Metaphysics and ID

_{May 14, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

I have just been re-reading R. G. Collingwoods “Essay on Metaphysics”, and am now more that ever convinced that Collingwood’s perspective is incredibly important to the ID debate.

Collingwood was a mid-20th Century British Philosopher who was WaynFlete Professor of Metaphysical Sciences at Oxford University, and who worked himself to death. He published many works – all of them in style that is incredibly easy to read, but very challenging to the reader. Unlike many philosophers he was very interested in the natural sciences, and documented the course of Western science in his “Idea of Nature”. Yet, in his last days he warned that natural science, as now conceived in the West, will ultimately destroy Western Civilization. And this would be because of metaphysics.

Now, metaphysics has had a bad two centuries, and in the popular culture it is simply ridiculed. But there is no escape from it. Rather than argue about particular metaphysical ideas, Collingwood introduced the idea of metaphysics being absolute presuppositions. An absolute presupposition is a proposition that cannot be proven or disproven – it can only be accepted or rejected. Absolute propositions are the foundation of all of our thinking. If we even question one of them that we hold, then all our thinking collapses like a house of cards. For instance, the US Declaration of Independence says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. This is not anything that can be proven scientifically – you either accept it or reject it. It is an absolute presupposition. Don’t imagine you can prove – or disprove it – scientifically. You cannot – you accept it or reject it and build from there.

Collingwood, having established absolute presuppositions, went on to show how absolute presuppositions have varied with time in Western civilization (meaning there is no such thing as “human nature”), and how they probably vary across cultural lines. From this he referred metaphysics to history and said that the function of metaphysics is to discover the absolute presuppositions at any point in time in every culture. He then went on to say that the set of absolute presuppositions you hold will determine the questions you ask, and that in turn will determine the answers you get. And that, he said, will determine the answers you get from your science.

Collingwood was very big on science being the capacity to formulate questions for which you could get answers. In the Baconian tradition, he saw the scientist acting as the prosecutor would never be allowed to act – torturing Nature to get answers from her. But you will never ask questions that question your absolute presuppositions – the very act of doing so destroys them. Your absolute presuppositions dictate the answers you will get from your science because they constrain the questions you will ask.

From this we can see how evolutionary biology is moribund. You cannot ask why cockroaches have remained unchanged since the Carboniferous, or why dinosaurs have not evolved multiple times, or why men don’t have babies. Just to ask these questions calls into question the absolute presuppositions – the metaphysics – that underlie evolutionary biology. And not asking these questions guarantees the answers that evolutionary biology does give. Therefore, ID should boldly ask precise scientific questions that challenge the established orthodoxy. It is questions, far more than their answers, that matter.

Comments

StephenB:
If you are saying that science must rule out any explanation that is not consistent with empirically verifiable observations, I would wholeheartedly agree.
That isn't a wholly accurate restatement of this particular presupposition. Rather, what is presupposed is that that explanatory entities that have no necessary empirical consequences are scientifically useless. Evidence can neither be inconsistent nor meaningfully consistent with an explanatory entity/process/relationship that leaves no necessary empirical footprint at all. Therefore your statement of the principle is too weak. This is the most important fork of "methodological naturalism," shorn of unnecessary and debatable definitions of what counts as "natural." The bottom line isn't that explanatory entities in science must be natural, but rather that they must have necessary and practically observable empirical consequences.
There is no legitimate metaphysical principle that dictates to scientists which methods they should use. No one can rationally elevate a procedural rule to the level of metaphysics, declaring, in effect, that a scientist must study nature “as if nature is all there is.”
FWIW, as I understand it, that is essentially the opposite of what Collingswood argues. He defends the reality of metaphysical statements, but argues that the only metaphysical statements that continue to have value are those that specify a commitment to a certain method of inquiry. Such commitments can neither be derived empirically, nor analytically, and hence (he argues) stand as surviving examples of metaphysical utterances. They don't establish anything metaphysically ontological, however (e.g. the existence or non-existence of "mind"). However, once one has embraced particular presuppositions, one can proceed with one's inquiry "as if" the resulting ontology were true.
The Darwinist academy protects this world view by means of “methodological naturalism,” the unwarranted presupposition that science may not study empirically observed design patterns in nature.
Study any pattern you please to your heart's content. However, if the explanatory entities you invoke to explain those patterns predict no further unique empirical footprint, your explanation will remain scientifically hollow. That is because it is circular to infer your explanatory entity from the observed phenomenon, then explain the phenomenon in terms of that inferred entity.Zolar Czakl_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

---Zolar Czakl: "I’ll happily embrace the presupposition that science generally, and evolutionary biology specifically, require the exclusion of explanatory entities that have no necessary empirical implications. I don’t see how you can make it do any work otherwise." If you are saying that science must rule out any explanation that is not consistent with empirically verifiable observations, I would wholeheartedly agree. On the other hand, your comment was a response to my comment which read as follows: "The Darwinist academy has ruled that its version of evolution is an unassailable fact which must be elevated to the level of metaphysical truth." The Darwinist academy protects this world view by means of "methodological naturalism," the unwarranted presupposition that science may not study empirically observed design patterns in nature. Such a rule is arbitrary and self-serving, calculated to preserve the crumbling Darwinist paradigm. Historically, it has no precedent. Its purpose is to suppress counter explanations, which is the very antithesis of science. The metaphysical foundations for science are based on reason alone, i.e. the ordered universe, the law of non-contradiction, the law of causality, etc. There is no legitimate metaphysical principle that dictates to scientists which methods they should use. No one can rationally elevate a procedural rule to the level of metaphysics, declaring, in effect, that a scientist must study nature "as if nature is all there is." That many do, in fact, make that declaration and attempt that elevation is a sign that reason has been abandoned and apriori commitments to materialist metaphysics are in play.StephenB_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

ZC: Intelligence, through art, leaves quite characteristic empirically observable traces. (if you can read this text, you are seeing one of these signs in action.) Among which, we find functionally specific, complex information as marks the differences between: [a] hw9ry3uigjergihvhvuhbs [b] aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa [c] organised text in contextually responsive English DNA exhibits strings of characters from class c, which function in an algorithmic environment to produce the biofunctional proteins of life, cf here. We have no good reason to infer on observation, that either chance [a] or necessity [b] can produce such, but routinely agents do. Indeed, such complex specified functional information just use 125 bytes as a useful threshold for complexity and look at the implied space of possible configurations vs the state-transformation capacity of the observed universe across its lifespan to date] is an excellent and reliable sign of intelligent action, on a vast body of experience. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Meaning no disrespect, but I cannot extract your meaning from that paragraph.
Explanatory entities = the objects, phenomena, relationships etc. one takes as causal or explanatory in one's theory. Specific, required empirical implications = required empirically observable differences. Ergo: The essential constraint governing science is the exclusion of explanatory objects, phenomena, relationships etc. that make no required empirically observable differences.Zolar Czakl_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

---Seversky: “We have to assume that the Universe is orderly and rational otherwise the scientific enterprise is impossible and that is the way it appears to be for the most part. The quantum bit appears to be a bit trickier.” If micro marvels are not subject to the law of causation then other elements of the cosmos may also be exempt from that law. That leaves us with having to guess which events are caused and which ones are not, which would be the end of science. The universe cannot be almost orderly, or selectively orderly, or orderly in some ways and not other ways. Neither science nor reason could grasp such a cosmic madhouse. ---“That sounds similar to the law of non-contradiction and both sound suspiciously like truisms.” Is that your way of saying that you only tentatively accept the law of non-contradiction or that you have reservations about it? That would mean it isn’t a law, which would be a denial of the law. ---“It appears to be true, subject to Hume’s reservations and the tricky quantum bit.” Reservations about the law of causality is a denial of the law of causality. ---Does that include God? No, God did not begin to exist. --- ---“Or, if God’s eternal, why can’t the Universe be the same? I know there is the Big Bang but that could just be one in an eternal sequence.” Most scientists accept the proposition that the Big Bang points to a contingent universe, which would require a first cause outside of itself. Under those circumstances, the first cause must be immaterial. It cannot be otherwise. A material first cause is impossible of the universe if contingent. ---“Pretty much a complete strawman, I’d say. I’ve never seen it argued by any Darwinist or materialist or atheist.” It’s not a strawman. Materialist atheists do not believe in minds as defined in any rational sense. They simply allude to extensions of brains and call them minds. It is a trick of language—a way of using reason’s rhetoric [yes there are minds] while arguing on behalf of non-reason [but they aren’t really minds at all]. ---“Imagine observing the newly-born Universe shortly after the Big Bang had gone ‘Bang!’ assuming you could without being instantly vaporized. You would see an incredibly hot quark soup. If we has been able to study it then could we have predicted the the Universe we see now would eventually emerge? I doubt it. Let’s make it a little easier and come back later when things have calmed down somewhat. The Universe is now filled with drifting hydrogen gas subject to the nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity which have all condensed out of the earlier maelstrom. Would there have been any way to forecast the current state of the Universe based on what we would have seen then? Again, I doubt it. It is still pretty much a complete mystery which is good because it gives us another puzzle to try and solve.” At any rate, the conditions described must be set up. Causal conditions do not create themselves; they must be caused by something other than themselves. ---“I have never heard any Darwinist arguing that anything in biology was uncaused.” That’s true. They don’t explicitly argue that events were uncaused. They simply provide explanations that offer some explanation in lieu of causality and then carry on as sleek as ever. So, to the question, “How does life come from non-life, when non-life has no life to give,” the Darwinist answers,---“it didn’t need to come from life---it simply emerged.” ---“For anything more definite, stick with the evidence as far as possible but be prepared to live with a lot of ‘I don’t know’ until the evidence comes along.” Rational investigation doesn’t begin with evidence. It begins with reason’s first principles through which evidence is interpreted. Evidence cannot interpret itself.StephenB_{May 17, 2010
May
05
May
17
17
2010
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

---Zolar Czakl: "The essential constraint governing science, including evolutionary biology, is the exclusion of explanatory entities that have no specific required empirical implications." Meaning no disrespect, but I cannot extract your meaning from that paragraph. ---"I am Collingwood argues that it is such commitments that make inquiry of all kinds possible. You may be committed to other methods of inquiry and means to knowledge that are grounded in other presuppositions." Yes, all science is governed by metaphysical assumptions. To be sure, I am committed to a number of such presuppositions.StephenB_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 22
The Rational Metaphysical Foundations For Science: —The Universe is orderly and rational, we have rational minds to comprehend the rational universe, and there is a correspondence between the two. [Both the investigator and the object of investigation exist and each is in logical harmony with the other]
We have to assume that the Universe is orderly and rational otherwise the scientific enterprise is impossible and that is the way it appears to be for the most part. The quantum bit appears to be a bit trickier.
—The law of identity exists [A thing cannot be and not be at the same time]
That sounds similar to the law of non-contradiction and both sound suspiciously like truisms.
—The law of causality, which is a corollary to and is derived from the law of identity, also exists.
It appears to be true, subject to Hume's reservations and the tricky quantum bit.
[a] Anything that begins to exist must have a cause [Universes cannot just pop into existence].
Does that include God? Or, if God's eternal, why can't the Universe be the same? I know there is the Big Bang but that could just be one in an eternal sequence.
[b] Anything that was in the effect must have been in the cause [Life cannot come from non-life, mind cannot come from matter.
If I start my car, I am the cause of it starting but I don't supply the electric charge from the battery or the fuel or the air the fuel needs to burn.
[c] The cause cannot give something it does not have to give.
Again, that would appear to be a truism.
[d] Because of a, b, and c, science can search for causes. [We can track down causes because we know that there are no uncaused physical events].
Except, maybe, for the tricky quantum thing.
The Irrational Metaphysical Foundations For Science: [embraced by Materialist/Darwinists] —We do not have rational minds, the universe may or may not be ordered, and there is no such thing as a correspondence of mind to reality because there are no minds and, therefore, nothing with which the universe can come into correspondence. [Matter investigates itself.]
Pretty much a complete strawman, I'd say. I've never seen it argued by any Darwinist or materialist or atheist.
—The law of identity is not really a law because it does not really apply to the real world. It is just something humans constructed. Anything that is socially constructed can be deconstructed.
That sounds more like postmodernism or deconstructionism and no self-respecting Darwinist/materialist/atheist would touch those with a bargepole.
—There is no law of causality because there is no law of identity.
See above under the Rational heading.
[a] Things can begin to exist without a cause [Universes can just pop into existence--quantum events need no causes--movement itself needs no cause--theoretically, a cement wall could come from out of nowhere and appear in front of a moving vehicle. There is nothing in principle to prevent it, nor can the materialist Darwinist claim that such an event is impossible. He can only say that we have not observed it.]
You do realize that you are talking about physics here not biology? I don't see why this should be a particular problem for Darwinists.
[b] Things can be in the “effect” that were not present in the cause. [Life can come from non-life, mind can come from matter—physical events can come from out of nowhere].
This is an interesting one. Imagine observing the newly-born Universe shortly after the Big Bang had gone 'Bang!' assuming you could without being instantly vaporized. You would see an incredibly hot quark soup. If we has been able to study it then could we have predicted the the Universe we see now would eventually emerge? I doubt it. Let's make it a little easier and come back later when things have calmed down somewhat. The Universe is now filled with drifting hydrogen gas subject to the nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity which have all condensed out of the earlier maelstrom. Would there have been any way to forecast the current state of the Universe based on what we would have seen then? Again, I doubt it. It is still pretty much a complete mystery which is good because it gives us another puzzle to try and solve.
Thus, when we have finally tracked down the cause of a certain event, the Darwinist can simply say, (and often does say) “sorry, but this was one of those events that was uncaused. Under the circumstances, science and rational discourse is impossible.
I have never heard any Darwinist arguing that anything in biology was uncaused.
(That is why it is futile to talk science with a materialist Darwinist or even attempt a rational discussion with him. It is far better to simply call attention to his irrational orientation.
Well, of course you are not going to get much of a conversation from strawmen. And dismissing your opponents arguments as irrational in advance is a neat way to avoid having to engage them. The best solution is to avoid getting enmired in metaphysical quicksands altogether. Indulge in all the speculation and just-so stories you like as long as you remember that is all they are. For anything more definite, stick with the evidence as far as possible but be prepared to live with a lot of 'I don't know' until the evidence comes along.Seversky_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

Thank you StephenB:
Materialist metaphysics is not devoid of metaphysics and it drives the arbitrary and tyrannical policy euphemistically labeled “methodological naturalism,” which declares that scientists must study nature “as if nature is all there is.” Without the materiaist metaphysics, there would be no such rule.
The essential constraint governing science, including evolutionary biology, is the exclusion of explanatory entities that have no specific required empirical implications. As Collingwood intends his use of "metaphysical" to denote methodological rather than ontological commitments, that constraint certainly does qualify as a metaphysical (as he defines it) presupposition of science generally and evolutionary biology specifically. Collingwood argues that it is such commitments that make inquiry of all kinds possible. You may be committed to other methods of inquiry and means to knowledge that are grounded in other presuppositions.
I cannot speak for Collingwood.
It was Mr. Russel who stated that evolutionary biologists can't ask why men don't have babies, not Collingwood. Did you not read the post?
I suspect what he might of meant was this: To ask why men do not have babies is to probe the possibility that some things are unnatural to the extent that they militate against the designed order of reproduction.
I doubt that is what he intended. Perhaps he'll return to clarify.
However, if you don’t like the example, then throw it out and just acknowledge the principle: The Darwinist academy has ruled that its version of evolution is an unassailable fact which must be elevated to the level of metaphysical truth.
I'll happily embrace the presupposition that science generally, and evolutionary biology specifically, require the exclusion of explanatory entities that have no necessary empirical implications. I don't see how you can make it do any work otherwise.Zolar Czakl_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Rationality is a choice, and materialist/Darwinists have chosen not to be rational.
The only way I would accept YOUR side as being rational is if you accepted that OUR side is rational. I don't need your agreement or permission to treat you the same way you treat me.Toronto_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

---Toronto: "Please understand why I came here and invested time in trying to defend my position. It was because I believed that if I put forth some reasonable arguments, they would be taken into consideration." If someone from your side advances a reasonable argument, I promise that I will give it every consideration. ---Since in your words I am irrational, then there is no rational argument you can present to me or any of us." Since Materialist/Darwinists embrace irrationality by choice, they can unmake that choice and begin to accept [and advance] rational arguments at any time of their own choosing. ---"You’ve given me permission to treat you in the same manner you treat me." Why would I voluntarily agree to such a inequitable set of conditions. I accept the law of identity and its derivative law of causality. Materialist Darwinists do not. We are not, therefore, on the same rational plane. ---"Should I instead give your arguments more merit than you give mine?" At the moment, Yes. You can, however, change all that. ---"Everyone who has read your declarations regarding the reasoning ability of our side, at some point will come to the same conclusion I have. ---"1) You don’t take us seriously." I will take anyone seriously who honestly seeks the truth or anyone who makes a reasoned argument. 2) "We are under no obligation to treat you any differently than you treat us." Like everyone else, your side has a moral obligation to follow the light of truth to the extent that you are able.StephenB_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

That should read as follows: "Materialist metaphysics is not devoid of [metaphysical content] and it drives the arbitrary and tyrannical policy euphemistically labeled “methodological naturalism,” which declares that scientists must study nature “as if nature is all there is.” Without the materiaist metaphysics, there would be no such rule.StephenB_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

---Zolar Czakl: "This is far more general, and devoid of metaphysical content, than the sort of presuppositions I would have taken Collingwood as describing." Materialist metaphysics is not devoid of metaphysics and it drives the arbitrary and tyrannical policy euphemistically labeled "methodological naturalism," which declares that scientists must study nature "as if nature is all there is." Without the materiaist metaphysics, there would be no such rule. ---"Would you describe the way in which this purported presupposition bars evolutionary biologists from asking why men don’t have babies?" I cannot speak for Collingwood. I suspect what he might of meant was this: To ask why men do not have babies is to probe the possibility that some things are unnatural to the extent that they militate against the designed order of reproduction. However, if you don't like the example, then throw it out and just acknowledge the principle: The Darwinist academy has ruled that its version of evolution is an unassailable fact which must be elevated to the level of metaphysical truth. As you may know, all scientific theories are based on higher or lower degrees of probability. Thus, when any group insists that they have discovered a incontestable truth, say on the level of the law of non-contradiction, then they are doing metaphysics. Science doesn't make those kinds of declarations.StephenB_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

@Ilion Now I understand what you mean. Basically some Christians (or nice-ians) as you call them object to blatantly stating certain things that upset the materialist/atheist and consider it to be unacceptable. I actually had an atheist recently try to play that trick on me. After exposing him for lying and pointing out his ignorance and circularity of logic - although I must admit I took no great measures to sugar-coat it for him, but neither was I rude - he turned around and called me hateful. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, basically.above_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

There's an interesting topic. Maybe we can just talk about the evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction. That should be fun.tragic mishap_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Mr. StephenB:
The Darwinist academy has decided that no aspect of evolutionary theory may be questioned, and that includes any questions that may indirectly challenge the paradigm. The defining presupposition is that Darwinism should be elevated to the level of a metaphysical truth.
This is far more general, and devoid of metaphysical content, than the sort of presuppositions I would have taken Collingwood as describing. Help me out with one of Mr. Russel's examples. Would you describe the way in which this purported presupposition bars evolutionary biologists from asking why men don't have babies? Also, can you explain why investigation into the evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction does not, in effect, ask the question of why men don't have babies?Zolar Czakl_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

[Remedial education for Darwinists.] A metaphysical truth is one that we reason FROM so that we can reason our way TO other truths. It is not a product of evidence but rather a tool by which we evaluate evidence.StephenB_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

---Zolar Czakl: "What absolute metaphysical presuppositions prevent evolutionary biologists from asking why dinosaurs have not evolved multiple times?" Did you not read the post. The Darwinist academy has decided that no aspect of evolutionary theory may be questioned, and that includes any questions that may indirectly challenge the paradigm. The defining presupposition is that Darwinism should be elevated to the level of a metaphysical truth.StephenB_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

StephenB @33,
—”My message to voters will be exactly your message with your arguments, that there is no debating with these people.” Inasmuch has you will have no record of Christians denying the law of non-contradiction and the law of causality, your message will be the equivalent of blowing smoke.
Please understand why I came here and invested time in trying to defend my position. It was because I believed that if I put forth some reasonable arguments, they would be taken into consideration. You however, believe this:
Rationality is a choice, and materialist/Darwinists have chosen not to be rational.
Since in your words I am irrational, then there is no rational argument you can present to me or any of us. You've given me permission to treat you in the same manner you treat me. Should I instead give your arguments more merit than you give mine? Everyone who has read your declarations regarding the reasoning ability of our side, at some point will come to the same conclusion I have. 1) You don't take us seriously. 2) We are under no obligation to treat you any differently than you treat us.Toronto_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

That should read, "Darwinist hate being put on defense or being asked to defend their [indefensible] positions."StephenB_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

---Toronto: "While I don’t agree with your conclusions, your methods are the only ones that work, mine don’t."I’m going to take the position that Christians are irrational." First, you must know of what rationality consists. Do you know anything about the rules of right reason? Or do you lampoon those who remind you that such standards exist? Do you agree with those standards, allowing them to inform your philosophical and scientific conclusions. If not, then you are hardly in a position to declare that others are not following them. The difference would be that my charges are true and your charges would be bogus. Of course, I understand that Darwinists are less interested in truth and more interested in remaining on offense. Darwinist hate being put on defense or being asked to defend their indefensable positions. If you put them on defense, they will go back on offense rather than explain why they deny first principles or give any indication that they have ever even heard of them, as is evident in your response. ---"My message to voters will be exactly your message with your arguments, that there is no debating with these people." Inasmuch has you will have no record of Christians denying the law of non-contradiction and the law of causality, your message will be the equivalent of blowing smoke. ---"Let’s just simply muzzle them." That is already being done to Christians via the political correcntess established by your atheist colleagues. It is always the irrational ones, the Darwinisrts, who do the muzzling--who "expel" those in the academy who disagree with them--who establish hate crime laws to suppress free speech.StephenB_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

StephenB,
Rationality is a choice, and materialist/Darwinists have chosen not to be rational. Our task is not to debate them but rather to persuade them that rationality is the better choice.
You have won me over. While I don't agree with your conclusions, your methods are the only ones that work, mine don't I'm going to take the position that Christians are irrational. My message to voters will be exactly your message with your arguments, that there is no debating with these people. Let's just simply muzzle them.Toronto_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

All very interesting. But I'm still hoping to learn the following, vis this passage in the opening post:
From this we can see how evolutionary biology is moribund. You cannot ask why cockroaches have remained unchanged since the Carboniferous, or why dinosaurs have not evolved multiple times, or why men don’t have babies. Just to ask these questions calls into question the absolute presuppositions – the metaphysics – that underlie evolutionary biology.
What absolute metaphysical presuppositions prevent evolutionary biologists from asking why men don’t have babies? What absolute metaphysical presuppositions prevent evolutionary biologists from asking why dinosaurs have not evolved multiple times? What absolute metaphysical presuppositions prevent evolutionary biologists from investigating cockroach evolution? Does not investigation of the origin of sexual reproduction, the role of contingent events in the history of life, and the causes of stasis vs. diversity count as asking those questions, and as efforts to answer them? Thank you.Zolar Czakl_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

Ilion, "...but who will not see that a whole can never be greater than the sum of its parts." This sounds like reductionist nonsense. I guess it depends what are we talking about.inunison_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

In my experience, the worst insults and irreverence I’ve encountered on the matter came from materialists, militant atheists and nihilists. There is no word to describe how such types react once you reject their belief system. It truly is disgusting.
Right. The worst is that they won't even abandon their false belief system even when faced with a superior belief system. It might be a better strategy not to reject their system, just present evidence for your own system and show why it is superior.Cabal_{May 16, 2010
May
05
May
16
16
2010
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

Above, I've been the object of intense personal (and, really, self-contradictory) abuse by "nice" persons who choose to conflate bluntly stating logically inescapable truth with "meanness"-- in their world, the fact that the materialists tend to get bent out of shape when certain inescapable truths are uttered is the proof that one should not utter these truths. “In my experience, the worst insults and irreverence I’ve encountered on the matter came from materialists, militant atheists and nihilists.” These "nice" persons tend to call themselves Christians, and tend, on the basis of my "meanness," to denigrate my claim to be a Christian. These "nice" persons tend to insist that one is required by Christianity to *not* tell intellectually dishonest persons (i.e. ‘fools’) that they are behaving as fools. Though, of course, the “nice” person is always free to attack me (or you) in any way that he desires. “Nice”-ianity values “niceness” over truth.Ilion_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

@ilion I'm a little confused as to what you mean with that last paragraph. Have you been the subject of abuse by Christians because you are not a materialist? I'm not sure I follow... In my experience, the worst insults and irreverence I've encountered on the matter came from materialists, militant atheists and nihilists. There is no word to describe how such types react once you reject their belief system. It truly is disgusting.above_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "The Irrational Metaphysical Foundations For Science: [embraced by Materialist/Darwinists] . [b] Things can be in the “effect” that were not present in the cause. [c] The cause can give things it doesn’t have to give." . This is covered by the magic-word "emergence." Or: "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" -- there are are persons whom adamantly oppose explicit materialism (a philosopher, even), but who will not see that a whole can never be greater than the sum of its parts.Ilion_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "[(That is why it is futile to talk science with a materialist Darwinist or even attempt a rational discussion with him. It is far better to simply call attention to his irrational orientation. Rationality is a choice, and materialist/Darwinists have chosen not to be rational. Our task is not to debate them but rather to persuade them that rationality is the better choice.]" Indeed! At the same time, one must be aware that in doing this -- which is all that one can do rationally -- one will become a target for those who, whether out of a misguided understanding of Christianity (*), or whether out of a duplicitous "throw out any charge that might distract them" mindset, will seek to change the topic from the irrationality one is opposing to one's "meanness" in opposing it. (*) Some of the most vicious and personal attacks one will encounter for one's "meanness" in pointing out the irrationality of the materialist position and refusing to back down on the point will come from persons claiming to be Christians. I call the religion such folk follow "Nice"-ianity, in contrast to Christianity.Ilion_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

Well, shoot! I can't even *delete* a mis-formatted post (one more thing I didn't recall from when I used to post here).Ilion_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

Ilíon: "Also, the brain-in-a-vat hyper-skeptical hypothesis actually presupposes the very worldview it’s designed to call into question." KairosFocus: "That is one way to show the absurdity. ... And so on to infinite regress." . Well, while I'm confident that you (KF) understood what I was getting at, I probably ought to have said more than I did, for the sakes of those to whom "proof by contradiction" and/or reductio ad absurdum are novel concepts. As I said, the brain-in-a-vat hyper-skeptical hypothesis presupposes the very worldview it’s designed to call into question -- much as a reductio ad absurdum does. However, with this hyper-skeptical hypothesis: 1) the presupposition is hidden, rather than explicit; 2) and the the hypothesis doesn't lead us to see a self-contradiction in the presupposition itself; 3) rather, if we are paying attention, we see that the hypothesis is worthless with respect to reason. KairosFocus: "In short, at some point we have to accept the general credibility of our senses, rationality and conscious awareness; ... . We all must live by faith, and it is best to accept a faith that is not patently absurd by means of plain self-referential incoherence!" . The brain-in-a-vat and all other such hyper-skepticism are tools that some persons, who almost invariably claim to be rationalists, use as a means to escape the destination to which reason takes us.Ilion_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply