Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Miracles and the Principle of Causality

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a prior post EJ wrote:  “I think natural intelligences are to be preferred above supernatural intelligences in design detection, for the simple reason that we have experience with the former, but not the latter.” 

I replied:  “Says who? You are repeating Hume’s error of circular reasoning. “Miracles do not happen because they are counter to universal experience.”  In other words, “miracles do not happen because miracles do not happen.”  That may satisfy you and Hume.  Those who would like to have their conclusions demonstrated rather than assumed might not be as impressed.” 

Then evo_materialist wrote:  “BarryA, you may have experience with miracles.  Alas, I do not, and neither has anybody I know in a way that’s not better explained naturally.” 

Pace evo’s comment, I never said I personally have had experience with miracles.  My comment is a matter of the application of logic to EJ’s (and Hume’s before him) position.  In other words, my point is that Hume’s position fails on logical grounds, not because my experience is different from his.   

Hume (and EJ and Evo) asserts a univeral principle of natural law, which Karl Popper calls ‘the principle of causality.’

This is what Karl Popper says about this principle in The Logic of Scientific Discovery (which, as far as I know, is the only scientific text with the force of law in the United States): 

“The ‘principle of causality’ is the assertion that any event whatsoever can be causally explained – that it can be deductively predicted . . . If . . . ‘can’ is meant to signify that the world is governed by strict laws, that it is so constructed that every specific event is an instance of a universal regularity or law, then the assertion is admittedly synthetic.  But in this case is not falsifiable . . . I shall, therefore, neither adopt nor reject the ‘principle of causality’; I shall be content simply to exclude it, as ‘metaphysical’, from the sphere of science.” 

Hume and EJ and Evo think they are being “scientific” when they reject miracles a priori.  But as Popper convincingly demonstrates, they are merely showing their metaphysical prejudices.   

Moreover, the premise of Hume’s statement is incorrect.  His premise is that the universal experince of the human race is that miracles do not occur.  This is not true.  Miracles have been reported and many people believe those miracles actually occurred.  For example, a man reportedly rose from the dead outside the city of Jerusalem circa 33 AD.  Of the 6.6 billion people on the earth, approximately 2 billion people believe this account. 

My point is not to argue that Jesus actually rose from the dead (I personally believe that he did).  My point is that Hume’s statement should be modifed to read:  “In the universal experience of the human race miracles do not occur if one rejects a priori all of the accounts of miracles that we have.”  Again, this argument is quite circular, because Hume assumed a priori the very conclusion he wished to demonstrate.   

Again, while I personally believe that miracles occur, my personal belief is quite beside the point.  My point is that those who assert that miracles do not occur usually believe they are speaking with the authority of science.  Popper says not so.  The statement “miracles do not occur” is just as metaphysical as the statement “miracles occur.” 

Comments
I've read this entire thread and I find the idea that a rational reason for the lack of limb-regrowth miracles has been given laughable. Conclusion: Whoever the "designer" is they've no interest in curing amputees. It appears it prefers to spend it's time only curing things that potentially can cure themselves. And in addition to that I see it as an insult to the religious amputees out there that no matter how hard they pray, how hard they want a cure , no matter how many people pray for them, that for *whatever* reason they don't deserve a cure. What sort of "designer" excludes a group of people who could most do with it's help? pah.Uthan Rose
May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
ericB @ 106 Truly, that section in 1 John is a key to epistemology. I go back to Numbers and Deuteronomy, "Out of the mouth of [two or three] witnesses every word shall be confirmed." This passage has broad application in law, history, and science. Deuteronomy adds the instruction that the judges are to question the witnesses thoroughly, which is to say, to test them. We see the application of these ideas about witnesses throughout the New Testament. Confirmation of one witness' testimony by another's and careful questioning of witnesses are key ideas in my epistemology.thogan
April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 104 [—–thogan: “I would say that at the basic level, we truly perceive, though even that statement is fraught with traps for the unwary. However, we also have presuppositions and rational thought that organizes our perceptions.” For me, the issue is this: Does our mechanism for perceiving mislead us or not. I say no. I further submit that Hume/Kant were mistaken when they said yes. As evidence, I offer Adler’s brilliant refutation.] How do you account for illusions? Perhaps there is a special case for inferring design, but it will take an additional axiom, just like induction does. I further stipulate that induction requires causality and can only be applied to the conditions. "As G.K. Chesteron put it, “the purpose of opening the mind is to close it on something solid”(Truth)In my judgment, a perpetually open mind, especially on a life defining issue such as design, is hot rational. When a preponderance of the evidence is on the side of belief, you go with it, unless there is a compelling reason to remain skeptical." For me, skepticism means to "test all things." Once tested and approved, there is no reason to remain skeptical without an anomaly.thogan
April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT
to thogan (86) (and to Megan.Alavi), I've wanted to affirm the importance of what you and others have said about witnesses. I can't help but think of John's opening statement of his first epistle. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that ..." - 1 John 1:1-3a to Megan.Alavi, convergent testimony from multiple eye witnesses and other historical evidence would be examples of considerations not within science itself, which concerns the regularities of nature.ericB
April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
I've had a hard time posting lately, so I will be brief. Twice in my life I was able to "see" and "hear" (but not talk or act) what I was NOT looking at or listening to. In one case, I "saw" and "heard" what happened immediately AFTER I "saw" and "heard" it without the use of my eyes or ears. (That is, I basically "saw" and "heard" the future.) mike1962 writes: "Consciousness is a miracle." Indeed, it is. Our "minds" and "bodies" are normally united and process things in harmony; but the "mind", a spiritual reality, is not to be confused with a "body", a more-or-less physical reality. We humans are made up of that composite. When we die, that composite is broken apart. We're promised to be reunited with our bodies some day. In the meantime, we perceive reality in a spiritual way, thus making "intelligence" a spiritual, not a corporeal, reality. Hence, if we're looking for an "intelligent" being, then we're looking for some being that has a spiritual nature. So, I would think that any committed materialist would be unilaterally opposed to ID simply on this basis. And lots of Darwinists, as we know, fall into that category.PaV
April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
-----thogan: "I would say that at the basic level, we truly perceive, though even that statement is fraught with traps for the unwary. However, we also have presuppositions and rational thought that organizes our perceptions." For me, the issue is this: Does our mechanism for perceiving mislead us or not. I say no. I further submit that Hume/Kant were mistaken when they said yes. As evidence, I offer Adler's brilliant refutation. ----"I find that I often learn much from your “insane” skeptics. Skepticism is a great tool. Please note that I don’t equate skepticism with mere childish mockery. I believe that most people only become Christians nowadays when they are challenged by skeptics and investigate the facts about Christ. I believe that skeptics are a major tool in God’s plan to save people." "Insane" might be too strong of a word, but, yes, those who wallow in skepticism probably have some kind of dispositional problem that prevents them from perceiving design in nature. Thomas Jefferson thought it was a "self evident" truth and helped build a republic on that same proposition. Some kinds of skepticism are indeed, healthy. It is a great mistake to believe many claims that come to us in the name of science, philosophy, religion, of any other discipline. The trick is to be skeptical about those things that really are an enigma. The question, "What happens with the electron?" is not of the same texture as "Is there design?" As G.K. Chesteron put it, "the purpose of opening the mind is to close it on something solid"(Truth)In my judgment, a perpetually open mind, especially on a life defining issue such as design, is hot rational. When a preponderance of the evidence is on the side of belief, you go with it, unless there is a compelling reason to remain skeptical.StephenB
April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Consciousness is a miracle.mike1962
April 29, 2008
April
04
Apr
29
29
2008
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
@ JosephB [“If there is no radical divide between reality and the mind, how is it that two people can obtain such different views of reality?” I took that as a question about perception, so I tried to answer it on those terms.] "Views" had to do with "worldview" not strictly perception. "In any case, my larger point is that we really are perceiving and not merely conceiving." I would say that at the basic level, we truly perceive, though even that statement is fraught with traps for the unwary. However, we also have presuppositions and rational thought that organizes our perceptions. "You agree that PS is abnormal, so you must have a sound notion of what really is normal" Not at all. I have no idea how to define normal. I may know that one thing is abnormal, but that doesn't help me define what is normal. Let's consider someone under the influence of LSD. It has been shown that such a person would generally be better able than someone not under the influence to complete words where only the bottoms of letter were visible. There are other such examples available that are problems for mapping reality to normal perception. We haven't even started to get into the whole problem of inductive inference yet. "Indeed, I submit that radical skepticism is, in itself, a kind of mental pathalogy." I would say that denial of a designer is a condition of the soul which is not derived from insanity. Foolishness is always sin; insanity might not be sin. "Abnormal people close themselves off from reality and resort to skepticism, cynicism, and dogmatism." Like David Berlinski? He's a radical skeptic, though brilliant. I find that I often learn much from your "insane" skeptics. Skepticism is a great tool. Please note that I don't equate skepticism with mere childish mockery. I believe that most people only become Christians nowadays when they are challenged by skeptics and investigate the facts about Christ. I believe that skeptics are a major tool in God's plan to save people. "What the academy is doing to ID scientists represents a kind of mental pathology." The whole witch hunt phenomenon among some evolutionists is unhealthy, I agree. People, including scientists and university professors, are often stampeded into doing foolish things. When science is regarded with the same intensity as religion, this can get very nasty. Also, inferring conditions from results is irrational, no matter who does it. "...what is lacking cannot be counted" (Ecclesiastes 1:15) "There is no remembrance of earlier things..." (Ecclesiastes 1:11) As time passes, historical information is lost unless a society preserves it. In geology, natural process destroy the evidence; the more time passes, the more opportunity for natural processes to destroy evidence and add misleading evidence.thogan
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
In all the time I’ve been lurking here I’ve not seen anyone present any convincing reason to prefer a non-material designer over a simple alien from a galaxy far far away.--Megan.Alavi
Why does it matter? (ID does not try to answer ultimate questions)Joseph
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
-----thogan: "I didn’t know that you were limiting the mind-reality correspondence to perceptions. I thought that the problem was inferences drawn from perceptions–that the point was the ability to infer ID as part of reality. That would require more than mere perceptions." I don't think I proposed such a limitation. You asked the following questin: “If there is no radical divide between reality and the mind, how is it that two people can obtain such different views of reality?” I took that as a question about perception, so I tried to answer it on those terms. In any case, my larger point is that we really are perceiving and not merely conceiving. It seems to me that that distinction is germane to the topic of apprehending design in nature. ----"How are you able to define what “normal” is for a mind? I agree that PS is abnormal, but what is “normal?” I think that the whole mind-reality question is fraught with difficulty." You agree that PS is abnormal, so you must have a sound notion of what really is normal, or you would not be able to detect the difference. Still, I don't consider it profitable to dismiss philosophical or epeistemological realism on the grounds that some people are paranoid schizophrenic. If you want me to concede that not everyone is stable enough mentally and emotionally to make a design inference, I will happily grant the point. Indeed, I submit that radical skepticism is, in itself, a kind of mental pathalogy. One of the benefits of intelligent design is its capacity to restore mental health to a society that has lost its way, both phychologically and philosophically. What the academy is doing to ID scientists represents a kind of mental pathology. Normal, well adjusted people don't act that way. Normal people are adventurous, curious, open to new ideas. Abnormal people close themselves off from reality and resort to skepticism, cynicism, and dogmatism. Once again, I ask ID advocates, or, as is apparently your case, ID critics, to read Adler's article. I am primarily concerned with the Hume/Kantian origin of radical skepticism.StephenB
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Megan: A few remarks. 1 --> I think the limb regrowth miracle and related issues have been adequately responded to above. 2 --> On the issue of embodied vs non-embodied designers, I think you will see that the cosmological side of ID [cf always linked, section D] has much to say on the issue you raised at 73. And, you will see that the issue in designer identification -- which is beyond the main current project, design identification -- is context and what it implies. 3 --> For cell-based life on earth, we have evidence that strongly points to design. That is enough to address the Darwinian-derived evolutionary materialist paradigm. And, it is enough to make it the subject of orchestrated attack by the evo mat advocates -- telling on what they understand that such detection of design points to. 4 --> Now, FYI, I make no inference on any scientific grounds from design in the case of cell based life to the God of Abraham as the conclusively identified designer. So, kindly cease and desist from putting such words in my mouth. 5 --> On cosmological design inference, I see good SCIENTIFIC grounds to infer to an intelligent and powerful designer who is ontologically and causally prior to matter as we know it, and indeed to thence infer that mind is prior to and causally connected to matter. But, again, I make no scientific inference from that to the God of Abraham. 6 --> Instead, I point out the obvious -- and much resented -- point that such a designer bears a clear resemblance to the God of the philosophers, i.e. it supports theism as a worldview option. Theism is still far from [though it is generally compatible with] the Judaeo-Christian tradition, as say Pascal knew. [He came to know the God of Abraham etc through direct encounter on Nov 23 1654, if memory serves -- his life-transforming vision of God. In his description in Pensees, he explicitly contrasts the God who answers by Fire with the God of the philosophers.] 7 --> The possible -- as opposed to inevitable -- personal conclusion that the designer of the cosmos is the God of Abraham, is a worldview level commitment, one made after examining live-option candidates for the designer of the universe. [And, we cannot but have a worldview, the issue is how well-examined.] 8 --> Next, since the cosmos is set up for life through considerable fine-tuning, it is a reasonable further inference that the best candidate for creation of life on earth is the designer of the cosmos, through direct or indirect means. This is by dint of inference to best explanation across comparative difficulties, i.e comparative worldviews analysis as the just linked elaborates in introductory details from a course. 9 --> For Christians and those considering Christianity as their worldview of choice, following Acts 17:16 - 32 and 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, the decisive issue -- the central warranting argument of the Christian position -- is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as attested by 500+ eyewitnesses, and as subsequently manifest in the resurrection power that has flowed -- despite all the many sins and failings -- in the church ever since. [But that is beyond the main focus of this blog; I simply point it out for correction and clarification, as some very unwarranted inferences are being projected on those who are thinking about the issue of design and happen to also be Judaeo-Christian theists. I beg to remind all that such theists are the principal founders of modern science, starting with Newton, Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus. Indeed, the Judaeo-Christian worldview is strongly promoting of exploring the world as the orderly and intelligible creation of a reasonable God who holds us responsible to manage our world well. We manage best what we understand, at least in part.] 10 --> I remain of the convinced opinion that empirically evident miracle -- "sign" -- no 1 beyond the idea of closed materialistic causality that is ever so common nowadays, is our own experience of our minds and associated inner life. On that, I think Locke's rebuke to the skeptics of his day in the opening of his main argument in section 5 the intro to his essay on understanding is still ever so telling:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
@ nullasalus Disagreement is a smoking gun test result against the hypothesis. @ StephenB I didn't know that you were limiting the mind-reality correspondence to perceptions. I thought that the problem was inferences drawn from perceptions--that the point was the ability to infer ID as part of reality. That would require more than mere perceptions. How are you able to define what "normal" is for a mind? I agree that PS is abnormal, but what is "normal?" I think that the whole mind-reality question is fraught with difficulty.thogan
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
#77 DLH There is no logical reason for excluding limb regrowth. Furthermore, your example of the ‘Miracle of Calanda’ rebuts any speculation on such an exclusion. See C.S. Lewis “Miracles” (e.g. ISBN-10: 0060653019) on the logic of what “miracles” are/are not possible. Very good point DLH; that kind of objections to miracles are bogus. I would only add a few points. 1. From both logical and methodological points of view even the occurrence of a single miracle is sufficient to disprove the materialistic assumption. 2. It is strange that this objection comes from people who typically claim that believers are asking for more and more proofs of a purely naturalistic explication of life. 3. But let us remain in the argument. The case of Calanda disproves the initial assumption but it is NOT the only one. Please refer to one of the Lourdes' miracles: Peter De Rudder.kairos
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
-----thogen: "You still haven’t addressed my question, “If there is no radical divide between reality and the mind, how is it that two people can obtain such different views of reality?” ----"Surely some non-IDeists will ask this question." What do you mean, different views of reality? If I come in contact with a tree and you come in contact with a tree, we will agree that it is a tree? If it rains the streets will get wet, we will both perceive it that way. We may interpret the meaning of these things differently, but that is a wholly different matter. I am talking about a correspondence between the object of investigation and the image of that object in the mind. What are you talking about? -----"It must be obvious that the mind doesn’t necessarily correspond with reality–otherwise, we wouldn’t have paranoid-schizophrenics." It should be obvious that the images of a paranoid-schizophrenic are not normal.StephenB
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
thogan, Just to jump in briefly - if two people having different views of reality is evidence of a radical divide, wouldn't people with complementary views be evidence of no divide? And if that's the case, can't the decision go either way?nullasalus
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 93 You still haven't addressed my question, "If there is no radical divide between reality and the mind, how is it that two people can obtain such different views of reality?" Surely some non-IDeists will ask this question. It must be obvious that the mind doesn't necessarily correspond with reality--otherwise, we wouldn't have paranoid-schizophrenics.thogan
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
thogan: You raise many interesting points, however, I am applying Adler's realism and rejecting Hume/Kant's nominalism in a very specific context, namely the dynamics of the design inference. If, as Kant believed, we only "conceive" reality and do not really "perceive", then ID science is out of business even before it enters the arean. Indeed, I assert that much of the skepticism about ID originates from that very same error. Once the design inference has been completed, the Kantian can simply say to the scientist, "sorry, but the image was already in your mind prior to the investigation. You are not really inferring design, you are simply presupposing design and then smuggling it into your conclusion. You may be able to "comprehend" design, but you cannot "apprehend" it. You simply cannot bridge the gap between your mind and the real world. The design isn't in the real world at all, it is only in your mind." Kant is death to ID, and his error must be addressed head on. That is why I ask ID advocates to read Adler's piece, "Little errors in the beginning."StephenB
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
bornagain @ 28, loved the Alf story!JPCollado
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 87 If there is no radical divide between reality and the mind, how is it that two people can obtain such different views of reality? Hume's essay "Of Miracles" may be refuted many different ways, all of which are instructive. Accusing Hume of circular reasoning is not one of them. Hume uses a simple weight test based on experience and states that any contrary conclusion must be supported by weightier evidence. Like Adler suggested, I attack Hume's beginning--that Hume's evidence from common experience is worthless because there is no such thing as "common experience." Hume reduces everything to individual observation and doesn't allow for corroboration; hence, there can be no "common experience." You could also attack Hume's evidence on the grounds that it relies upon methodological naturalism. Axiomatically, MN is blind to anything supernatural; hence, it cannot be used to disprove miracles. MN can only be used to study natural things. In the natural course of events, living things eventually die. If we could somehow know "common human experience about natural events", then we could use that knowledge with induction to expect that in the future, given the natural course of events, living things will die. It can tell us nothing about whether God might raise someone from the dead. I think this sort of approach is closer to what you were aiming at with your circularity argument.thogan
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Some folks in the media (I despise the media) are saying Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has flopped. What say u?PannenbergOmega
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
to Megan.Alavi, regarding Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer, please see (Part 1) and (Part 2). There it is made clear that many ID advocates understand the difference between what can be inferred from the scientific evidence alone, and what they infer more specifically based upon additional considerations and evidence not within science.ericB
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
to PannenbergOmega, I'm glad your comments came through and what you said in 84 and 85 is quite understandable. It is also more reasonable to "posit" ("to propose as an explanation : suggest") the possibility that you mention. Earlier it had seemed that you were claiming: "I think that is the only reasonable inference to a designer. IMHO." Yet that particular explanation is no more certainly inferred from the scientific evidence of design than is the God Abraham knew. It had seemed before like you were applying a double standard concerning what could be inferred from the scientific evidence. You mentioned Hoyle. You might be interested to know that long before Phillip Johnson popularized the intelligent design movement, the textbook "The Mystery of Life's Origin" reviewed origin of life research, and the inadequacy of undirected process explanations. In the Epilogue they listed and discussed the five categories of possible explanations, including both 4. Special Creation by a creator within the cosmos, and 5. Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos. Under 4, they discussed the views of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. Here is part of some of the quotations: [Having just made some calculations on the infeasibility of a random beginning, "even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" they say:]
"If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court...the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet.... For life to have originated on Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly.... There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago." (p.196) "The correct position we think is...an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life...." "... The speculation of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong.... It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner.... Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." (p.197)
[Side observation: Dawkins in Expelled does much to reveal the truth of that last point that the reasons are psychological rather than scientific.] Hoyle and Wickramasinghe discuss how biology has resisted notions that might involve God. Of course, they also avoid God, i.e. a Creator beyond the cosmos. They do recognize explicitly that to be consistent logically, their position does at least imply that carbonaceous life was first "invented by a noncarbonaceous intelligence", though they hold out that this need not have been God. [Additional comments to come in a response to Megan.Alavi]ericB
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
For anyone who is interested, Mortimer J. Adler successfully refuted both Hume and Kant in his piece, "Little Errors In The Beginning." I don't have the equipment to provide the link, but you can get it by simply googling the title. Adler shows that there there is no radical divide between the mind's image of reality and reality itself. He also explains the intellectual errors that caused hyperskepticism and the unfortunate results that followed. This should be required reading for ID defenders. If Kant, in reaction to Hume, had not denied the reality of "design" in the mind, Darwin would never had dared to deny design in nature. In fact, they were both wrong. The point needs to be emphsized.StephenB
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Barb @ 79: Hume was one of the three great English empiricists, along with Locke and Berkeley. I rank Hume second to Locke. Hume acknowledged some of the importance of witnesses, though I agree with you that he likely would have reduced their epistemological evidence to human perception. Tony Coady has written an interesting book about the epistemological importance of testimony. Have you read it? I found it to be very interesting. I've found that confirmation of testimony by another witness, especially when forgery can be ruled out, in a judicial setting of some sort where the witnesses can be questioned, provides an epistemological credential that is unmatched. It's interesting to note that Boyle used to ask guests attending his demonstrations to sign a book of witnesses. Empirical evidence is required of science, but the testimony of additional witnesses is also required. Any experimental result that cannot be confirmed by another researcher is rejected. The empiricists failed to note the importance of confirmation which Boyle implicitly understood. There is epistemological content in Scripture that supports the notion of confirmed testimony as providing a very high epistemological credential--"The testimony of two men is true." This epistemological understanding is at the base of information about human experience. Its initial application was law, but it was applied in the New Testament as support for the proposition that Jesus is the Christ and that He rose from the dead. It is a chief reason why the office of apostle is so important--the men were chosen because they were eyewitnesses of Christ's actions. It is not surprising that we should find witnesses to be important also in science. They are used to confirm experimental results and should be used for singular events such as fossil unearthing, especially since otherwise fraud is difficult to detect. Positivism came from Auguste Comte, not Hume.thogan
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
So I posit some kind of superintelligence or mind at work in the universe. I think Dyson, Hoyle, Margeneu, Eddington share the same view.PannenbergOmega
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Ok. I've been having some trouble posting my comments here, but I will try again. Eric, what I'm saying is that I think there is design in the universe, in the intelligibility of nature, but I don't think you can necessarily infer the Abrahamic God from this. Yet I think design by aliens is silly too.PannenbergOmega
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
My dear, don't believe everything you hear. Hume was not an "empiricist" of the type you are describing. His "empiricism" was of the Cartesian type--he used pure intellect and its force of resistance to demolish all constructs of intellect and sense; that is, to demolish Newton and Locke. The seeming empiricism he exhibits with regard to miracles is convenient. He was an enemy of religion, and in this case it seemed useful to him to make an appeal to the senses. Of course this position is entirely inconsistent with his antipathy to cause and effect reasoning to causes.allanius
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Therefore, the origin of the universe is by definition a miracle. Since matter, energy, space, and time all came into existence at the birth of the universe, Science is predicated on miracles. Biology says that life can only come fom life yet life exists. Thermodynamics says energy can't be created yet energy exists.tribune7
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
BarryA (21) "The point of the post is that the statement “miracles do not occur” is not a scientific statement. It is a metaphysical statement. Those who disbelieve in miracles frequently attempt to cloak their metaphysical prejudices with the mantle of scientific authority. They should not."
One of the most common misconceptions concerning the idea of miracles is that they "violate" the laws of nature. Some take offense to the idea of God "breaking" His own rules, as they imagine it. Yet we never consider (now, anyway) that an airplane or jet is "breaking" the law of gravity regarding the expectation it should fall. That "law" is only a description of what we would expect in the absence of other influences. When some other influence participates, whether it be lift on wings, or an invisible influence such as magnetism on iron, or someone holding or pushing an object, or Someone exerting an influence on an object -- none of these need be considered to be "breaking" the laws. Final results are based on net effects. A miracle is not a violation of any law. It is an influence on physical nature from beyond physical nature. What it may violate is our assumption that nature (i.e. this physical universe) is a closed and isolated system. Scientists assume that the universe is the only case of a truly closed and isolated system, but it is only an assumption. Science itself has no means to prove it or even give evidence for it. The claim that physical nature is a closed and isolated system -- the foundation for denying the miraculous in general -- is a metaphysical position just as BarryA said. It is quite literally a claim "about" (meta) the "physical", specifically about its supposed non-interaction with anything else. Science itself can never deliver such a result.ericB
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Barb PS A few more reported in: Matt 27:52. In the future Two witnessesDLH
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply