=4 is denied, indirectly, and which it supports ID. If 2+2 represents reality - then materialism is false (because if everything is just molecules, in reality there cannot be 2 things adding to 2 other different things). Radical subjectivism is false also (that nothing really exists, its all just in our head). Because 2 things exist and can be added to 2 more. Skepticism is also false (we don't know anything for certain). But we would know there are two things added to two more. With an agreement that 2+2 really does equal 4, the basics of Logic are affirmed, and we know something about reality. Those anti-ID ideas are refuted. If someone says that 2+2 doesn't "really" equal four because everything is an illusion or we don't really know anything - then they just refuted the math. They're saying that the formula isn't really correct and the answer could either be something different, or impossible to calculate. That destroys math. The Law of Identity (a thing has a unique, real identity, it is one thing and not identical with another) is the foundation by which we then have logic and then have ID inferences. The Law of Identity cannot be the product of blind, material processes - it has to originate elsewhere. The classical idea is that it originated in the mind of God. Obviously, that doesn't go over too well with the anti-ID crowd, but there it is anyway.Silver Asiatic
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
I just saw your comment, Jerry, and you are absolutely right. That's a bad mistake on my part, and I apologize to KF. It's too late to delete my comments, but my mea culpa is here.Viola Lee
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Kf referred to Vivid not Viola. Delete your comment and I’ll delete mine here. Not deleted so I’ll leave my comment.jerry
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
kf writes, "Above, Vivid was overawed by use of discovery of non euclidean geometries," Baloney. I am not "overawed" by non-Euclidean geometries. You aren't worth talking to.Viola Lee
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Vivid, I hope things work out for your fam, an emergency is not a great way to start a new year. KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
PS: Starting from first duties and principles, as we start the 3rd decade of the first century of the third Christian Millennium:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
I turn, now to the framework for the second duty, using Epictetus on inescapability of logic
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
Law of Identity is the pivot here, non contradiction and excluded middle, strictly, are close corollaries. Without distinct identity we cannot even think or communicate intelligibly, here is St Paul:
1 Cor 14:7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. [ESV]
kairosfocus
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Jerry, we are seeing how objections are made by twisting issues into pretzels. Above, Vivid was overawed by use of discovery of non euclidean geometries, which is of course a rhetorical impact. I rebalanced. Now, I am marking the difference between pre-axiomatic first principles and duties and culturally/situationally conditioned axiomatisations, world models, worldview presuppositions etc, as unless the distinction is recognised there can be no escaping of relativisation of rationality. Even what objectivity means is being debated. The answer is, truth comes in degrees and has a solid, core definition tracing to Aristotle that Dead White Man (as in tyranny of per Critical Theory fallacies). Where, we have to get first things straight to get anywhere or the pretzel twisting game reduces all to relativistic chaos. Truth is accurate description of reality, what is. That is it says of what is, that it is; and, of what is not, that it is not. But in a world where that error exists is a first undeniable truth, an issue of reliable access obtains and is used by radicals to claim oppressive imposition to relativise and dismiss inconvenient truth by falsely labelling it a tool of oppression. often by said DWM. Subjective truth is truth as one perceives, perhaps quite accurately. Absolute truth is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on a matter. In theistic terms, reality as perceived by its source and sustainer, God. He is truth himself. In between lies the province of provisionally, somewhat or even highly warranted, reliable truth claims, that in relatively rare cases can be incorrigible or even inescapable or self evident. This is the realm of responsible truth claims of objective character significantly independent of the mind or perceptions of some fallible thinker. That is the province we aspire to and it is the context of credibility of the design inference or of holding God to be credibly real. I hope this helps to level the playing field enough to play seriously. In that context, my next move is in a PS. KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4? which I didn’t think was relevant
Actually very relevant to OP. Are there actual beliefs that rational people can agree on. This should be one of them. If there are points of agreement, what are they? Nearly everything in math is a start. What can we not agree on? I’m not sure what fits into this category that is legitimate because ID accepts nearly every finding in scientific study. It just challenges interpretation of these findings. That is how ID proceeds. It takes what has generally been agreed upon and argues to its conclusion. And what is its conclusion? That an intelligence is a likely explanation for certain physical phenomena. Not an absolute certainty but a highly likely one. Current science commits the logical fallacy of “begging the question” by stipulating no intelligence can be considered an explanation. Illogical. But power structures determine was is truth, not evidence and logic. That is the fundamental issue of the OP. Unfortunately it plays out in every aspect of our lives not just science.jerry
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
VL, immediately, you tried to redefine context and framing by talking about a specialist usage as though it were standard. Let friend pilot or surveyor or draftsman go to a technical stationery shop and buy ruler, T-square and a set of triangles, as well as a protractor. What will he get, snippets from the surface of a finite radius sphere or planar figures? Then, say they are tiling a floor, will they get non-planar tiles? That tells us all we need to know. Next, the observable facts on triangles, e.g. Pythagoras' 345 relationships are antecedent to axiomatisations and debates about other viable logic model worlds. In the case of core quantities and structures tied to N, Z, R, C, R* etc, these can be shown to be present in any possible world even a mush world such as you suggest, that is because such are framework abstracta for worlds to be. And they are highly suggestive that the root world that enables other worlds is minded. KF PS: Your now usual lockoff, is duly noted. For record, Critical Theories -- there are many -- will impose ideologies lawlessly on any institution they can subvert, including practice of fields such as Math, Engineering, Physics, Chemistry etc. The phrases year zero reset and cancel culture are indicia. That was already noted but clearly cuts across what you are willing to acknowledge.kairosfocus
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
I started the 2 + 2 stuff because News, in her first comment, wrote, "Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4?", which I didn't think was relevant at all, and the discussion took off from there. The recent part of the discussion started with the question of was it objectively true that 2 + 2 = 4, which is interesting philosophically. BA contributed by arguing that the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 depended on his version of the Christian God, which I disputed. Those are a few of the points that have driven the discussion. Somehow transgenderism snuck in there. Discussions take winding courses.Viola Lee
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
I started the 2 + 2 stuff because News, in her first comment, wrote, "Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4?", which I didn't think was relevant at all, and the discussion took off from there. The recent part of the discussion started with the question of was it objectively true that 2 + 2 = 4, which is interesting philosophically. BA contributed by arguing that the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 depended on his version of the Christian God, which I disputed. Those are a few of the points that have driven the discussion. Somehow transgenderism snuck in there. Discussions take winding courses.Viola Lee
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
This OP is about science and belief in God. First some have latched onto 2+2=4 as the point to argue. No rational person disputes this. Then it’s triangles. Then it’s different types/definitions of triangles. An angle in a plane is not the same thing as an angle on a non planar surface. So to equate the two is specious. They are similar but different concepts. I’m not sure what is being discussed or disagreed on. Can anyone succinctly state anything that is being disagreed on? If not why all the rhetoric? The referenced article in the OP is standard ID evidence for an intelligence being behind the origin of certain physical phenomena. No one is disputing math here. I think the most interesting point is being ignored and being replaced by irrelevancies. Nothing new there. And then there is the issue of truth and power which we are witnessing daily in our world which does have relevance to the OP.jerry
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply