Courtesy Salvo 49:
Last fall, Dilbert creator Scott Adams held his first online “Troll College.” Sitting in front of a wonky whiteboard, the satirist extraordinaire and sarcastic poker-of-fun at all things pompous, taught seven rules for would-be internet trolls. One capitalized on the straw man fallacy, which involves misstating your target’s argument, then criticizing the misstatement. Others focused on rhetorical strategy: always issue a “halfpinion,” for example, which reduces a complex issue to one variable, rather than a real opinion, which would require taking all factors into account.
“You should also pretend,” Adams said, moving on to rule number five, “that you as a troll [do] something called ‘understanding science.’ . . . Just make the assumption that you know more about science than other people.” And like a good teacher, he modeled how it should be done. “Ah huh huh huh,” he guffawed, demonstrating the condescending, arrogant, mocking tone you should assume. “You don’t know anything about science, ah ha ha. . . .” A troll should never give reasons for what he “understands.” What matters is the attitude.
Terrell Clemmons, “When Darwin’s Foundations Are Crumbling, What Will the Faithful Do?” at Salvo
They seem to have followed the script, Clemmons reports, with Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves.
You can sit on the observation deck here.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
See also: Dilbert’s Scott Adams And The Reproductively Effective Delusion Evolutionary Thesis
and
Schrodinger’s cat applies for a job
Follow UD News at Twitter!
News, the problem is, some may think this is a textbook rather than a satirical troll roast. We may have a live case in point. KF
Perfect. We saw an excellent example of this from a participant here just this week, with AaronS and myself referring to that exact thing “condescending, arrogant, mocking tone” that Mr. Adams notes. It’s great to have this validation. A phenomenon obvious enough that the whole world of Dilbert fans can laugh at it.
He made an odd comment to you specifically I notice, that you were ranting about a subject you just learned two days ago. The reason why that was odd was you never said that you were unaware of outbreeding depression (again lots of disadvantages One to two incidental advantages, his argument that it was an advantage) Or that he was the source of your knowledge of it he just assumed and he assumed that you knew nothing about it
I can think of several regular posters here who in general support the main premises of this site and are often arrogant and condescending about their sense of superiority about understanding science. Do they count as trolls?
Is it possible that we have in this website a distinguished commenter (summa cum laude) alumni from Scott Adams’ Troll College?
Hazel
Arrogant and condescending ID proponents on this site? That is just crazy talk. 🙂
Brother Brian:
More like arrogant and condescending blind watchmaker evolutionary proponents on this site. And then when they are corrected and exposed the people correcting and exposing them are called arrogant and condescending.
Condescending arrogance:
Right. On. Cue.
AaronS
Exactly. My point was that there are a lot of disadvantages for it, and massively great advantages if it did not exist. He never addressed that. Instead, as long as Wikipedia said something and gave “examples” (which I ripped apart without a reply), his point was proven.
That’s also the case within the evolutionary community itself. Generate an arcane paper on the most trivial finding, which doesn’t even answer the problem, and then claim that the science is settled beyond a doubt. In fact, anyone who doubts it is said to be ignorant of the research. Then, months later, a new paper overturns the previous conclusion. We are then told “that’s how science works”, again with the attitude of “you don’t know anything about science”.
Those guys have been well-schooled at the troll college.
Hazel
How can a minority view which is ridiculed, black-listed and persecuted by mainstream science be seen as having a sense of superiority? The arrogance comes entirely from one direction in this case.
Often, and surely you know there are examples here, that members of a minority position display a very strong sense that they are right and the mainstream is wrong. I assume you are familiar with posts by bornagain and kf. It would be easy to find examples of what I mean.
H, kindly give us an actually observed case of functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information beyond 500 – 1,000 bits coming about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity: _____ . We can readily supply literally trillions via Internet and a world of technology (gears, nuts and bolts etc count!) caused through intelligently directed configuration. We can back this up with search challenge in config spaces i/l/o atomic resources of sol sys or observed cosmos. That gives us inductive reasoning based epistemic rights to claim good warrant. Warrant, is not arrogance, it is drawing responsible conclusions well within epistemic rights, having done due diligence regarding the duties of right reason. Your projections above are clearly misplaced; raising questions of a rhetorical projection. KF
PS: I think this inadvertent, cat out of the bag remark throws an interesting sidelight i/l/o Adams’ troll roast, as I have marked it up:
Just noticed that my question @5 was inaccurate. It should have been plural.
🙂
Lewontin, again!!!
I am really puzzled why you think one quote from one guy is a definitive statement that everyone who thinks that science is the “surest method of putting is in contact with physical reality” is somehow beholden to. Lewontin is certainly not any “official spokesperson” for science, or any other group.
Also, I’ll point out that your continually posted quote is virtually unreadable because of the way you interject your editorial comments.
H, you clearly have failed to read the statement with sufficient care; and it is readable enough, indeed there is also a link to the article as a whole. My notes are a markup. Lewontin wrote as a representative of the elites, of which he has been a member for decades, in a review of the final book by another member of those elites, Sagan (yes, of the original Cosmos). He set out a worldviews level challenge and described what the cultural elites thought and set out to impose. There is abundant further evidence of the pattern, I append from the US NSTA below as just one telling example as this is meant to control how the rising generation is taught about science. Do not force me to adduce further on how children were held hostage by the NSTA and NAS through a threatening letter for failing to toe the partyline. I also notice that while you dismiss, you actually have not answered here and in fact have never cogently answered. Thus on fair comment your dismissiveness is empty rhetoric. KF
PS: “Moar” evidence — you asked for it:
I read the whole essay. I don’t support everything Lewontin says, but I also don’t see him as an “elite” who can impose anything on anyone. Many people believe that science should look for natural causes, with lots of variation in what that means: most (like me, as I said in 127 on the Egnor thread) don’t believe that only science can provide truth even though I support science as “the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality.” Lewontin, however, only speaks for a small subset of people (if he can be said to speak for anyone but himself at all.)
And I find it quite, we might say, telling, that you don’t quote the sentence which follows the “foot in the door” line and concludes the paragraph:
This seems like a good objection to me. If God is allowed as a scientific explanation, he can be invoked to explain anything, and therefore would really explain nothing.
So, in the interest of intellectual honesty, perhaps you should amend your frequent quote to include these last lines.
Another point: you and other make the point (there was just a whole thread on it) the design is a valid scientific inference, but that is separate from any speculations about the designer. Therefore, what difference does it make if God is excluded from scientific explanations?
Hazel
I think we all believe that here. But condescension and arrogance come from a position of power, and we have little or no power over the mainstream media. We are the ones who get fired for mentioning something positive about ID. We are the ones who are banished from academia, the media, politics and culture. They even made teaching ID illegal. So, we’re talking about arrogance, power, superiority, mockery and pompousness of mainstream evolutionary science. There’s nothing like that in ID.
Hazel
If the term ‘elite’ means anything in the academic sphere, then he is one of them. His views represent the mainstream of evolutionary science.
“To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. ”
This assumes that evolution is built upon and refers to “regularities of nature” as the mechanism for the development of life. But random events are not regularities. To appeal to blind, random, unintelligent forces as the cause for the development of life, in many ways, is not different from saying that God did it.
My guess is that a majority of evolutionary scientists have some metaphysical beliefs other than pure materialism, including the Christian one of what you called theistic evolution in another thread (and which we had a brief discussion about, I think), or vaguer agnostic beliefs about the relationship between physical reality and whatever might be more than physical reality. However, in part because of that wide diversity and lack of consensus about what is “more”, science can only talk about the physical relationships between things, and leave the metaphysical interpretations to individuals. That all seems reasonable to me.
Hazel
It’s a generous and broad-minded view. I’d like to see some support for that notion. For example, are there popular books about evolution from a non-atheistic point of view, matching something like Dawkins’ books? I haven’t seen them. I don’t think we can deny that many of the popular leaders in evolutionary thought (Dennett, Dawkins, Coyne, Myers, Moran) are stridently atheistic.
I don’t know if you saw the post I offered on quotes from evolutionary textbooks that indicated that the materialist metaphysic was the foundation of evolution, but that’s what it means when evolution is referred to as “blind, undirected, purposeless”.
SA, weird as it seems, statistics tells us that chance processes are riddled with regularities. Hence distributions. In Physics, these are the meat and potatoes of statistical thermodynamics, which studiesm populations at micro level with typically 10^18 – 24 particles. A classic text for that begins that the main task is to deduce the zustandsumme, the partition functions. From Z, just about everything else flows. KF
I have not read any of the people you mention, although I’ve heard of all of them but Moran. I think someone named Collins, as well as someone named Miller, are religious people who support mainstream evolutionary science. However what you call “popular leaders” might also be thought of as “infamous” because being “strident” sells.
But I’ll once again point out that atheism is not synonymous with materialism (although the people you mention may all be materialist, also): one may be a non-materialist and yet not believe in any “gods” in the sense of beings who participate actively in the physical world or the lives of human beings.
And I didn’t see, and would be interested in seeing, the list of textbooks you posted.
H, science as you will know or will readily recognise, is a celebrity system. That is, it has the onion, inner circle elite pattern, and admission to ever tighter inner circles comes with prestige, funding, recognition, influence and power, which anyone who knows about power games will tell you is wide, open to faction games and linked progressive corruption to the point of cultivating sociopaths as dominant in core power centres — suicide for a civilisation. Many non-high prestige, non elite scientists (who hold but little power) indeed are all over the worldviews map. The power elites who dominate and too often domineer, unfortunately, are pretty much as Lewontin let the cat out of the bag about. He should know, he has been a card-carrying member for decades. The influences we have pointed out for so many years fit right in with those patterns. And BTW, wider Academia, the media, legal circles and elite education systems have much the same patterns and influences. That’s part of why dissident sites like this one are important, we are today’s equivalent to samizdat. And I note the web oligopolists are trying to censor and suppress the non politically correct as we speak — of course, blaming the victim all along the way. A key sign is reversal of burden of warrant so that accusatory swarming replaces protection of innocent reputation. To that, my answer is, you can be a publisher or a platform. If you abuse regulatory power and dominance to turn censor, you become responsible for consequences; potentially, in ways that are not going to be pretty if the degree of polarisation and domineering that we see further spins out of control. In the case of the USA, we are already in low grade civil war, though not as violent as the 1850’s there. Lawfare, street theatre, mob violence and media lynchings so far are not going over into general shooting but on current track that’s coming. Foolishly ill-advised, but then the collapse of legitimacy in the UK over Brexit spells much the same story. And more. What is happening with science is part of a widespread, pretty ugly picture that includes enabling of the worst holocaust in history under false colour of law. KF
Hazel, states that I have “a very strong sense that they (ID proponents) are right and the mainstream is wrong”.
Other than the fact that it is not any ethereal sense that I may have but is a concrete scientific fact that is established, she is correct in her assessment that I have “a very strong “sense” that they (ID proponents) are right and the mainstream is wrong”.
I’m sure the same can be said for the vast majority of ID proponents who have carefully examined the scientific evidence. In fact, the very article in the OP itself recounts Dr. Behe’s careful examination of the scientific evidence over the last several decades. Being sure of what the scientific evidence is actually saying is a far cry from the trollish attitude of typical atheists on the internet that Scott Adams alludes to in the video. In fact, Dr. Behe is shining example of dispassionately following the scientific evidence where it leads. Something that Darwinists would do very well to emulate instead of viciously attacking him personally as they have repeatedly done. (All without vindictive retaliation from Dr. Behe I might add)
Hazel, after falsely trying to tar me as being as bad as atheistic trolls are notorious for being, goes on to ask, “what difference does it make if God is excluded from scientific explanations?”
Well, it makes a tremendous difference. A difference that results in catastrophic epistemological failure for the (methodological) naturalist.
To repeat,
On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality, to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
Moreover, by any reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether a theory is scientific, Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a scientific theory:
Whether or not a scientific theory is potentially falsifiable is considered the gold standard by which to judge whether a theory is scientific. As Popper himself stated,
In regards to that standard, it is not that Darwinism is not falsifiable, it is that Darwinists simply to refuse to accept the fact that their theory has been falsified by numerous lines of evidence. In the minds of Darwinists, empirical evidence is simply never allowed to falsify Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. Here are a few falsifications of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory:
In short, Darwinian evolution, since its practitioners refuse to accept falsification of their theory, is much more realistically classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscientific religion for atheists.
Verse:
And whereas Darwinists simply refuse to accept any empirical falsification of their theory, on the hand Intelligent Design is easily falsifiable. Just demonstrate that Darwinian and/or material processes can generate information. In fact there is a up to a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who is able to meet that falsification criteria:
I did some reviewing of key sections about evolution in a copy of Biology by Campbell, which is a college textbook. I saw nothing that spoke to materialism, FWIW.
Hazel
There are exceptions and contradictions among every group of believers. But we don’t argue by way of those exceptions. For the sake of discussion, we talk about the predominant trends. Generally speaking, Christians believe that God exists. Not all do. There’s no point making that qualification though. Generally speaking, atheists today (it may have been less true at another time) are materialists.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/
KF
It depends on how we define regularity and what level of prediction we’re comfortable with.
If we’re saying that in any given string of events, it is 100% certain that “something will happen”, then yes.
But by definion, a random sequence is non-ordered. So, if we mean by “regularity” an ordered process, then no.
If we mean that random mutations will necessarily create certain functional, new traits beneficial to an organism over a period of time, I’ll say “no” to that also. Mutations are random and will not necessarily create anything viable. They might do it, based on some probabilities. But that is different from the regularity that we see in a force like gravity, for example.
Hazel @ 17,
>This seems like a good objection to me. If God is allowed as a scientific explanation, he can be invoked to explain anything, and therefore would really explain nothing.
I think this holds for naturalistic explanations; we might agree on that. But I don’t think God fits into the category of a scientific explanation. But if God does exist and did create us and the world we live in, he would _have_ to be the explanation for some things, starting with our existence.
I don’t see this as an objection to the idea of God. It does say that scientific and metaphysical explanations need to be distinguished. But I don’t think is an airtight argument against God.
Hazel @25:
“I have not read any of the people you mention, although I’ve heard of all of them but Moran.”
I think the one you haven’t heard of is a professor at a Canadian university who embarrassed himself here a few years ago when he affirmed that he knew exactly how morphogen gradients are formed.
Apparently humility is not an abundant commodity within the Darwinian crowd.
🙂
sa writes, “Generally speaking, atheists today (it may have been less true at another time) are materialists.”
I don’t think that is true, and my guess is that there might be some surveys (of whatever reliability) about this someplace. My impression is that lots of people are disillusioned with religion which makes specific claims about specific gods, but believe there “is something out there” above and beyond just material existence.
to edta: I didn’t mean to imply in any way that what I said was an argument against the existence of God. I did mean to say clearly that “scientific and metaphysical explanations need to be distinguished.” Many people believe that somehow something was/is the cause of our universe and its attributes which can and have led to life, but we have no way to investigate the specifics of that: thus it is a metaphysical belief, not a scientific one.
Hazel
I’ve argued with atheists via evolution debates for 15 years or more. Now, the situation may be changing and it would be great, if so. Perhaps these years of clashing between atheists and believers has softened the hard-line atheist position that was so common a decade ago. Perhaps now, people realize that the primitive notion of materialism, championed by the likes of Dawkins and Coyne, is totally useless as a philosophy of life, and they are tired of being destroyed in debate. So … yes, maybe there is a New New Atheism, which tries to fit “something out there” into an atheist belief. That’s a positive step. At the same time, I haven’t seen such persons “in action” in the ordinary debates. I don’t think we’ve seen any (or very few) atheists like that here on UD, although I’ve been away for several months (are there any here today?). I think usually and almost universally, the atheists we encounter are absolute materialists. For them, there is nothing immaterial. There is nothing “out there” other than matter. I guess most of them by now want some kind of multiverse to fill the void. But it’s all based on the same concept.
If, however, there really is a strong contingent of “immaterial believing” atheists out there … I think they’ll run head-long into the problems that Plato and Aristotle attempted to solve, and have to admit some things. Where did this “something” come from? It can’t come from matter. If it exists always, we’re talking about an attribute of God. If it has intelligence and power, those also cannot come from matter. If they self-exist, then we have God again. Eventually, the attributes of this “something out there” will be “that which we call God”.
Uh, I am such a person, FWIW. I’ve spent quite a bit of time explaining my views the last six months or so, and I think you’ve been around for some of those discussions.
Also, you can Google “spiritual not religious” to find out more about the prevalence of such beliefs these days.
Hazel
There are probably 10 atheists who are active on this site presently, maybe more.
Ok, you are one that believes in the existence of some immaterial being of some kind. But I think you’re the only one. 90% are materialists. That’s enough for me to generalize.
SA, thanks for thoughts. I am pointing to the phenomenon of statistical or probability distributions, where phenomena driven by chance manifest an underlying lawlike order. Yes, they are highly contingent but end up in definite patterns, e.g. binomial, Gaussian, Weibull, Beta etc distributions and the various distributions of statistical mechanics. KF
H,
generally speaking, textbook authors will not be so foolish as to explicitly advocate evolutionary materialistic scientism [= naturalism, where the ISM part in fact points to an ideological and/or worldview commitment] in their books. What we will find instead is an implicit naturalistic pose and the associated inference that everything is explainable and/or has been explained sufficiently by Big-S, naturalistic science.
Likely, with dashes of scientism, the presumption that “Science” [usually, naturalistically understood] dominates credible knowledge, often implying or at least suggesting that that which is not scientific has low or no credibility. When, in fact, the grounding of knowledge is a matter of logic and epistemology, matters of philosophy. Which, is sometimes explicitly attacked.
Sometimes, too, there is the suggestion that the naturalistic reconstruction of the past of origins is so certain as to be effectively facts as certain as that the earth is round and orbits the sun under gravitational forces; a serious logical-epistemological error regarding attainable degree of warrant for an unobserved past and imposition of ideologically loaded, deeply question-begging bias.
This sort of stance is made a little more explicit in the US NSTA Board statement of July 2000, which I marked up to show its errors, agendas and censorship. Remember, that is presented as the proper definition of science, when in fact it is riddled with demonstrable fallacies.
What is of course lost in the process is the understanding that sciences are open-ended searches for the truth about our world i/l/o observation and reasoned argument, creating inherently provisional bodies of observation, explanations and soft sense knowledge anchored by credible empirical reliability.
Where, accessible degree of knowledge and reliability not only hinges on observational testing but on what aspect of the body of knowledge is being addressed.
Empirical observations and results of tests are inherently more reliable than inferences and especially theories which are in effect inferences to best current explanation. The empirical reliability of a theory is a matter of empirical test and is inherently provisional. From this perspective, a live theory is a possibly true, empirically well tested explanatory model. Older theories that have had limitations identified [e.g. Newtonian dynamics] are well tested limiting cases that implicitly constrain successors or augmentations through the need to reduce to the limiting case.
(That’s why for instance we speak of rest mass, such that E = m_0*c^2. Which is a valid supplementary point to Scott’s example above. Kinetic energy under relativistic terms has in it a term that does not vanish when velocity is zero.)
And so forth.
KF
PS: For reference, I again put up my markup on the US NSTA July 2000 Board statement:
Naturalism has no real, rigorous definition, it is just an excuse to be lazy and to not even think about testing or exploring certain ideas.
ID advocates here complain about naturalism and materialism a lot, but they aren’t the real issue and tearing them down won’t do anything to convince people because they are wedded to the idea of progress. If human history is a story of progress, then there must constantly be a stream of new things replacing old things and old ideas must never, ever come back. If they do, it threatens the modern worldview.
Modern society has invested extremely heavily in this narrative and it would be devastating to modern humanity’s self-image and self-confidence to admit that their core beliefs (nature is undesigned and new ideas are always better) are over-valued.
Silver Asiatic @ 29 (& Hazel) –
I knew I should have bookmarked this page. It refers to a survey which shows that only a minority of atheists surveyed didn’t believe in any supernatural forces. From the report:
So if anything, materialists would be the exception.
(note to self: work harder on condescending, arrogant, mocking tone)
The Fact of Evolution Refutes the Theory of Evolution – https://evofact.wordpress.com/
You simply can’t make this stuff up, nobody would believe it.
Only an atheist would think that supplying the rope for his own hanging would somehow exonerate him of the crime that led to his hanging in the first place.
Bob O’H, in response to,,,
Bob O’H, in response to that cites this study from a conference on unbelief that was held at the Vatican
Here’s the pdf
Thus, a study that was central to a conference that was held at the Vatican that proved that the vast majority of atheists do not live consistently within their naturalistic worldview, but harbor many supernatural beliefs, is somehow, for Bob (and weave) O’Hara and Hazel, proof that their atheistic worldview is correct???
Give me a break. The fact that atheists themselves are forced to back off a completely naturalistic worldview and adopt ‘supernatural’ beliefs about meaning, purpose, and morality in their lives, and are unable to live consistently within naturalism, is actually a knock down proof that Atheistic naturalism cannot possibly be true and is certainly not any sort of proof that can be construed to be against Theism being true.
Besides the rope that Bob (and weave) himself supplied for his own hanging, in the following article Nancy Pearcey cites many leading atheists who reluctantly admit that it is impossible for them to live consistently within their naturalistic worldview,
Even Richard (selfish gene) Dawkins himself admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if his atheistic materialistic worldview were actually true
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your naturalistic worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Thus, it turns out that the argument that Hazel and Bob (and weave) themselves were trying to advance, namely, “But I’ll once again point out that atheism is not synonymous with materialism”,, is actually another proof that atheistic materialism cannot possibly be true. i.e. The atheist, in order to avoid living his life in a completely insane manner, must ‘borrow’ from Theism. As the following article noted, ” A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.”
To repeat,
Bob
As BA77 indicated, this merely shows the inconsistency and illogic of the atheistic view. To admit that some, undefined supernatural forces exist is to undermine atheism. If these forces exist, why can’t they or don’t they act upon nature? Scientism is killed off with this notion also. So, you’re giving us good news. I’m happy to be corrected.
I mentioned to Hazel that I judged the percentage of materialist-atheists from interactions on this site (and others) debating atheists.
Where do you place yourself on the spectrum, Bob? Materialist? Or believer in some supernatural forces?
Silver Asiatic @ 42
No, atheism is the position that there exists no evidence sufficient to compel belief in a specified deity or group of deities. Admitting the possibility that there are as yet unknown phenomena underlying what we can currently observe in the Universe does not undermine that position in the slightest. I prefer “unknown” to “supernatural” because I regard the latter as an incoherent and largely redundant concept.
A perfectly good question and one that implies that you agree with me that we can only know of such phenomena through their observable effects on the material world.
Hazel is a believer in some supernatural something out there.
What about Bob? Seversky? Mimus? DaveS? Brother Brian? There are “supernatural forces” out there?
Seversky
It undermines the question “where is the evidence”? On what basis do you conclude there is “the possibility”?
You affirm then, that non-material (immaterial) forces, entities or beings exist? So you are not a materialist in the ordinary understanding of that term, correct?
Sev, is there evidence enough to COMPEL belief in essentially anything of consequence, factoring in grand delusion models of the world, Boltzmann brains, etc? Belief and inference simply are not compelled, they are inferred or acknowledged i/l/o irreducibly free choice. Even, perceptual beliefs — what compels acceptance that the world you see is real? Instead, atheism is the choice exerted to disbelieve in God, and that to claim one has adequate warrant for such disbelief — as opposed to having doubts that God exists. This joint claim is very hard to justify on comparative difficulties grounds starting with implications of the logic of being and arguable need for an adequate, finitely remote root of reality; to be further discussed. Later today after church, DV . . . and I think that it’s worth an OP. KF
Hazel
It’s called the argument from authority fallacy. Just as the claim that a hand written sentence from a note written by Crick is proof that DNA is a code is an argument from authority fallacy. Or Plato’s cave. I wouldn’t be surprised if the argument from authority fallacy is one of the “weak arguments” that KF often directs us to.
Various replies to SA:
First, as I implied at 25, by “atheist” I mean someone who does not believe in any “gods” in the sense of beings who participate actively in the physical world or the lives of human beings.” I also agree with Sev that atheism implies that the gods described by all religions do not exist when he writes “No, atheism is the position that there exists no evidence sufficient to compel belief in a specified deity or group of deities.”
Second, SA says of me, “Ok, you are one that believes in the existence of some immaterial being of some kind.”
No, not at all, as I said above. I believe there is more than matter, but I don’t think that is a “being” of any kind.
Also, SA says, “Hazel is a believer in some supernatural something out there.”
I don’t think “supernatural” is a good description of my beliefs: this discussion should not be about my particular beliefs, I don’t think, but my basic metaphysical speculation is that there is an underlying unknowable oneness from which both mind and matter arise through what we experience at the physical level as quantum processes. This oneness does not have the quality of personhood, nor take any active interest in human affairs, but it is the source of our minds with which we create personhood within ourselves, and is the creative force which structures matter and mind so that they can function as they do.
But the point is that this is an example of a non-materialistic atheism.
SA writes, “There are probably 10 atheists who are active on this site presently, maybe more.” and then surmises other than me the other nine are materialists. He then mentions five people (Bob? Seversky? Mimus? DaveS? Brother Brian): I can’t think of other current posters. I’m pretty sure Dave has said he is not a materialist, but he hasn’t shown any interest in discussing his beliefs (and we certainly can’t blame him for that!) Sev has explained that he is agnostic about ultimate reality. That leaves Bob, Brother Brian, and Mimus as potentially materialists, although I don’t know for sure whether any of them have so stated about themselves.
Side note: supernatural is not a good term, as one can argue (I do) that mind arises as naturally as matter. Non-material is better, I think. And as Sev says, “unknown” applies to lots of things, some of which, in my opinion, will be forever unknown because they are beyond any experience we can ever have.
Last, you write to Sev, “You affirm then, that non-material (immaterial) forces, entities or beings exist?” I don’t think he said that at all. He said there is a “possibility that there are as yet unknown phenomena underlying what we can currently observe in the Universe,” which I agree with (with the caveat, as stated above, that they may be permanently unknowable to human experience.
SA
I don’t know. But until there is evidence to the contrary I will live my life under the premise that they do not exist.
I think the source of confusion has to do with how we define supernatural. Some perceive things like magnetism and gravity to be supernatural forces. I consider that anything that can be measured and that interact with matter are natural (material) forces. That does not preclude some God from interacting with the material world. But if one does, and we can measure/observe these interactions, then he is a natural force. The fact that there have been no confirmed incidents of God interacting with the material world (seeing Jesus in a slice of toast or claiming that one is only alive because of God’s intercession don’t count) any belief in such a being must be taken on faith.
Good point, BB.
hazel,
I’m not a materialist in that I do believe abstract things (numbers, propositions, etc.) actually exist independently of us. That belief comes with a whole host of problems for which I don’t have answers, unfortunately.
kf writes, ” I think that it’s worth an OP.”
Keep it short, and don’t paste stuff you’ve pasted dozens of times before. My 2 cents.
Also, kf says, “Instead, atheism is the choice exerted to disbelieve in God, and that to claim one has adequate warrant for such disbelief — as opposed to having doubts that God exists. ”
I don’t believe in leprechauns, or angels and demons, or fairies. Do I have to provide warrant for such belief, or just point out there is not anywhere enough evidence for such for me to even bother wondering whether they exist?
Here’s a clear and classic example of trolling:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/first-ever-natural-narwhal-beluga-hybrid-found-has-bizarre-teeth/#comment-679759
Know-it-all Hazel and “her” fellow interlocutors won’t take up the challenge because, as we all know (including them, if they are honest) they don’t have any arguments to begin with. Nevertheless, for some reason Hazel feels compelled to comment here almost every day and several times a day. Why? It’s obvious that she and her friends know how to be argumentative. However, do they understand the difference between making a sound logically valid argument and being argumentative? Personally, I don’t care what Hazel believes and thinks. (Now just watch “she’ll” try to do a rhetorical turn-around with what I just said like she tried to do above with Kf.) But what will that prove? Nothing. So why is she so obsessed with this site? Frankly, it’s irrational. Empty rhetoric proves nothing.
I found the following sentence especially telling:
So, why is Hazel wasting time on a third rate site like UD? And why is she wasting everyone else’s time with her argumentative yet baseless and vacuous comments? Is it because she feels our third rate site is a threat to civilization? Or, is it because she feels socially intellectually superior to the “rubes” who post here. (Maybe she’ll be open and transparent and finally tell us.) Is it ethical to waste other people’s time– especially people you don’t know– with inane and stupid “arguments”? She and her minions certainly know how to obfuscate and obstruct and how to disrupt and derail the discussion. But what’s the point?
People on the ID side need to stop taking the bait! They need to stop enabling and pandering to these people. I have said that here many times before but for some reason it doesn’t sink in. The only thing more foolish than being a fool is being played by one. PLEASE STOP being played by these people. If they don’t offer a logically valid argument, with fact based of evidence based premises, don’t reply. If want to be polite then remind them they need to make a valid argument. But please don’t pander.
BB, you are setting up a strawman and knocking it over, and you know or should know better. While Lewontin’s discussion as a member of the elites is striking as he responded to his friend Sagan’s last book, The Demon-haunted World, Sagan being a leading populariser of evolutionary materialistic scientism, there are in fact a great many cases that amount to much the same. The impression I get from your reaction and attempts to dismiss is that you have no cogent answer on the merits to what is inadvertently exposed here but do not wish to be reminded of the fact. KF
PS: Here is Alex Rosenberg’s admission as he tries to celebrate evolutionary materialistic scientism — and note the title:
PPS: Similarly, here is Crick (a Nobel Prize winner):
PPPS: William Provine in his U Tenn Darwin Day address:
And there are more.
H, all worldviews need responsible warrant. Faith in God is not even comparable to that in fairies and the like in terms of logic of being and core of worldview. The comparison is itself telling. KF
JAD, H et al know that UD has more influence than they suggest in their comments. That itself speaks volumes, that they resort to berating and false assertion-based belittling; there is a reason why UD has a penumbra of attack sites and there is a reason for the ad hominem tone of those sites. Second there is a place for exposing just how empty the rhetoric we deal with is. On this, the core matter is that over the past few days things deteriorated to the point where for the first time in years I thought it advisable to remind of the still open challenge to actually warrant the blind watchmaker thesis. The ducking, dodging and evasion shows by implication that those who so busily expend rhetorical effort to attack the design inference and anyone willing to support it know they don’t have a sound case on the merits. You can rest assured that if there were such a warrant, it would be triumphantly trumpeted all over the Internet. There isn’t. As it is we see clear evidence of ideological imposition (which they don’t like to be reminded of) and we find that there is no good observational warrant for the claim that FSCO/I arises by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, whilst trillions of observed cases show it to be a reliable sign of design. This is backed by something else they can only distract attention from, search challenge. The issue on substance is actually settled: there is every good reason to infer from the FSCO/I in the world of life that it is designed. Cosmological fine tuning points to a designed cosmos set up to support such life. The onward issue is to identify how the rhetoric of distraction and the politics of imposition work, and to counter them. KF
ba77 q 41 –
I can’t speak for Hazel, but I wasn’t offering it up as proof that my worldview is correct, but rather that to dismiss atheists who aren’t materialists as exceptions is erroneous. If anything, atheists who are philosophical naturalists are the exception (even in the Us only about a third fall into that category).
Brother Brian @ 49 –
Oh that’s nice. FWIW, I’m not a supernatural force (although I suspect some of our parrots are), but I do exist. I suspect.
🙂
F/N: Back on Dec 7, 2007, WmAD posted here on a telling discussion about the US NAS:
Dembski then observes:
The next day, the late Gil Dodgen (we miss you, hope you are enjoying the hang gliding up there!) wrote:
That’s what we are up against.
KF
Ok:
Hazel: Not materialist. Believes in some unidentified … some(thing) or whatever exists??? Nothing more given.
Dave: Not materialist. Believes numbers and propositions are immaterial (entities, beings, things, somethings) that exist. Does not know where they came from.
Bob and Brother Brian: Materialists
Seversky: Believes it is possible that there is something other than material, but has no evidence, so does not affirm that such exists. We consider that Materialism
Mimus: I’d guess a Materialst.
If I’m right on the last one, that’s 4/6 atheists identified as Materialists. 67% It’s less than I projected.
As for Dave and Hazel, I think there are a lot of questions, driven simply by logic, that you should strive to answer. I don’t see how you can consistently oppose the ID proposition but affirm that there are immaterial entities/existences out there. In any case, obviously in my view, you’re some steps closer to the truth about reality than the pure materialist is. As I said before though, if the source of your immaterial “things” has certain characteristics that we also assign to God, I think it’s tougher to say that’s an atheistic viewpoint.
Hazel
You believe that there are some immaterial existences out there. What evidence do you have that they/it exists? I’ll assume that there is more evidence for whatever that is, than there is for the existence of leprechauns or fairies.
SA,
For my part, I don’t really oppose the ID proposition. I don’t think I’ve ever made an argument against ID per se. Rather, specific pro ID arguments that I believe have weaknesses.
KF
What strawman are you referring to? You accuse me of erecting so many that it is difficult to keep track.
Brother Brian:
Except said hand written sentence is supported by the science. The genetic code is as real a code as Morse code.
And yet there isn’t any supporting evidence for materialism. So you have quite the problem.
JAD re 53
“People on the ID side need to stop taking the bait! They need to stop enabling and pandering to these people. I have said that here many times before but for some reason it doesn’t sink in. The only thing more foolish than being a fool is being played by one. PLEASE STOP being played by these people. If they don’t offer a logically valid argument, with fact based of evidence based premises, don’t reply. If want to be polite then remind them they need to make a valid argument. But please don’t pander.”
Yeh I had a pretty interesting experience the other day on the Egnor thread with both Hazel and BB. To my surprise Hazel agreed with a point I was making to rebut some of BB incredible ignorance relating to early American History. BBs reaction was to in effect remind Hazel whose side she must kowtow to and it wasn’t me, as if an argument must be decided upon based on tribalism. In effect BB felt betrayed, let Hazel know it and predictably Hazel folded like a cheap suit. Lost a lot of respect for Hazel on that one.
The capper was when I made it very clear to BB that I did not agree with him on a certain subject and his final post was to say how glad he was that I came around to his position , absolutely bizarre behavior. I decided hey this guy or gal is either unable to read, has serious reading comprehension problems , mentally ill or was not interested in anything but trolling, all bad and all not worthy of a direct response. So good advice JAD
Vivid
hazel:
Because science cares about reality. That is the reality behind the existence of whatever we are investigating. Therefore, you would exclude God only by providing a more simple explanation, ie one that doesn’t require God.
DaveS
As I see it, a guarded acceptance of ID (if that’s right) puts you on a path to encounter some bigger questions and some realities that may be (should be) a challenge to atheism. We just look at what the evidence gives us and then affirm what the best explanation we have for it is at this present moment. Evidence of design by intelligence in nature, the existence of immaterial entities present in reality … those two things require an answer for their origin.
Hazel
This seems good. It’s something to work with. Thank you.
You offer some details here: a oneness from which mind and personhood emerge, the creative force that structures matter and mind.
In my view, this is far more advanced and reasonable than the typical materialist speculation.
But why not speculate that God exists, with the immaterial attributes that are understood through logic, and that God is the source of the mind? Why prefer an unknowable oneness as the force? Doesn’t this leave many questions as to why it is unknowable, where it comes from and what the purpose of the mind is? Is the unknowable oneness an intelligent force, which created the rational intellect of human beings? If so, doesn’t intelligence act for a purpose?
Which seems more reasonable to conclude :
– there is an unknowable force acting for an unknown reason to create our minds which seek truth and knowledge?
or
– there is a potentially knowable force acting for reasonable purpose that created our minds to seek truth and knowledge of reality?
On what basis would you choose between those options?
SA writes, “In my view, this is far more advanced and reasonable than the typical materialist speculation”
My short response is that this is not a materialist speculation: it speculatively posits that the material physical world (matter) and the immaterial world (as manifested as our minds to us) arise from the source. It is not a version of materialism.
Hazel
Yes, understood. I was saying your view was more reasonable Than a materialist view.
Vivid writes, ” let Hazel know it and predictably Hazel folded like a cheap suit. Lost a lot of respect for Hazel on that one.”
What are you talking about? I recall disagreeing with BB about some point on a history/government thread of some kind, but I wasn’t very invested in that and I don’t think I kept posting. For you to consider that “folding like a cheap suit” is an extremely biased interpretation, I think.
I went back and looked at the thread. I disagreed with BB and agreed with you on one point.
On another point I misinterpreted what BB had said, and then agree with him when he clarified. These were two separate points. Go back and review, starting with post 57.
re 70. Thanks, SA, for the clarification.
It is so hard to get clear understanding with people in a forum like this.
SA writes, “You believe that there are some immaterial existences out there.”
No, I have tried to make it clear that I don’t believe there are any “immaterial existences” out these, as in entities which interact as individual beings with the world. I do believe there is an immaterial component to the world which manifests itself in our experience as our minds, and possible manifests itself as a creative force at levels beyond our immediate experience. But these are not “existences.”
SA writes, ” I don’t see how you can consistently oppose the ID proposition.”
I, like Dave, think I can say that I have never opposed the ID proposition. I remember asking some questions about the source of design, prefacing my questions with an acceptance of the design inference, and about details about where design took place (which kf had mentioned as a factor.) I don’t think you can find any place where I have “opposed the ID proposition”, much less consistently done so.
That’s how you begin to see that the core case has been made. Namely that empirical signs such as FSCO/I are reliable signs of intelligently directed configuration as relevant causal factor.
At post 51 DaveS states,,,
Interesting that DaveS considers it ‘unfortunate’ that he is forced to believe that mathematics exist in an immaterial platonic realm.
Why in the world would anyone hope that Atheistic materialism be true and be disappointed with the fact that he is forced to admit, via mathematics, that it must be false?
Indeed, the realization by DaveS that Atheistic materialism must be in some fundamental sense, via mathematics, false should have been a realization that brought a great sense of relief to DaveS, for at least the possibility that the utter dispair of the nihilism inherent in Atheistic materialism has the very real possibility of being completely averted. It is very much similar to a man on death row considering it unfortunate that he will be released from prison because new evidence came forward that proved he was not guilty of his crimes.
Despite DaveS’s misguided disappointment, DaveS is in good company. Both Einstein and Wigner are on record as to regarding the applicability of mathematics to the universe as a ‘miracle’:
Alfred Russell Wallace himself thought mathematics alone was sufficient to infer the existence of a soul. Specifically, “Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.,,”
And indeed, the inference to a soul from mathematics is fairly straightforward, as Kepler himself noted,
Moreover, the case for a soul has recently become much stronger. Specifically, advances in quantum biology have, in no uncertain terms, confirmed the existence of a transcendent component to man, i.e. conserved quantum information, that is capable of existing beyond the death of our material bodies.
As Stuart Hameroff states in the following video, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Moreover, it is also interesting to note that the evidence for life after death is far, far, stronger than the evidence for Darwinian evolution is,,,
Thus the Christian Theist, as far as science itself is concerned, is well justified in his belief that his life does not end at the grave and that his life does indeed have meaning and pupose. This is GREAT NEWS. And yet, DaveS, against all reason, considers such a proposition ‘unfortunate’. Hopefully DaveS might someday return to sanity and consider the fact that God has an unimagiably great future planned for him and his family to be a very ‘fortunate’ thing to know and indeed a very great unbreakable promise from God to take hold of.
Indeed DaveS is ‘anything worth more than your soul?’
I am intrigued by the way simple statements get misread.
Dave wrote,
ba replied,
I hope the misreading is obvious.
If DaveS believes otherwise than what I wrote about an immaterial platonic realm he can comment, It is not on you to comment on his specific beliefs Hazel. Sheesh!
ba asks Dave, “Is anything worth more than your soul?”
Here’s Dylan’s answer to this question: a great song, and worth watching the performance if you like Dylan at all. I Ain’t Going to Go to Hell for Anybody
Atheists who are not strict materialists? I’ve only heard of such folk in the last year or two. But with survey evidence, plus several guests here saying so, I guess I’ll have to accept that it happens.
This is only speculation, but it understandably crosses my mind: I wonder whether some wish they could be true atheist/materialists, but after taking a hard look at what that entails, they have decided that it is indeed unlivable. So they had to move back to the right a little, picking up some “spiritual”/metaphysical beliefs to soften the edges. Not so many that they have to deny being atheists, nor so many that they can be accused of being religious.
(Plus it has the advantage of making them harder to pin down than a greased pig… 😎
Hazel answers the science presented with a song from Dylan?
Double sheesh!!
More misreading! 🙂 The Dylan song is not at all about science. It was in response to your Bible quote.
To EDTA. No. What an ungenerous reading of the situation. Not much sense in discussing something with somebody who thinks I don’t have considered thoughts and have honestly expressed them.
Maybe your problem is that you think people need to be “pinned down”, though.
And the bible quote was presented right after the science was presented. You know that whole taking context into consideration thing?
FWIW, I consider such antics to be trollish behavior on your part.
I know you think differently, ba, but to me saving one’s soul has nothing to do with science.
re 78. I was not commenting on Dave’s beliefs. I was commenting on your misreading of his comment.
Well seeing as most of your posts have nothing whatsoever to do with the science at hand, but with you stating your personal opinion as if it carried any weight on its own, I can see where you would believe that.
Since the vast majority of the world’s population does believe in the existence of a immortal soul of some sort, then if or if not the soul really does exist is certainly a valid line of scientific inquiry. And again, via recent advances in quantum biology, science has answered in the affirmative:
As Stuart Hameroff states in the following video, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Of course Hazel, since there is nothing you can really do to overturn this line of scientific evidence, (indeed the evidence from quantum biology is progressively getting stronger), then your only other option is to ignore it, cite Dylan songs, tell me I am wrong in my reading Dave;’s sentiment, etc… etc… anything except ever honestly addressing the actual scientific evidence at hand.
Your not even in the ballpark of being scientific.
Your fellow atheistic trolls are proud of you!
I don’t think very much of what I post is about science, either. I usually discuss philosophy or social or psychological issues.
Hazel
You didn’t address my comments in #68
Yes, it is hard to get a clear understanding on this. There an immaterial “component”. But this “component” does not exist? If the “component” exists, then it is an “existence”. It is something that exists. Also, it does something. As you said, it “manifests itself”. So, it is an “existence that manifests”. Additionally, it is a “component” which exists (or it doesn’t exist?) which is (or manifests itself as?) a creative force. A “creative force” does something. Usually, it “creates”. Or, perhaps you’re saying it does not actually “create”. It’s a “creative force component” which does not exist, does not create. Right? You assert this “creative force manifesting component” which actually does not exist? Or? Perhaps it actually does exist? So, it is an existence. An existence is something real. An immaterial existence possesses that which makes it exist. Your immaterial component (an existence) actually does things (creative forcing, manifesting) and has an effect on other aspects of reality by manifesting mind.
So, there’s a lot to explain here. Where did it come from? What evidence do you have of this? How do you know this is not simply God?
Hazel
I find that to be very good. To not oppose it, is to accept the evidence of intelligence in the design found in nature. I think this is very big. We observe aspects of nature. Perhaps you would observe the human mind. We observe that material mechanisms alone cannot produce the effect. But we know intelligence can – so a Designing Intelligence is the most reasonable cause.
If you don’t oppose this kind of approach, I don’t see that you can go that much farther with ID. People here could argue about what the intelligence is. But you could claim a number of things, as has been discussed, including something from any number of religious traditions, or some sort of immaterial force (as you’ve asserted).
From an ID perspective, there’s nothing to debate on that.
EDTA
I mentioned something similar. I had not seen the presence of non-materialist atheism. I’m going back to the early days of the atheist surge online, when Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and the like were preaching materialism and seemed to have a lot followers.
My unofficial survey here says that about 70% of the atheists active now on UD are of the standard materialist sort.
I think that’s right and it’s a good thing. I see it as progress. Once there is “something else” in reality, the whole evolutionary program is threatened. Now, the origin of human consciousness would have a reasonable cause – an immaterial power. But more importantly, it’s difficult to dismiss ID. Dawkins says that reality looks like it has been designed by intelligence. Well, an immaterial entity of some kind would be a candidate for that designing power now.
This is very good for ID. If all of atheism moved away from strict materialism, I think ID would just call it a victory and be done with it (not that ID alone would be the cause of that change in atheism).
Moving from “a spiritual or immaterial essence of some kind”, which still permits atheism, to a theistic belief, is outside of the scope of what ID can work with. It’s all about philosophy and religion after that point.
Are you folks familiar with Buddhism, which has no gods? A Buddhist is an atheist who is not a materialist, and there are over 500 million of them.
Also, as I understand it, ID claims that design is scientifically detectable, not just that something other than materialism is true. As discussed a bit recently, and often at other times, millions of Christians believe in God and don’t accept ID, which is a sectarian issue about the nature of God among Christians, so I don’t see how “if all of atheism moved away from strict materialism, I think ID would just call it a victory.”
I find this thread kind of interesting, in as much as it highlights the massive difference in background between myself and other commentators
I don’t live in the US, so I don’t come from a place where acceptance of evolutionary biology is part of cultural identity. I don’t plenty of Christians who are evolutionary biologists and almost noone who thinks that the sceince of evolutionary biology si a threat to their religion.
So when I talk about evolutionary biology I’m interested in the scientific field, how makes sense of biological data and the framework it gives us to ask more questions about the history (and present and future) of life on earth. However, most posters here are more interesting in the metaphysical ramifications of evolutionary biology. So any correctin of push back agaisnt a mistake is seen as support for a metaphyscial position and, almost inevtiably, any error is leads to a gish gallop back to the origin of life or the latest acronym -soup to replace CSI.
So, from my point of view most people here want to dismiss an entire field of study without every understanding any aspect of it in detail. I guess SA and crew think I want to focus on details becaus as a distraction from some Epic Metaphyscial Claim that i’m not the least bit interested in.
EMC ™ = Epic Metaphysical Claim. I like that. It really is what virtually all of this is about.
Hazel,
>No. What an ungenerous reading of the situation. Not much sense in discussing something with somebody who thinks I don’t have considered thoughts and have honestly expressed them.
I think your beliefs are well thought-out, and that your are being honest. But I’m wondering about the millions of others in the general category. Many people don’t like to think really hard about their beliefs (I’ve met them), and they really don’t want them to be criticize-able. So they seem to end up where they are most comfortable. A local minimum if you will. This dynamic really could be at play here.
>Maybe your problem is that you think people need to be “pinned down”, though.
That’s a good point. I do think that. Beliefs need to be tested in the fire of reality; otherwise, they can go off the deep end to where few peoples’ beliefs match up with reality, and nobody agrees with anybody else. Then we can’t get along. If we ground ourselves properly in the same reality. our culture might start to come back together again. Although I don’t expect it.
Mimus
You really can’t promote the theory without making an epic metaphysical claim. It is the supposed science of how bacteria became human beings. Evolutionary theory makes a claim about the origin of human life and therefore has a huge impact on the meaning, purpose or goals of life and human culture. To say that you’re not in the least interested in that, while at the same time, being an avid promoter of the theory, is not very thoughtful.
It’s like a guy who invents a bomb that can destroy an entire continent and when asked he says that he’s really only interested in the mechanics of the device and has no interest at all in what the bomb could actually do to human life on earth.
Mimus states,
“plenty of Christians who are evolutionary biologists and almost noone who thinks that the sceince of evolutionary biology si a threat to their religion.”
The disconnect of logic in that sentence is fairly obvious.
I’ve never heard of anybody being led to Christ through Darwinian evolution. NOT ONE PERSON! Whereas I’ve heard of plenty of young people who were led away from Christianity through Darwinian propaganda. A couple of prominent Evolutionary biologists too, Provine for example. My take is that Mimus himself has never once ever considered becoming a Christian because of the ideas contained within Darwinian evolution. And for good reason:
Now if Mimus is the rare exception to the rule and has become a Christian because of Darwinian evolution, I certainly would like to hear exactly he achieved that. Indeed, if he did so, he should write a book on his conversion experience.
The title would certainly be an eye catcher, i.e. “How Darwin Led Me To Christ” 🙂
Thanks, EDTA, for, may I say, the generous comment. I agree that most people aren’t very interested in the issues discussed here and they still lead good, productive lives.
You say, “Beliefs need to be tested in the fire of reality,”, but I think most of the metaphysical matters we are discussing can’t really be tested. And again, most people are concerned primarily with how to act, not the metaphysical background. People of very different metaphysics can agree, for instance, to pay more taxes for a mental health center and yet have very different political, social, and metaphysical philosophies about why one should do that. I think the world is much too diverse to expect our culture to settle on one metaphysic, especially since, in my opinion, they is no way to test one against the other.
Hazel
Right, the two go together. If there is evidence of design (at the cosmic scale), then materialism is false.
If some kind of immaterial, creative presence is accepted as existing, then there is no argument against ID. As you stated before, all Christians accept some form of Intelligent Design. It is contradictory to state that Jesus rose from the dead as the Gospels state, and yet that event was not scientifically observable. There’s no argument against ID from that perspective.
I’d think that if you’re intelligent and interested enough to be debating about Intelligent Design on this particular blog, you’d also have the interest in the metaphysical foundations of ID and evolutionary theory.
The concept of Design itself is a metaphysical concept. Science cannot tell us what Design is. We use philosophy to distinguish between chance and design.
Darwin was arguing against the Teleological Argument itself.
Scientism is a metaphysical concept. Is all knowledge ultimately reducible to the physical and therefore to physics? That is a widespread belief. Science is the only path to knowledge. All human thoughts and actions can be understood through science. That’s a very significant metaphysical position — and we shouldn’t be blind to it through lack of interest.
I’m interested in all this kind of stuff, or I wouldn’t be here. My remarks to EDTA were about the fact that the majority of people aren’t interested in this kind of stuff.
As to scientism, I think it is quite wrong, but I think you give two different definitions. I think it’s possible for a materialist to not support scientism. Let me explain.
You write,
I think scientism means your second definition: “Science is the only path to knowledge.” That is different than saying scientism means that “all knowledge [is] ultimately reducible to the physical and therefore to physics.”
I have knowledge of subjective things, such as values, moral beliefs, political beliefs, etc. These are not amenable to scientific investigation (other than verifying that I say I have those beliefs.) A materialist might believe that such knowledge is grounded exclusively in a material body.
Such beliefs would not be scientific but they would be ultimately reducible to physical causes. (I know you don’t believe this is possible, but that is not my point.) My point is that I think scientism is generally understood to mean that science is the only path to knowledge, which is a stronger point than all knowledge can be reduced to physical causes.
Wikipedia says,
I think this is a good statement about the fundamental flaw of scientism.
SA writes, “The concept of Design itself is a metaphysical concept. Science cannot tell us what Design is. We use philosophy to distinguish between chance and design.”
I thought the fundamental point of ID was that design was scientifically detectable. But here you are saying it is a matter of metaphysics.
Again, the theistic evolutionary Christian (or whatever they are called) would agree that design exists from a metaphysical (in this case, theological) sense, but not in the “scientifically detectable” sense.
So I’m confused about which of the two you mean by ID?
Hazel
I got it. What is interesting is that BS77 didn’t. Very telling.
H, the concept that big-S Science dominates credible knowledge goes along with onward views. Famously, there are physicists who hold that any given science reduces to physics, or else to stamp collecting. (I think the last was a dig at taxonomy.) The point is, cosmology sets up the world, leads on to OoL and thence origin of body plans including our brain, where too mind is held to reduce to brains. Metaphysically, Alex Rosenberg put it: the physical facts fix all the facts. Epistemologically, the frame is to reduce phenomena to dynamic-stochastic processes on material substrates amenable to physical calculation. Cosmology of course being expanded applied general relativity in its heart. Emergence, in that context is an unstable claim: it either explodes into dualism or else collapses into physicalist reductionism. The consequences for freedom to be rational are well known. Provine’s summary is but one of many. That’s why I have so often highlighted that naturalism in essence is evolutionary materialistic scientism. Where, the scientism claim shows how incoherent it is: it is an epistemological claim that undermines philosophy including logic and epistemology. KF
mimus:
Perfect sentence for this thread. Evolutionary biology is devoid of details. That is its whole problem. All of its aspects are pure speculation devoid of science.
Hazel
I agree with this. But, if all of reality (everything that exists) is reducible to the physical or material, then your thoughts, beliefs, dreams and imaginations are physical. They can be investigated through brain-scans, and materialists imagine more powerful instruments that can observe the exact molecular formation of every human thought. That’s what scientism is.
That’s a contradiction. If they are reducible to the physical, then they are observable. They are molecular patterns of some kind. Materialists believe those patterns are generated in the brain. So, science, for them, will tell us everything about human thought, emotion, spirituality — everything.
I think Mimus’ quip about the Epic Metaphysical Claim revealed a common mistake about what metaphysics is. I think you have followed that. For a lot of people, metaphysics is like magic. It’s weird stuff that might happen, or spiritualism, or fortune tellers. That is completely wrong. I hope Mimus is reading this.
Metaphysics is the foundation of all science. It is the study of Being or Existence or Reality. It structures our rational thought through logic. It gives us the first principles, like Law of Identity. Science cannot function, cannot exist without metaphysics. What do we mean by chance? Science cannot tell us that. We interpret scientific results through metaphysics.
Again, I gave you a specific case that contradicts what you said above. You did not address the example I gave. “Scientifically detectable” means “observable in reality”. Every Christian believes that ID, in the scientific sense, is true. The Gospels show this in several cases. The Jews of the time had to fabricate a story to try to cover-up the scientifically observable evidence. A body was in one place, then the body was not there. That happened by chance or by intelligent design. That’s how we do science. That is ID detection.
Well, taht might be the case if the blog was about design or the Intelligent Design movement was still moving. But that doesn’t really seem to be the case. I have this, admidetly naive, idea that exposure to real evolutionary biology/thinking might be encourage people to learn more about the science. As I say, coming from a place where evolution is not part of identity politics I probably underestimate the degree to which any science contributes to folks position on this , though.
Mimus
We don’t read “real evolutionary biology/thinking” here every day?
No. There are press releases from uni offices, but even they are usually filtered through a very strange lens here.
Mimus:
That is true. Once you learn about evolutionary biology and science you will see that evolution, as it is currently taught, does not meet the definition of science.
Mimus is clearly just a bluffing troll.
hazel:
Neither is materialism nor its bastard child evolutionism.
Mimus
We read articles from popular science media and most of those reference the actual papers and research. But yes, we take a very critical view of the claims that are presented in favor of evolutionary theory.
SA re 90
“Yes, it is hard to get a clear understanding on this. There an immaterial “component”. But this “component” does not exist? If the “component” exists, then it is an “existence”. It is something that exists. Also, it does something. As you said, it “manifests itself”. So, it is an “existence that manifests”. Additionally, it is a “component” which exists (or it doesn’t exist?) which is (or manifests itself as?) a creative force. A “creative force” does something. Usually, it “creates”. Or, perhaps you’re saying it does not actually “create”. It’s a “creative force component” which does not exist, does not create. Right? You assert this “creative force manifesting component” which actually does not exist? Or? Perhaps it actually does exist? So, it is an existence. An existence is something real. An immaterial existence possesses that which makes it exist. Your immaterial component (an existence) actually does things (creative forcing, manifesting) and has an effect on other aspects of reality by manifesting mind.”
Hazel never addressed these questions has she? And no ,mumbling about “have you heard about Buddhism” is a pretty pitiful response I think
Vivid
Vivid
Thank you, Vivid!
I’m sitting here, after offering a detailed explanation that taught her what she was clueless about, and which (in my view) destroyed whatever sort of ill-considered concept she was proclaiming, and … not a word.
If you didn’t say anything, this would have been lost. I was tempted to do something, say something to her. But I always wonder, “did anybody read what I said? Even friends?” I then wonder if perhaps what I said didn’t make any sense. So, the explanation and discussion just gets lost. It’s a thread-killer. Hazel will just go off and repeat the same stupidity elsewhere, as if I never said anything. A month later, she says the same thing about “components that manifest the mind” and how these are not something that actually exist, or maybe they do or whatever … then we have to repeat it. Then she says “you never refuted my view before”. Of course nobody can remember this because the thread died and was lost.
Did she read what I said? Maybe, probably yes. She read and was silenced. Then moved on. Did she understand what I said? Well, if so, she can’t say a word? How about “thank you for explaining what I didn’t understand. I am going to rethink my opinion”? Ha ha. We wish for that day.
Anyway! I truly appreciate your attention to what actually happened here. I will remember it when I see the arrogant attitude surface again. There is simply nothing behind the posturing and when clearly and patiently corrected, in detail, the individuals would no longer engage in the topic and no longer pretend to be interested in learning.
SA
Your welcome.
I started laughing at your first sentence “Yes it’s hard to get a clear understanding on this” because I was thinking the same thing. I laughed even more as your post went on and as you proceeded to turn Hazels brain into a pretzel.
As to Hazels devastating rebuttal “Have you folks ever heard of Buddhism..? No Hazel we never heard of that is this something new? You say 1/2 billion people? Wow when did this happen? Sheesh
Hazel likes her worldview window to be smeared as much as possible, you went to the window and cleaned the window and said “Hey Hazel look out the window” Hazel on the other hand turned her head away while smearing it again “ Hey folks have you never heard of Buddhism..?
I liken Hazels gobbledygook to a vat of jello, she likes her worldview to be as amorphous as possible.
BTW you might take a look at my post 66.
Vivid
Vivid — yes your 66 — I made a point to go back over to the Egnor thread to trace the action there and got a very good laugh out that one. It happened just as you said. Hazel followed her good sense and was defending the integrity of the American founders and then just openly sided with you. BB caught it and said “Et to [sic] Brute!” as if she had just stabbed him in the back. Wow, traitors to the cause will be pressured. And that’s what happened, as Hazel broke down and fell into line again. That was pathetic.
But as before, I’m glad you pointed that out because a very illuminating episode would have been lost to me otherwise. It’s going to be more difficult for me to think that there is some kind of integrity in it — rather than just group-think and propaganda to support a cause.