Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Metaphysical naturalism is total failure

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

But many Christians in science do not seemingly want to confront that fact. Can they not face the ensuing responsibilities?

Further to “How BioLogos describes the intelligent design community, commenter Ted Davis, a Biologian, replies (he follows up with a challenge for yer news hack, as per below):

I’ll follow it with a second question for you, Denyse: Why do you continue to whip on the ASA? Is your complaint simply that the ASA is not an advocacy organization, such as UD or TDI or AiG or BL? If your complaint is that there are too many proponents of evolution in the ASA, then persuade a few hundred ID supporters to join the ASA and you’ll change the facts. …

Hey. Yer news hack does not need to recruit members for any organization, let alone change any facts.

Let’s get this straight right now:

Metaphysical naturalism is a complete and utter failure. In cosmology, it has led to the disaster of multiverse theory (everything is true, so nothing is). Meanwhile, no one has been to the moon in forty years.

In origin of life, science has gone nowhere for maybe two centuries.

In origin of human beings or the human mind, we are still bugged by … the kind of garbage one might read in New Scientist (maybe the study of baboons would help re the human mind, when the obvious point is that baboons never did what humans did).

Whoopsies! We aren’t supposed to think of that, are we? Aren’t we still supposed to be apologizing for something that happened to Galileo?

And no one ever gets sick of this garbage?

What troubles me after fifteen years of covering Christians in science who belong to these organizations is how few confess what a complete and utter failure a metaphysical naturalist perspective is in practice. So many act like they fear it might be true.

It always felt like they wanted to prepare me for the possibility that it might be true.

I kept wanting to say, come outside, come outside, it isn’t snowing … It’s not even that cold.

That was why I ended up spending years accumulating evidence of metaphysical naturalism’s utter failures, as per the links above, re the origin of the universe, life, humans, and the human mind.

But why did I feel so alone? Why were ASA people telling me garbage like “Don’t get the Rock of Ages mixed up with the age of the rocks”?

Huh?

When I discovered the ID community, I began to understand that everything depends on whether one thinks intelligence arises from blind forces or from something beyond them.

That is the fundamental question.

Bill Dembski was a great help in that regard, as he helped me see that information theory can help answer those questions.

He is not, I am sure, going to be on the program of the “currently employed Christian scientist” association.

But doesn’t someone, at some point, just need to put Christian Darwinism out of its misery? They may have money, but their ideas are an utter, inevitable failure.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Andre @ 4
You will never be able to reconcile Darwinism with Christianity and here is why; “For Him and through Him all things were made” To think Darwinism true is to reduce Christ to an accident. I must admit only one thing more idiotic than Darwinists and that is Christian Darwinists.
Andre, that is one of my favorite Bible verses! But don't forget the last phrase which gives the purpose for the existence of each and every person/thing!
Romans 11:36 (ESV) "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen."
This is the last verse in a beautiful doxology (glory speech praising God for who He is) in the middle of Romans after Paul explains many great truths about God. Read v. 33-36 for the whole doxology. It deals with the past, the present, and the future and it is all in God's hands! He is central to all things! The universe revolves around Him, not us!tjguy
June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
Box @11
Metaphysical naturalism: 1. we don’t need no God in order to explain anything 2. the 100% material universe came into existence from nothing (or a multiverse) 3. Fine-tuning? Chance. Flagellum? Chance. Life itself? Chance. Consciousness? Chance 4. you cannot prove me wrong
Oh, and you could add this too maybe: 5. We believe the above beliefs to be superior to all beliefs involving the supernatural.tjguy
June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
Metaphysical naturalism: 1. we don't need no God in order to explain anything 2. the 100% material universe came into existence from nothing (or a multiverse) 3. Fine-tuning? Chance. Flagellum? Chance. Life itself? Chance. Consciousness? Chance 4. you cannot prove me wrongBox
June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
Thanks Tarmarasbornagain77
June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
Your #6, Andre ROFL! Brutal, but true.Axel
June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
Atheism, especially New Atheism relies on several assumptions that are now mainstream, and I think that is why its proponents have a sense of triumphalism in their rhetoric. It's like, when you debate a new atheist, you're not going against their philosophy, but you're going against science, technology, medicine and the very idea of advancement. So, that's why I found it interesting (and ironic) to discover in Ashish Dalela's writings some of philosophical consequences of New Atheism's assumptions. These are some points extracted from Ashish Dalela's new book, Uncommon Wisdom: Fault Lines in the Foundations of Atheism (Chapter 4: Problems in Atheism). --The problem of material reductionism in dealing with meanings-- "...the problem of meaning is not just in the study of our perception and mind. It also appears in the study of material objects themselves, when we describe object collections rather than individual objects. The reason for this is profound: meanings are defined collectively rather than individually. If you look at an individual object, you can imagine that it exists independent of the other objects, and this description of nature appears to work in some cases. The notion of independent objects, however, fails dramatically when it is used to construct macroscopic objects and to define properties of such objects. Problems of such collections are well-known in modern physics (e.g., quantum theory, thermodynamics, and general relativity), mathematics (e.g., numbers are properties of collections), computing theory (e.g., program semantics is a property of a collection of computer instructions), and biology (e.g., the functional properties of living beings are attributes of the whole system)." --Belief in determinism-- "Let’s begin with the belief in determinism. This belief was accurate in classical physics, which described individual objects, but it has failed every time physics has attempted to describe object collections. The problem of object collections can be illustrated by the following example. Suppose you have a bottle of ink which you want to spread on paper. As you can imagine, there are infinitely many different ways to distribute any given amount of ink, if indeed there is more than one ink particle. If there is only one ink particle in the universe then wherever you place it, the universe looks identical. But as the number of ink particles grows, the different particle distributions begin to look different; for instance, you could produce different books with the same amount of ink. It turns out that in physical theories there is no good way to describe such distributions because the theories deal in physical invariants—mass, charge, energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. Just as there are infinitely many ways to distribute the total amount of ink on paper, similarly, there are infinite ways to distribute the total amount of physical invariants on space-time. All these distributions are equivalent but not identical. They are equivalent from the standpoint of the physical invariants, but they are not identical from the standpoint of meanings. Each such distribution represents a different universe. Which one these possible universes happen to be our universe?" --Biological evolution-- "Evolution has exerted a greater influence on New Atheism than materialism (opposed to the notion that ideas are real) and determinism (opposed to the claim that we have free will). Evolution depends on the ideas of random mutation and natural selection, both of which are independently problematic. Random mutation is problematic because it undermines scientific completeness; we believe that things are random only if we are unable to predict them. But if things were truly that random, then this theory would be unable to predict them, too. What is the true value of such a theory that makes no predictions? For me, this is not a rhetorical issue, because I believe that the randomness is a shortcoming of the current physical description and it would be overcome in a semantic description. Furthermore, the idea of natural selection cannot be defined unless the boundary between an organism and its environment is defined, and the physical basis for assuming such boundaries does not exist. The physical basis of boundaries exists only at the level of individual objects in current physics, and not at the level of object collections; collection boundaries are assumed without a physical basis. " --Causality-- "Atheism works under the premise that there is only one space which universally extends everywhere. This is an outcome of thinking of space linearly rather than hierarchically. When space is treated linearly, higher dimensions cannot be accessed from within the space. However, when space is treated hierarchically, then some locations in space are also higher locations than others. They will physically appear to be the same as the other locations, but they are actually higher dimensions. In fact, semantic locations are also dimensions, although a new notion of space and time is needed to explicate this notion. The locations which represent abstract types would appear to be “empty” because we cannot perceive any objects in those locations. But, actually, these locations are not empty; they have a form and represent a type more abstract than the sensations, which can be perceived by the mind, intellect, ego, morality, etc. When such an “empty” location appears to cause effects, we cannot model them in current science, and they will appear as miracles. But these miracles can be understood via deeper kinds of perceptions. Modern science recognizes that about 95% of the universe is ‘dark-energy’ and ‘dark-matter’ which exist although they cannot be perceived. In Vedic philosophy, these forms of matter are not dark, although they cannot be perceived by the gross senses, because they represent more abstract information than what the senses can see. These invisible forms of matter have an effect on the visible matter, but these effects cannot be causally modeled and understood unless the space and time are described using a hierarchical theory. In the semantic theory, black-holes, worm-holes, dark-energy, and all such exotic concepts will become different types of material locations. Furthermore, they will abound all over the universe—at both small and large scales—and will not remain exotic objects anymore. If we happen to enter these locations, we would have new kinds of experiences—for instance, direct perceptual encounter with concepts, order, structure, intentions, and morals; we would be able to perceive and understand the nature of these subtle types of entities." --how can physicalism deal with falsities in nature?- "Physical theories of nature can measure the existence of things, but not their truth, because to decide if they are true, we must first give them meanings, and that makes the system logically inconsistent. The problem for a physical theory is—how can false things exist? If nature is logical, then it must only permit true things because we assume that it begins in true axioms which are converted into true conclusions by the application of logic. If nature were indeed logical then everything that exists must also be true. Since the belief that the sky is purple exists in my brain, it must also be true. The problem of morality stems from the fact that we separate existence from truth: ideas about morality exist in my head, but they may not be true. Judgments of right and wrong exist as beliefs but they may be incorrect. How can something false exist in nature if nature is supposed to be logically consistent? The problem of morality is therefore not different from the problem of any belief, and the problem is that we don’t know how false beliefs can exist. The solution to this problem—as we have seen previously—requires a shift in thinking about nature; nature should not be viewed as things which are given meanings (because things never become meanings). Rather, nature should be viewed as meanings which become things; all such things are now symbols of meanings. When nature is treated in this way, there is a difference between existence and truth, and the difference is created because there are meanings."tarmaras
June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
If there is a heaven for sock puppets, a lot of Christians in science are going to be really happy some day. Otherwise, ...News
June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
I'll help Seversky
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation"
It's from Wikipedia, unemployed atheists swear by it! But that puts Darwin's unguided evolution in a bit of a conundrum...... Sceptic: "It can't be tested so is it even a theory?" Darwinist: "Of course it is, even though it can't be tested its way beyond theory its a fact!" Sceptic: " Why a fact?" Darwinist "Because it makes me an intellectually fulfilled atheist!" Sceptic: "Really can you show me how?" Darwinist: "You don't understand evolution!"Andre
June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Seversky @2
The multiverse theory has neither succeeded nor failed as there seems to be no way to test it at present.
lol! It's a "theory", but it can't be tested? Hmmmm... Seversky, do you even know the definition of the word "theory"?tjguy
June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
You will never be able to reconcile Darwinism with Christianity and here is why; "For Him and through Him all things were made" To think Darwinism true is to reduce Christ to an accident. I must admit only one thing more idiotic than Darwinists and that is Christian Darwinists.Andre
June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
as to "that doesn’t negate all the scientific advances that have been made so far based on purely a/mat assumptions," Please do tell us of all these advances: "If you go back and look at the premises which underlie materialism, They are all presumptions that were made back in the 17th and 18th century. Those (presumptions) are: reality, locality, causality, continuity, and determinism. All of those concepts were assumed to be self evident. And all of them have been disproved by quantum theory. The last one to fall was locality. (John Bell's theory of non-locality disproved locality, which has now been proven I think 11 times in 11 different experiments throughout the world.),,, Anyone who says, "Well, I want to believe materialism and I don't want to believe quantum physics." Okay then, get rid of your cell phone, along with anything you have with a transistor in it. Get rid of your MRIs, get rid of all those things. Because quantum electro-dynamics is the theory which allows those things. It is the most proven theory in all of science." Dr. Alan Hugenot - Hugenot holds a doctorate of science in mechanical engineering, and has had a successful career in marine engineering, serving on committees that write the ship-building standards for the United States. He studied physics and mechanical engineering at the Oregon Institute of Technology. quote taken from 16:35 minute mark of interview http://www.skeptiko.com/276-alan-hugenot-nde-research/bornagain77
June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Metaphysical naturalism is a complete and utter failure. In cosmology, it has led to the disaster of multiverse theory (everything is true, so nothing is). Meanwhile, no one has been to the moon in forty years.
How is metaphysical naturalism a complete failure? The multiverse theory has neither succeeded nor failed as there seems to be no way to test it at present. I get that you don't like it but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Yes, there are a whole lot of unanswered questions in science and some of the answers we do have are wide of the mark. But that doesn't negate all the scientific advances that have been made so far based on purely a/mat assumptions,Seversky
June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Is Faith in God Reasonable? FULL DEBATE with William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg – (1 hour mark) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84&feature=player_detailpage#t=3641s In the preceding debate Dr Craig states that atheist Dr. Rosenberg blurs together Epistemological Naturalism, which holds that science is the only source of knowledge and, Metaphysical Naturalism, which holds that only physical things exist. As to, Epistemological Naturalism, which holds that science is the only source of knowledge, Dr. Craig stated it is a false theory of knowledge since,,,
a). it is overly restrictive and b) it is self refuting
Moreover Dr Craig states, epistemological naturalism does not imply metaphysical naturalism. In fact, Dr. Craig stated that a Epistemological Naturalist can and should be a Theist because Metaphysical Naturalism is reducto ad absurdum on (at least) these eight following points: (8 points which, by the way, Dr. Craig pulled from Dr. Rosenburg's own book on atheism. In other words, Dr. Craig used Dr. Rosenburg's own 8 conclusions about atheism, which Dr Rosenburg had reasoned out himself in his book, against him in the debate: :) )
1.) Argument from intentionality 1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything. 2. I am thinking about naturalism. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 3.) The argument from truth 1. If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences. 2. Premise (1) is true. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 4.) The argument from moral blame and praise 1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. 2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 5.) Argument from freedom 1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely. 2. I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1). 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 6.) The argument from purpose 1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything. 2. I (Dr. Craig) planned to come to tonight's debate. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 7.) The argument from enduring 1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. 2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 8.) The argument from personal existence 1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist. 2. I do exist! 3. Therefore naturalism is not true.
I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation of the 8 points to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheist's) position actually is.
Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ
Verae and Music:
Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Blanca "Who I Am" LIVE at Air1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqm42K-rUNk
bornagain77
June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply