Eric Metaxas responds to critics of his WSJ column on fine-tuning

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 12, 2015

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Column. Critics. Metaxas’ response here:

Not surprisingly, the piece had plenty of critics. One scientist wrote to the Journal complaining about “religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments” and “allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist.”

This objection, which I’m told figured prominently in the comments section at the Journal, essentially amounts to saying that only scientists should be allowed to talk about the religious implications of scientific things. Scientists, it seems, can dabble as metaphysicians, philosophers, and theologians, but not vice-versa.

This is the foregone conclusion even when the person of faith is merely citing scientific findings, as I did. However, this objection is not rooted in science but in scientism, which holds that “empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.”

The criticism wasn’t limited to comments from atheistic scientists. Several religious believers, including those whose work I respect, took me to task for saying that science can “prove” the existence of God, much less the God of the Bible. As one Christian philosopher put it, a god whose existence can be proved scientifically isn’t God.

That is true, which is why I’m happy that I never said anything resembling that. More.

It actually doesn’t matter what Metaxas said. He challenged the dhimmis for naturalism (nature is all there is) racket. The racket works both sides of the street (atheists and theists).

See also: In defense of Eric Metaxas: Is God a scientific hypothesis?

Note: Of course, from a naturalist perspective, God is not a scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis supports naturalism. That is how you know it is a scientific hypothesis, pure and simple.

Evidence is irrelevant (or else an actual distraction or false trail, or a risk to faith), whether we are talking about cosmology, origin of life, or human evolution, the human mind, or a host of other questions.

Glad we got that sorted. You must not look for evidence for anything but naturalism because if it does not support naturalism, it is not evidence. There. Glad we got that sorted. 😉

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Aurelio Smith, You seem to have some issues with situational awareness. If you'd like to have a dialogue with me, you can begin by actually addressing* what was said to you. I'm not in the least bit interested in hearing you restate your certainty that I have failed to make my case. - - - - - - - - - - - - *for instance, when I explain the necessary discontinuity between a visual input and its resulting cognitive effect, don't completely ignore that explanation only to turn around and tell me there is no discontinuity between the subject of the image and the eye.Upright BiPed_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

'When a materialist can explain how the back-history of a particle projected through the two slits, as measured at the last moment before hitting the target screen, can be reloaded, i.e. travelling backwards through time, as it were; and still not nullify their own, still quasi mechanistic world-view, they will deserve to be taken seriously. ' Quoting myself in #35, I should have mentioned BA77 has posted about reverse time-travel in relation to entanglement, but has also set it within the eschatological context of near-death experiences, in which protagonists, whose clinical deaths were monitored and attested with very sophisticated medical equipment, spoke of living in an eternal now, in which past, present and future seemed to co-exist simultaneously ! I say, 'seemed to', only because it's so paradoxically mysterious to our much more limited, analytical intelligence, here below.Axel_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

'He is wrong that consciousness is an axiomatic part of QM in standard formulations of the theory, though he is right that a few have thought so, such as Wigner and a few others. (Most other physicists before and since Wigner think that he is wrong.)' Lou, am I correct in thinking that you are asserting that Wigner and the rest of those holding the minority view are unaware that the terms, 'observer' and 'measuring device' are synonymous ? However, a measuring device is nothing more or less than an extension of our own senses. Are you not personally viewing something under a microscope ? You are assuming there is no medium whereby personalisation can be integral in remote viewing, unless it is simultaneously registered by the human operator. 'There is a whole genre of this type of reasoning about QM. Just because QM reveals the world to be very different from what we imagine with our primitive intuitions, some authors think it supports their own brand of strangeness. Whether it is Deepak Chopra promoting “quantum healing”, Buddhists promoting the Tao, or Henry and Palmquist or BA77 promoting theism, these are unwarranted inferences.' And this last paragraph of yours makes no sense, since materialism is quasi mechanistic, even to the point of contending that dead matter can fabricate something as arcanely abstruse as consciousness - when there is no perceived point of contact o bridge ! QM shrieks to the rafters, at the very least of deism, 'for those with ears to hear.' But for those who haven't, be careful not to be as fatuous as the author of this article on Wigner, in his desperation to push his own atheism, in that notoriously, nay, infamously 'parti pris' organ of encyclopaedic atheism, Wikipedia : 'Near the end of his life, Wigner's thoughts turned more philosophical. In his memoirs, Wigner said: "The full meaning of life, the collective meaning of all human desires, is fundamentally a mystery beyond our grasp. As a young man, I chafed at this state of affairs. But by now I have made peace with it. I even feel a certain honor to be associated with such a mystery." He became interested in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, particularly its ideas of the universe as an all pervading consciousness.[citation needed] In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." The author of the article roundly states that Wigner was an atheist !Axel_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

mike1962: We are interested in direct answers to all of our specific questions @33. It’s still important to understand the concept. The environment is often modeled in a genetic algorithm, but is separate from the genome. The environment can be just about anything, from a complex curve to a simulacrum of a natural environment. The key is that there is a heritable difference in reproductive potential due to the environment. mike1962: Which part of this is analogous to what happens in biological evolution? The relationship between replicators and the environment. mike1962: Where did the GAs get the ability to learn? It's a consequence of replication and the inheritance of differential reproductive potential in the given environment. mike1962: Are you saying all information in a GA process is not inserted in advance? The information is the relationship between the genome and the environment. The genome incorporates information about that relationship. The environment is considered external for the purposes of the simulation, and can be external in fact. mike1962: Where did the training parameters and algorithms come from that dishes out “rewards” towards certain goals? Replication in an environment is the given. mike1962: Where did the computational infrastructure come from, both hardware and software? Algorithms are independent of the programming environment. mike1962: How analogous are the answers to these question to biological evolution? Some more so than others, but none are complete simulations of nature. mike1962: Is it fair to say that GAs are designed to evolve toward certain goals? Some certainly are customized, but it isn't necessarily the case. There may be no goal, as such. mike1962: Does biological evolution have predetermined rewards towards certain goals? No. Evolution is opportunistic. mike1962: If not, how are GAs analogous to biological evolution? That presupposes that genetic algorithms necessarily have goals.Zachriel_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, We are interested in direct answers to all of our specific questions @33.mike1962_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

mike1962: Which part of this is analogous to what happens in biological evolution? It's important to understand the concept. The environment is often modeled in a genetic algorithm, but is separate from the genome. The environment can be just about anything, from a complex curve to a simulacrum of a natural environment. The key is that there is a heritable difference in reproductive potential due to the environment.Zachriel_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

32 Box, most of BA77's links don't say what he thinks they say. He keeps thinking that quantum paradoxes, or limitations on the degree to which the future is deterministic ("free will"), somehow imply that consciousness plays a central role. This does not follow. QM strangeness is correctly described in his writing and his links, but he keeps putting "consciousness" into discussions about "observers" and "observation". He is wrong that consciousness is an axiomatic part of QM in standard formulations of the theory, though he is right that a few have thought so, such as Wigner and a few others. (Most other physicists before and since Wigner think that he is wrong.) The observers mentioned in most of his linked articles are machines, not conscious beings, and the experiments described in the earlier video link cannot even be done with human observers, because they involve very rapid changes in what will be observed. For example, listen to BA77's link to Alain Aspect's discussion of John Wheeler's delayed choice experiment: http://vimeo.com/38508798 You'll see that yes, the world is very weird, much weirder than most people imagine. But you'll also see that there is no involvement of consciousness at all. And no coherent argument in favor of theism either. Those conclusions are unjustified additions by BA77. There is a whole genre of this type of reasoning about QM. Just because QM reveals the world to be very different from what we imagine with our primitive intuitions, some authors think it supports their own brand of strangeness. Whether it is Deepak Chopra promoting "quantum healing", Buddhists promoting the Tao, or Henry and Palmquist or BA77 promoting theism, these are unwarranted inferences.Lou Jost_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Thank you, Box, at #32 ! I would have had to rely on the materialists' invocation of 'counter-intuitiveness', when they mean counter-rationality, i.e. in relation to paradoxes, which of course, in reality, definitively confound their 'promissory note'. When a materialist can explain how the back-history of a particle projected through the two slits, as measured at the last moment before hitting the target screen, can be reloaded, i.e. travelling backwards through time, as it were; and still not nullify their own, still quasi mechanistic world-view, they will deserve to be taken seriously. I might try to make good the loss 'by indirections, but my atheist interlocutors seem so unfailingly courteous, I can no longer bring myself to utter my normal disparagements concerning their lack of nous.Axel_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Lou Jost: in which they are exposed to real-world problems and rewarded if they are able to make some progress towards solving them... The information which enables [genetic algorithms] to do so is acquired from the training process, not inserted in advance. This is analogous to what happens in evolution.
Which part of this is analogous to what happens in biological evolution? Where did the GAs get the ability to learn? Are you saying all information in a GA process is not inserted in advance? Where did the training parameters and algorithms come from that dishes out "rewards" towards certain goals? Where did the computational infrastructure come from, both hardware and software? How analogous are the answers to these question to biological evolution? Is it fair to say that GAs are designed to evolve toward certain goals? Does biological evolution have predetermined rewards towards certain goals? If so, what is their origin? If not, how are GAs analogous to biological evolution?mike1962_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Lou Jost, On consciousness and quantum mechanics. Allow me to refer you to an article by forum member Bornagain77. It contains lots of information and references.Box_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Aurelio Smith, You asked me a specific question. I then spent about 1000 words (using four or five different examples) explaining exactly what I meant. You responded with a three–sentence post, ignoring everything I said, and simply repeated the original question. So I left the thread. Now you suggest that I really mean the word "transfer" when I use the word "translate", while you simultaneously ignore the fact that every dictionary on the planet contains the sense of the word "translate" exactly as I used the word (...not to mention the fact that I explained the context of my usage in my previous 1000 word response to you). If I have not responded to you further, it is because I haven't considered you a worthwhile conversation partner. I have no problem with having a dialogue with you going forward, but you'll have to step it up. I have no desire to play definition derby over words and concepts that are not even controversial. There are plenty of other people and places on the web where you can exercise yourself without wasting my time. If you find this unfair, or wish only to justify your previous response, then we needn't go forward.Upright BiPed_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

24 Mung, from the harsh tone of your comment, I gather you feel strongly about this. After the strong rhetoric, you ask
In what sense do genetic algorithms interact with the world?
All genetic algorithms go through a training phase, in which they are exposed to real-world problems and rewarded if they are able to make some progress towards solving them. Over time, they can get better at solving them. Sometimes they can make better predictions than the best humans. The information which enables them to do so is acquired from the training process, not inserted in advance. This is analogous to what happens in evolution.Lou Jost_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped the unguided rise of the semiotic system

Lou Jost You are confusing the creation of a semiotic system with the gaining of information
The creation of the system requires the gaining of information.Silver Asiatic_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

19 Axel, last night I was thinking about that physics video you linked to. I realized that the experiments it cites show exactly the opposite conclusion from that of the video's author (and yourself). Read any of the experimental papers cited by the video. Every one of them uses mechanical detectors as the "observer". They had to, because they had to be able to change what was measured between the time a particle went through the slits and the time it hit the wall (or variations on this, for correlated particles). The fast timing was technologically difficult to achieve even using digital electronics; human synapses are far too slow to do this. It is likely that no humans ever experienced the individual experimental events, but simply read data summaries. And yet, in spite of no conscious human observations, the experiments still showed the striking effects predicted by QM. This confirms Heisenberg's statement that "observer" refers to any irreversible process, not specifically a conscious one. So yes, QM is weird, but it is a naturalistic theory. The weirdness does not seem to be related to consciousness, much less to theism/atheism. The video is also very hasty in its dismissal of the many-worlds interpretation of QM using Occam's razor.Lou Jost_{January 18, 2015
January
01
Jan
18
18
2015
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

Lou Jost:
You are confusing the creation of a semiotic system with the gaining of information in the system over time. In evolution and in genetic algorithms, the system gains information over time by interacting with the world.
pure unmitigated verbiage mere words posing as knowledge In what sense do genetic algorithms interact with the world?Mung_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Lou, I'm not confusing anything. There is no "information contained in life" without semiosis. Your comment that "there is no paradox about the information contained in life" is wholly gratuitous — given that it is not possible to explain the rise of the system by local dynamics (due to the physical discontinuity established in the organization of the system itself). If you are merely wishing to posit that translated information can occur once a semiotic system is in place to enable translated information to occur, then that seems rather trivial in comparison to what must occur in order to organize that system in the first place.Upright BiPed_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

20 Axel, I'll have to go through that first video more carefully, but my first impression is that it continually confuses observation with consciousness. This is the confusion that my quote from Heisenberg above was aimed at. Your quotes from Planck, Bohr, and Carroll are completely irrelevant; they are saying that QM is weird, not that it violates naturalism or says anything about atheism (Sean Carroll, for your information, is a vocal atheist). I (and all other physicists) grant that the quantum world is weird, and that the old view of Newtonian particles circling around in atoms is completely and deeply wrong. This has absolutely no bearing on naturalism. "Counterintuitive" is not the same thing as "non-natural". Local realism, as defined by Einstein, is indeed falsified. As a physics student I followed the various experiments to test Bell's inequality since 1976, and spent most of my time as a physics grad student studying this stuff and talking to the leaders in the field, including some who were quoted in BH77's video. While the video is a great resource for bringing the strangeness of QM to public awareness, it goes off the rails toward the end.
‘I should note, though, that some parts of the Bible (I assume you are a Christian) do suggest that your god will answer at least some prayers.’ So, as you have written it, it seems that you believe in a part-time or capricious god, but a miracle-worker just the same.
That's a remarkably poor misreading of my comment. I was talking about the Christian god, not mine (I am an atheist, as I said earlier in this thread).Lou Jost_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

JDH, you are making up categorical statements to fit your position.
You think that someone “SHOULD” believe as you do. Your “evaluator” says “Life is far more interesting now.” Well you really do not know that
No, I didn't say someone should believe as I do. In my opinion, it would be more rational and accurate to believe as I do, but one may not care about rationality or accuracy. 17 Upright biped,
You are, of course, stretching the truth a wee bit here. You can’t do what you say without inputting into the genetic algorithm the very thing you need to demonstrate, that is the unguided rise of the semiotic system that enables Darwinian evolution in the first place.
You are confusing the creation of a semiotic system with the gaining of information in the system over time. In evolution and in genetic algorithms, the system gains information over time by interacting with the world. 18 JDH, my statement is exactly right. A computer can indeed change its output based on new input. Sure, software is involved. That doesn't negate my statement.Lou Jost_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Lou, my reason for asserting that QM has established theism is, understandably, not on the scientific basis adduced by others, but that naturalism can't handle paradoxes, logical impossibilities which happen to be true, nevertheless, and indeed, incorporated in the scientific proofs. I won't say, 'evidence', but 'proofs'. This, of course, is not to say that all scientists needful of it, use it. It seems clear that the reason why naturalists talk of some paradox being counter-intuitive, is that it is their best shot at evading the manifest truth that their 'promissory note' is simply absurd. As Bohr put it, 'If you don't - well, look, I was going to quote this and that, but if you are not too proud to look up the quotes on the Wikiquotes pages for Bohr and Plank, you will see - well just now I even heard Sean Carrol holding forth on the so-called, 'counter-intuitive' nature of the quantum world. And it wholly upends the atheist kernel of naturalism/materialism. Atheists are faced with mysteries they don't even believe, want to believe exist. This quote seems particularly germane : 'It was Planck's law of radiation that yielded the first exact determination—independent of other assumptions—of the absolute magnitudes of atoms. More than that, he showed convincingly that in addition to the atomistic structure of matter there is a kind of atomistic structure to energy, governed by the universal constant h, which was introduced by Planck. This discovery became the basis of all twentieth-century research in physics and has almost entirely conditioned its development ever since. Without this discovery it would not have been possible to establish a workable theory of molecules and atoms and the energy processes that govern their transformations. Moreover, it has shattered the whole framework of classical mechanics and electrodynamics and set science a fresh task: that of finding a new conceptual basis for all of physics. Albert Einstein, "Max Planck in Memorium" (1948)Axel_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

@Lou your #7: Does this not answer your objections, Lou ? Watch it. It's quite brief, and covers BA77's points, I believe. Possibly a little more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM Your #15, Lou: http://www.faithandfamily.org.uk/publications/jack_traynor.htm 'I should note, though, that some parts of the Bible (I assume you are a Christian) do suggest that your god will answer at least some prayers.' So, as you have written it, it seems that you believe in a part-time or capricious god, but a miracle-worker just the same.Axel_{January 17, 2015
January
01
Jan
17
17
2015
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

A computer can change its output when it obtains additional data
No, it can't. A computer can't change anything. Software running on that computer can be programmed to change its output to fit a certain optimization of the data, and can even be programmed to change its optimization algorithm in response to input of data, but it cannot change the data. IT has to be programmed. I forgive you if you misspoke, but the difference between hardware ( the computer ) and ( software ) the programs that some engineer has painstakingly designed and implemented in order to make the computer function are important.JDH_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

For example, there is no paradox about the information contained in life. Information in the genome is accumulated through interactions with the environment. We can even mimic this in a computer in genetic algorithms.
You are, of course, stretching the truth a wee bit here. You can't do what you say without inputting into the genetic algorithm the very thing you need to demonstrate, that is the unguided rise of the semiotic system that enables Darwinian evolution in the first place. By the way, what do you think of Koonin's proposition that we must inject the multiverse into the conversation in order to even have a chance (!) of explaining the rise of the translation apparatus that organizes the cell? He's not particularly known for carelessness. Is he just making up for lost time, or does he have a point given that it's not possible for local dynamics to explain the system.Upright BiPed_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

What you call an "evaluator" can be a strictly natural process in a person's brain.
Except it can't because you have no argument if it is. See this whole argument is based on a "SHOULD". You think that someone "SHOULD" believe as you do. Your "evaluator" says "Life is far more interesting now." Well you really do not know that. You are making truth claims throughout your arguments. A naturalistic entity (which is what your brain would be if your statements were true ) can not make any truth claims about itself. Your insistence that you have the correct way makes your arguments incoherent and inconsistent. I don't know why you can't see that, but it is sad. The only claim you can logically make is that you believe there is nothing beyond the natural. You can not conclude that this is true, you can not conclude that others should make the same conclusion. As soon as you do anything of this sort, you are going beyond what a purely physical entity could do. You must for logic's sake either give up your arguments, or give up your premise that you have found the correct solution, but either way your current position is self-contradictory.JDH_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

JDH 13,
Making prayer a consistent way of getting our will would violate his sovereignty.
Fine, if that is what you believe. I didn't say your religion would permit my test. I just said that if prayer reliably worked, I'd have to admit that mind was real. I should note, though, that some parts of the Bible (I assume you are a Christian) do suggest that your god will answer at least some prayers. Yet we have never seen a positive answer to any amputee's prayer to give a limb back. Do you suppose those prayers were NEVER sincere? We've never seen any prayer answered that violated the laws of physics either. No need to feel sorry for me for losing my faith aka seeing through some of my culture's myths. Life is far more interesting now.Lou Jost_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

12 JDH,
How in the world does the statement “I changed my mind” jibe with a naturalistic view of the universe. In a naturalistic view of the universe there is NO “I”.
You are making a caricature of naturalism. A computer can change its output when it obtains additional data. So can a person. What you call an "evaluator" can be a strictly natural process in a person's brain.Lou Jost_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

if sincere prayer were reliably effective.
Lou, In all honesty, I see this as an incredibly ignorant statement. We can not know what sincere prayer is. See, I believe, part of our relationship with God is like this. 1. He is greater than us, knows all things, and is completely sovereign. 2. He can not be controlled by us. 3. Making prayer a consistent way of getting our will would violate his sovereignty. So it is a cop out to demand evidence for God is "the reliability of sincere prayer". I suspect you were initially a Christian, who got overwhelmed by the problems of faith and jettisoned your belief. I feel very sorry for you, and wish I could help you.JDH_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

I changed my mind
How did you change your mind? IOW - How in the world does the statement "I changed my mind" jibe with a naturalistic view of the universe. In a naturalistic view of the universe there is NO "I". In an naturalistic view of the universe you do not have a mind to change. It really frustrates me that you can't see this. How do you make statements like that without realizing the self-contradictory nature of it? IOW - IF you state that you don't arrive at these things by a priori assumption, then YOU are stating that there is something which you identify as "I" or "MY MIND" that evaluates these abstract propositions and comes to a conclusion. This evaluator must be able to understand non-material things like semantic argument, grammar, symbols, words, infinity, zero, NULL set.... This evaluator CAN NOT simply be something which responds mindlessly to physical input. This evaluator then must make conclusions and then tell your physical body to make actions. The existence of this evaluator you call your mind defeats your own argument. IMHO - the only self-consistent statement you can make is that your physical brain has received enough inputs to make it think that naturalism is correct. You can not make the statement "I CHANGED MY MIND". But then you have no argument whatsoever that MY MIND SHOULD come to the same conclusion as YOUR MIND. The very fact that we argue about this should show you that your ideas are not coherent.JDH_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

JDH 9, I of course choose your Option #2, but reject your unjustified assumption that this makes thought worthless. If a computer program comes up with a useful linear regression from some data, is that linear regression worthless just because it was all done by deterministic processes?Lou Jost_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

#8 JDH, thanks for sticking to the substance of my comment.
1. There is abundant evidence that current scientific theories of self-organization, evolution over time, etc. are inadequate to explain…the amount of information that is contained in life, the fine-tuning of the universe, the uniqueness of human beings, the unbiased observation of consciousness, the unbiased observation of exercise of free will.
That's quite a mix of statements. We could argue a long time just on this. For example, there is no paradox about the information contained in life. Information in the genome is accumulated through interactions with the environment. We can even mimic this in a computer in genetic algorithms. The uniqueness of human beings? Virtually all of our so-called uique properties have clear precursors in non-human animals. We are certainly unique in degree but there are no demonstrably unexplainable leaps from our non-human ancestors. Exercise of free will? The existence of free will is often debated among philosophers and scientists. There is some evidence that free will is just an illusion our brains present to us. For example, in an experiment on brain stimulation by electrodes, a patient was repeatedly made to move her arm. Her brain invented a narrative which preserved her illusion of free will: she would say "I wanted to wave at that nice doctor" or things to that effect. Yet her action was not really free. We may be poor judges of what is going on deep in our heads.
2. There is an appalling lack of evidence nor can I think of any way there could be any evidence that any of these things can be accounted for by just presupposing a multiverse.
You're mostly right about that. Multiverses have nothing to do with most of those things. The only thing multiverses answer is the fine-tuning problem you mentioned. I hope you can see that they would help with that problem.
3. There is abundant evidence from the world of human beings and the tools and entertainments they invent, that design ( i.e. gathering of information which is specifically used to create something meeting a preplanned functional specification ) is a function of “Mind directly on nature without physical intermediaries
No. I don't see that. "Mind" could just be shorthand for a complex set of physical things.
4. There is zero successful theories which account for consciousness and some evidence from QM that consciousness is actually more fundamental than matter.
You are right that we don't have a theoretical explanation of consciousness. You are wrong about the evidence from QM, though. Yes, there are some fringe scientists and lots of fringe nonm-scientists who think that. But as I've pointed out in my other comments, most physicists (including the founders of QM like Heisenberg) think that "observer" is any irreversible recording device, conscious or not. Let me describe what would be convincing evidence (to me) that mind was fundamental and not just a shorthand for something based on matter. I would be convinced: (1) If merely thinking a particular thought would have a reliable, observable effect on some external object, not mediated by physical intermediaries. As you probably know, claims to do this reliably have uniformly proven to be self-deception or cons. A variation of this would be if sincere prayer were reliably effective. (2) If there were reliable evidence that our mind could function independently of our body. I do not have an a priori assumption of naturalism. I have come to a belief in naturalism because of the lack of empirical evidence for any other kind of forces acting on our world. (In fact I used to believe some of the same things as you; I changed my mind after much study, not by "assumption".) .Lou Jost_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Lou Jost@2 I am really curious Lou, You claim that there exists a subset of a class of people called scientists,that analyze the existing evidence with their MIND and because of what their MIND chooses based on empirical ( observation and analysis ) reasoning choose to use their natural bodies ( hands and speaking apparatus) to alter natural materials such as paper and electronic memories to create books, create articles, create blog posts, make speeches and many other ways create concentrations of information which are not possible to be generated by chance alone. Is the practice of these scientists whose bodies take direct action based on the decision of their MINDS 1. evidence of "action of MIND directly on nature without physical intermediates." OR 2. Just deterministic conclusions based on neurons and hormones in their bodies. IF you choose option 1 then your argument is over because they provide the evidence you lack. IF you choose option 2 then your argument is over because they did not make up their minds based on empirical evidence because they actually do not have a "MIND" they only respond to physical stimuli. I don't think this is a false choice. I don't see a choice other than 1 or 2.JDH_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply