No Sane Person Acts as if Materialism Is True

_{Barry Arrington

August 14, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

Seversky set out the following challenge:

Draw up two lists, the first being all the scientific and technological advances of the last two hundred years, say, that were based on [1] a naturalistic/materialistic/ physicalist metaphysics, [2] the second being a list of all such advances based on a teleological metaphysics. A simple comparison should reveal which has been the more prolific and productive approach.

Interesting test. The answer is on list [1] there would be zero entries. On list [2] there would be all the scientific and technological advances of the last two hundred years.

You see, Sev, many people spout materialism. No one actually conducts their lives, from moral choices to scientific research, as if it were true. Because if it were true, there would be no point to any moral choice, and there would be no reason to expect that the universe conforms to regularities we call scientific laws. So, even the researchers who spout materialism act as if it were false when they are actually doing research.

This is especially true of biology, including evolutionary biology, where the scientific literature is drenched in teleological language. Why? Because if one wants to describe what is going on, the use of teleological language is unavoidable.

Comments

DS, of course it becomes a tautology, but one that draws together domains into a compressed point that then flows out again everywhere. That something is an equivalence has no ability to undermine its underlying significance. Likewise, that a proof is fairly simple to us does not undermine what is shown. That is an error that comes up again and again in those who refuse to see what is so manifestly there. Indeed, we see here yet again the rhetorical tactic of distraction and side tracking that is all too common in our day, and which when coupled to the tendency to polarise becomes destructive. Instead, I simply point out that this result shows the power of necessary abstract being at the root of the framework for a world -- literally, any world -- to exist. This identity ties to the reality of planes, the abstract reality of a flat space, the domain of oscillatory and transient behaviour coupled, so the whole world opened up by Fourier, Laplace and Z transforms [thus, digital signal processing . . . ], issues of stability therefore [as in, the results about where you are in the s-plane or the z-plane . . . ], the wormhole bridge through the complex domain that is so fruitful in all of mathematics, points the way to the domain of orthogonal vectors [and quaternions] and so much more. All, while bringing together and locking inextricably five pivotal numbers that arise from diverse fields of thought, showing that Mathematics is a single domain of thought -- an utterly astonishing coherence that unifies, pointing to a core abstract necessary being root of reality. There is a reason this expression was voted the most beautiful result in mathematics back in 1998. I add, lastly it points to the pivotal importance of responsible, rational freedom in the key disciplines of thought. So also, yet again to the question already diverted from or dodged several times above, in what sort of world is such possible. KFkairosfocus_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

PS: An appreciation of Euler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-DV26x6n_Qkairosfocus_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

KF,
PP, yup. Euler’s famed, seemingly simple expression . . . 1 + e^i*pi = 0 . . . sums up an astonishing deep coherence in reality — a nexus that draws together then sends out again in every direction — that points strongly to unifying mind at its root as well as to the issue of necessary abstract being integrated into the foundation of reality for a world to exist. These open up metaphysical vistas for those open to see and to hear.
:-) On the other hand, it's a tautology. An interesting identity, but a tautology nonetheless.daveS_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

PP, yup. Euler's famed, seemingly simple expression . . . 1 + e^i*pi = 0 . . . sums up an astonishing deep coherence in reality -- a nexus that draws together then sends out again in every direction -- that points strongly to unifying mind at its root as well as to the issue of necessary abstract being integrated into the foundation of reality for a world to exist. These open up metaphysical vistas for those open to see and to hear. But of course, ever so many will be willfully blind. An issue today, then, is to show how the dominant, too often domineering a priori evolutionary materialist scientism irretrievably ends in self-falsifying self-referential absurdity such that in a world where we must be responsibly and rationally free in order to seriously think, reason, argue, respond to an urgency to the true and the right, it cannot be correct. KFkairosfocus_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

jdk
Maybe the point is that Eular just spouted some relatively meaningless math which still impressed Diderot.
That is exactly the point. Catherine didn't want her court shown up by Diderot so she had Euler spout something which Diderot didn't understand and therefore had to leave the 'field of battle'. But I agree with you (now that I've read your full reply); it's highly unlikely Diderot would have been fooled.ellazimm_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Euler should have hit Diderot with his best shot.... http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?t=998695 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MqzNojwSPzEppolish_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

I read all that on Wikipedia. My point is that mathematically (a+b^n)/n = x has no significance that I can see. Maybe the point is that Eular just spouted some relatively meaningless math which still impressed Diderot. So it's not much a story, as far as I can tell. I just don't get why it's a famous story. Edited a bit later: I just read the Wikipedia story more carefully, and it looks like my guess was right: Euler was just pulling Diderot's leg. The article also says the whole thing is unlikely, as Diderot was also a mathematician, and wouldn't have been ignorantly overawed by the math Euler offered.jdk_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Oh, Euler is THAT Euler. Smart cookie. Flaming Christian. jdk - from Euler wiki: "There is a famous legend[62] inspired by Euler's arguments with secular philosophers over religion, which is set during Euler's second stint at the St. Petersburg academy. The French philosopher Denis Diderot was visiting Russia on Catherine the Great's invitation. However, the Empress was alarmed that the philosopher's arguments for atheism were influencing members of her court, and so Euler was asked to confront the Frenchman. Diderot was informed that a learned mathematician had produced a proof of the existence of God: he agreed to view the proof as it was presented in court. Euler appeared, advanced toward Diderot, and in a tone of perfect conviction announced this non-sequitur: "Sir, a+bn / n =x, hence God exists—reply!" Diderot, to whom (says the story) all mathematics was gibberish, stood dumbstruck as peals of laughter erupted from the court. Embarrassed, he asked to leave Russia, a request that was graciously granted by the Empress. However amusing the anecdote may be, it is apocryphal, given that Diderot himself did research in mathematics.[63] The legend was apparently first told by Dieudonné Thiébault[64] with significant embellishment by Augustus De Morgan.[65][66]"ppolish_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Euler was one of the world's greatest mathematicians. Euler's fluid dynamic formulas, however, could not account for turbulence by direct solutions. It took the exploration of this system with computers in the last 50 years or so and the accompanying development of chaos theory before turbulence could be understood (although even now not completely.) He is, of course, the namesake of the most famous identity in higher mathematics, Euler's Identity: e^(i•pi) + 1 = 0. I used to build up to explaining why this is true as a culmination of my calculus class. However, I don't get at all the (a + b^n)/n = x story???jdk_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Euler's equations in Fluid Dynamics were inspired! He also came up with "Sir, a+bn/n =x, hence God exists—reply!" Or so it goes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Eulerppolish_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

ppolish, You're much more patient than I am. In my mind, hearkening back to WJM's term, Bob O'h = implacable. While design can't be proven without doubt, unless God performs an act for the entire world to see, it is obvious. But....as I think on what the Bible says the Hebrews did while literally seeing God as a pillar of fire every night for 40 years, I have my doubts about the previous "unless" clause. Materialists can't get away from the word "design" and, like Barry said, will use teleology all day long while they deny it's there. I'm resigned to call it a mental illness. A very unhealthy state of denial. If one will dismiss his own self-evident free-will as an illusion, I'm ready to dismiss what he says out of hand. It is clearly a case of Psalm 14:1: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Solomon advises us to not engage that fool in Proverbs 26:4. I know this is a philosophical discussion and I'm probably out of line for invoking the religious. But religion is important and there's a point when philosophy is useless and deceptive as Paul said.bb_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the pointer jdk - I missed your post 72. Yes to both points. I see design everywhere, even chaos & turbulence. I'm like a cave person:)ppolish_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Hi ppolish. I'm not sure I understand your question. And did you read my post at 72? I'm interested to see if I understand your main point correctly. As to turbulence, they question "can turbulence arise from nothing" doesn't make sense to me. The obvious answer is "no": turbulence arises from the nature of water as it flows in certain conditions. And to take the matter further, which is your point I think, water doesn't arise from nothing either. Am I understanding you correctly?jdk_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

JDK, physics is a human science; the world (and so its behaviour) is a reality physics seeks to understand, thus in part enabling another human discipline, engineering. Physics and engineering cannot be separated from humans and their ability to be rational and responsible -- as I can directly testify on personal experience, albeit that is notorious post Newton, Maxwell and Einstein et al. Thus, the metaphysics of a world in which physics is possible demands that responsible, rational freedom is possible. Where, it is seriously arguable (101 here) that evolutionary materialist scientism lacks the metaphysical resources to ground responsible, rational freedom. KFkairosfocus_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

jdk, can turbulence arise from nothing?ppolish_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

to ppolish: I see - you are saying that because the universe was designed, and did not arrive by chance, all phenomena are teleological. Is this an accurate reading of what you are saying? That is, even something as basic as the water molecule itself is teleological because of the fine-tuning of the properties and constants of elementary particles themselves that make the bonding of two hydrogen molecules with one oxygen molecule to make water. Would you say this was also true, as another example?jdk_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Barry Your quote from Einstein is interesting but it is just one man's opinion. And you did leave out his next paragraph:
There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles”. Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the “miracle” without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it. I am forced to add that just to keep you from thinking that – weakened by age – I have fallen pray to the parsons.
I think that, because we and other highly organised and complex creatures exists points to a universe that has to have underlying principles that are discernible. If there was no order then we wouldn't exist. But there's no reason to assume any intelligence behind the 'order'. It is true that some scientists have assumed a divine reason for there being 'order'. And many have not. The science comes from trying to discover the models of the 'order' NOT where you think the order comes from. Although some are starting to ask if it's possible there could be more than one 'universe' with different values for different base 'constants.' But this is currently sheer speculation, interesting though it may be. Still one should to dream and wonder and ask questions.ellazimm_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

You ask "In what way is fluid dynamics in particular teleological, and what’s the evidence", Bob OH. Well, 1st a definition of teleology per Mirriam/Webster: "The study of evidences of design in nature". Design in Nature. Awesome. What would be the opposite? How about "aimlessness". Ooops. Awesome vs Ooops. Ok, let's start with Fluids period before we consider Fluid Dynamics. The maths tell us the probability of fluids emerging from Aimlessness is 1 in 10 to the 500 or 1 in "10 to the 10,000" for all practical purposes as Atheist Nima Arkani-Hamed adds. Basically it ain't going to happen by Aimlessness. At least not without a really really big Multiverse. Go multiverse! Or a Neil DegrasseTyson "Simulation" - but that would be teleogic. Deep down Neil is an IDiot:) So, fluids by aimlessness is ruled out by math. In a Unverse at least. How about the equations of fluid dynamics? Gosh they're beautiful to a science nerd/nerdette: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_fluid_mechanics C'mon Bob. C'mon. The future deep debate will be between Teleolgy and Theology. Aimlessness has left the building. Directly through an exit btw - not by bumping off the walls until the exit was found. It's a really really big building lol. Really big. But there's Room for you in the House:)ppolish_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

As Bob has pointed out several times, there is a distinction between the physics itself - the events going on in the world, and our efforts to understand and describe them - the discipline of physics as a aspect of human understanding. kf's remark applies to the latter, but I think Bob's question is about the former.jdk_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Folks, again, absent a world in which responsible rational freedom exists, engineering [such as to design and develop a flying machine] and the discipline of physics could not exist. The issue then turns on grounding such at world root level. And a materialistic world simply cannot, the difficulties are categorical. KFkairosfocus_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Bob asks, "ppolish – in what way is fluid dynamics in particular teleological, and what’s the evidence? I’m not aware of it, but this isn’t my area of expertise." I'm very interested in this, as I just read a book on chaos theory, and turbulence was one of the main phenomena that chaos theory was applied to. I also am puzzled as to what could be teleological about turbulence.jdk_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

This is so simple to answer. 1. Most technological advances and scientific advances depend upon extensive experimental testing before they can be made practical. This testing requirement is useless unless the tests are done in the context of an assumption of methodological naturalism. NOTE: This assumption of MN is NOT a statement about reality. ONLY a statement about how to have reliable testing of results. No one wants to drive over a bridge that a God is required to hold up. HOWEVER.... 2. All experimental testing requires the design of hypothesis which hide the unimportant variables and allow the fundamental design properties ( material strength, temperature constraints, gear ratios...) to be examined so that a scientific advance can be packaged as a useful product. There is no model of materialism that allows an agent to exist that could conduct such experiments. SO.... in conclusion. Methodological naturalism is just a tool that design agents can use to make technological advances. Technical advances can only happen by the operation of intelligent agents capable of design. Intelligent agents who are able to believe there own experimental results can only exist in a world that is not limited by materialism. So without a worldview that includes paradigms beyond materialism, no technological or scientific advance is possible.JDH_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

ppolish - in what way is fluid dynamics in particular teleological, and what's the evidence? I'm not aware of it, but this isn't my area of expertise.Bob O'H_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Hey, everyone! Our members will be interested if you could state your opinion in this board: https://8ch.net/christian/res/287536.html So please, post your opinion on evolution, and thank you for your time!origin_surgeon_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

KF VS, were you sufficiently rationally and responsibly free that we should take this as an intentional message that responds to a context of discussion between actual responsibly free minds Actual I was responding to William's claim that all people act like free will is acausal, pointing out that the legal system does not. I think there are many causes that led me to respond. Not responsibly free, acausally free. or is it comparable to Putnam’s parable of the and who in one case in its wanderings traced out the shape of Churchill’s face, and in the other the shape of the glyphs that spelled out his name? (what if a robot insect carried out the same feat, what then would that speak to — and why?) KF What kind of robot insects?velikovskys_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

:Wjm:Holding a view” intellectually is not the same as acting as if that view is actually true. No sane person can act as if libertarian free will doesn’t exist; no sane person can actually act as if morality is subjective;. I thought that was your thesis,holding certain intellectual views causes one to act in a certain way, whether that view is true or not. The legal system acts on view that free will is not acausal whether it is true or not But since you repeated your assertion, I am convincedvelikovskys_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Bob OH, while you argue that fluid dynamics in particular and laws of physics in general are purposeless & unguided (not teleological) - there is enough evidence to blow that belief away. "Ooops" has been statistically eliminated. Sure, many people are in denial in regards to intrinsic teleology - they either don't understand the maths or are desperately trying to discover new maths to overturn it - multiverse for example. (The "Simulationist" folks embrace teleology).ppolish_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Another excellent post, Barry. Thank you. bornagain77 @ 54: You continue to amaze, my friend. The Darwinists, materialists, secularists, etc. can't lay a glove on you no matter how many punches they throw. Keep up the good work.Truth Will Set You Free_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Great links to the one-time, physically-violent psychopath and the autistic girl (both very, very impressive and heart-warming), BA77. Loved the clever metaphor of the escalators and stairs. He was a great one for teaching aids. Nice when a person of very high-seeming worldly, analytical intelligence boosts its usefulness spiritually.Axel_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Seversky @32: Free will: Showing that free will is contextualized/informed/influenced in an attempt to argue that free will as defined here doesn't exist is not an argument that we do not all act a if such free will exists. Even if libertarian free will doesn't exist, we all act as if it does - as if the people we argue with have the capacity to override their chemical and conditional programming and accept a properly argued and evidenced argument; and, we expect them to responsibly override their physico-chemical programming when the programming would cause them to do something evil. Morality: An argument that attempts to use the varying, contradictory moral behavior of groups of people as an argument that morality is subjective is not an argument against the fact that each of those people were acting as if morality was objective in nature. Because people disagree on a thing and act in accordance with what they think that thing factually is in reality doesn't mean the thing itself is subjective in nature nor does it mean that the people are behaving as if that thing is subjective in nature. Those people fight other people over moral positions because they hold their moral position to be objectively true. They are not acting as if morality is subjetive in nature. Materialism: That people argue for materialism - even if the make good arguments - doesn't mean they actually act as if materialism is true. I can argue all day long that solipsism is true; I might even intellectually believe it. However, I cannot actually act as if it is true in my day to day life.William J Murray_{August 15, 2016
August
08
Aug
15
15
2016
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply