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

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.
No sane person jumps off the top of a skyscraper expecting to fly hundreds of yards to the roof of a neighboring building as in The Matrix. They believe that they will fall and be killed when they come to an abrupt stop against the very solid, very material ground. They believe it because, as far as we know, that is what has always happened - except in movies. As we all agree, James Clerk Maxwell was by all accounts a very religious man. He believed that God created our Universe, including electromagnetism. But his equations that model that phenomenon contain no term for divine intervention. They are a purely materialistic account. Diabetes had been observed as a disorder for thousands of years but it wasn't until Banting and Best revealed the role of insulin in sugar metabolism that effective treatment became available. Again, a purely materialistic account that proved to be very successful. There are many other examples that could be cited but they all lead to the same conclusion. Assuming a naturalistic, materialistic Universe works. We don't know if it will always work. We don't know if it has its limits. But it has served us well so far so we might as well continue to use it until we find those limits or something better comes along.Seversky_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: similarly, what happens when men adopt beliefs that are utterly unable to ground responsible rational freedom, but in effect ride piggyback on views they reject or are hostile to, which do ground responsible rational freedom. Notice, 11 above. KFkairosfocus_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: "based on" points directly to world foundations. What sort of world FROM THE GROUND UP must exist for flying machines to be designed, built and operated? KFkairosfocus_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Barry @ 14 - I think you are conflating two issues: (1) whether theories are based on specific metaphysics, and (2) whether the people who develop theories hold to specific metaphysics. Seversky's test is clearly about the first (and hence my slightly tongue in cheek reply). Do theories themselves have teleological underpinnings? Your answer is, it seems to me, about the second - can the people reasonably hold to material metaphysics? But even if someone is not a materialist, that doesn't mean that they can't develop scientific ideas that are materialistic - they can simply develop ideas that don't rely on going the extra mile to God, chi, or meatballs. Thus, I think you are answering a rather different question to the one Seversky asked, and thus your answers don't answer my question.Bob O'H_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Mung @ 18 - yes, but do they want to?Bob O'H_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: it seems to me that aircraft, flying machines, are produced by design. So, it is reasonable to posit on this that design is possible, designers too. Further, a world with aircraft is a world such that its root conditions enable such designers to exist. All of this is heavily freighted with worldviews import. KFkairosfocus_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

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, 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?) KFkairosfocus_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
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;. American legal system does not hold that libertarian free will exists, children are not judged as equally competent as adult, if libertarian free will exists age will inform but not cause a decision. If morality involves intent, differing sincerely held beliefs will affect the intent. Without evidence that a particular absolute morality is true, one can only go with the feeling of pragmatismvelikovskys_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

What is this talk of scientific advances? Advancing towards what, exactly?Mung_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

If science is not teleological, then what is it? If science is the denial of teleology, then it is self-refuting, unless it's denial of teleology is without goal or purpose. In which case it is merely incoherent. Yet science is neither incoherent, nor is it self-refuting. Therefore it is teleological. QED.Mung_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: I just want to know the teleological metaphysics behind aeroplanes. They always, or almost always, fly.Mung_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Bob, The entire enterprise of science depends upon the view that behaviors we observe and model now are predictive of behaviors in the future, and that when we apply those models to things we design we can predict how the things we design will behave in accordance with those models. The entire process - from the expectation that there is a predictive, useful value in modeling the behaviors of phenomena (to successfully apply in the future), to the expectation that such information is usefully comprehensible to humans, to using those models to make a blueprint with engineering specifications to build an airplane from - the entire process from start to finish is teleological in nature. Even if the metaphysical assumption that scientific data is teleologically meaningful and useful isn't spoken or recognized, it lies at the heart of science. Materialism offers no valid conceptual reason to expect any of that, and in fact scientific progress languished in much of the world due to materialist or other counter-productive metaphysics. Physical forces and laws are nothing if not teleological constructs which predict future behaviors, without which airplanes cannot be built.William J Murray_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

jdk @ 1, aarceng @ 5 ellazimm @ 9 Bob @ 13 Einstein wrote:
Now I come to the most interesting point in your letter. You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way. One could (yes one should) expect the world to be subjected to law only to the extent that we order it through our intelligence. Ordering of this kind would be like the alphabetical ordering of the words of a language. By contrast, the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for instance, is wholly different. Even if the axioms of the theory are proposed by man, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the “miracle” which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
This is the concept to which I allude in the OP. So far all you have offered in response is bare denials. Here’s a clue: Bare denial is not an argument. Write that down. It will be useful to you in the future as you attempt to make, you know, actual arguments. Do you have any arguments in response to Dr. Einstein or are you content to rest on your bare denials?Barry Arrington_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

I just want to know the teleological metaphysics behind aeroplanes. A few people might be interested in the teleology regarding Bob's choice of the term 'aeroplane' rather than 'flying machine'. soundburger - good one - I think we scare Seversky a little unless he can come back at us here on his favorite website.groovamos_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Bob @ 13. It was explained to you in the OP and the comments have elaborated on the explanation. You respond not by suggesting that the explanation is lacking in some respect but by pretending there has been no explanation at all. That is absolutely fascinating. I am genuinely curious about your response and hope you will cash it out for me. Possible reasons that come to mind are: 1. You are genuinely incapable of perceiving the grounds of arguments with which you disagree. 2. You are pulling our leg. What am I missing Bob?Barry Arrington_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

I just want to know the teleological metaphysics behind aeroplanes.Bob O'H_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

this is an excellent post. Nobody goes about scientific inquiry, just as they don't set out to create beautiful music or a great film, etc., by first reminding themselves, 'okay, I am simply a bag of chemicals leading a meaningless life, no different than, say, a frog's, that will soon be over with nothing gained by it. My 'desire' to make a new discovery is just some secretions within a mass of molecules that is not really different, than say, a rock. Just atoms. My meaningless 'discovery' will be 'understood' by some other bags of chemicals, who may give me a bag of chemicals called a Nobel Prize which I couldn't possibly really want, because duh. Here I go.'soundburger_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

EZ, With all due respect, distractors. The fact remains -- as is for instance illustrated at 4 above -- that evolutionary materialist scientism notoriously persistently fails to ground responsible rational freedom, a condition of not only doing science but of the life of the mind. Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist's Guide to Reality inadvertently brings out the self-referential incoherence with great force:
FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [--> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [--> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [--> at this point, what we, apart from we delusions?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [--> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.
In short, grand delusion has been let loose and has been multiplied by the GIGO principle of that blind mechanical process we call computing. This becomes utterly self-undermining as say Haldane long since understood. Reppert puts the matter clearly:
. . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
KF PS: I note that the issue properly on the table is NOT that objectors to ID or adherents of evolutionary materialist scientism are incapable of rational thought. Rather, as human beings we are. But this is incompatible with the worldview just described, leading to self referential incoherence and self-falsification of the worldview. Where if that worldview is then insisted on further, this becomes a case of fallacious thinking that should be corrected. Which implies that the objector is capable of responsible, rational thought, decision and action. The you don't want to listen objection you used above therefore fails to be relevant.kairosfocus_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

ella: I agree with jdk, those of us who disagree with you are frequently portrayed as incapable of rational thought which implies you’re not really intending on listening in the first place. So, why should we bother?

jdk: You wrote a post recently about the value of participating in the kind of discussions that go on here at UD. I agree with you that a large benefit is that it allows one to practice articulating one’s arguments: that has certainly been the case for me ... my comments were about the goals and purposes of the ID movement, not about “the evidence for ID”, such as it is. It is true that right now I am not interested in discussing the latter issue.
must be niceUpright BiPed_{August 14, 2016
August
08
Aug
14
14
2016
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

Barry,
. . . there would be no reason to expect that the universe conforms to regularities we call scientific laws.
I don't understand the basis for this assertion. Unless you believe the universe could not have even come into existence without divine intervention. And that has been in no way proven. And I agree with jdk, those of us who disagree with you are frequently portrayed as incapable of rational thought which implies you're not really intending on listening in the first place. So, why should we bother?ellazimm_{August 13, 2016
August
08
Aug
13
13
2016
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

Science has discovered that representation is the mechanism that enables biology. Science has also discovered that the specific type of representation required to organize the cell is exclusively identifiable by its unique physical organization, and the only other place we can identify that specific system is in recorded language and mathematics. What list should that be under, and what difference does it make?Upright BiPed_{August 13, 2016
August
08
Aug
13
13
2016
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

Seversky: the second being a list of all such advances based on a teleological metaphysics. OK lets see how much science would get done absent the above metaphysics. Teleology in human affairs would have a precursor teleology regarding the advent of human life and for that matter all life. If Seversky denies teleology while doing science, then he should be able to walk into his laboratory and tell any number of his materialist associates: "you don't mean s___ to me." I hold that this would be a truism and acceptable behavior within materialism because a person having any meaning or purpose would require Seversky and associates believe it by inference in a chain of reasoning back to the advent of life. But life is meaningless within MN. Since science is a search for truth, then the truth to a materialist should be out in the open and to state the truth about the meaninglessness of each researcher to the other would not impact progress in research if it were really true. But we all know the real truth, that materialists stating their professed truth in the above manner would destroy scientific progress in a hurricane of hurt and resentment. That said unless the researchers are meaty robots, which maybe Seversky wouldn't mind at all, but only speculating. So now Seversky can come on here and say about the proposed laboratory scene "that is the most ridiculous and insane scenario I have ever heard." But that is the challenge from Barry, to logically show that materialists acting on a daily basis according to their beliefs would be insanity. And to get the materialist to admit it, as Seversky would be so doing by adopting the above protest or something similar.groovamos_{August 13, 2016
August
08
Aug
13
13
2016
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Planck vs Krauss Einstein vs Carroll Maxwell vs DegrassTyson The Best Science is guided science. List 2 duh.ppolish_{August 13, 2016
August
08
Aug
13
13
2016
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

I'd like to see such a list with an explanation of why each item belongs where it is placed. I seriously doubt you could justify 0 items in list 1.aarceng_{August 13, 2016
August
08
Aug
13
13
2016
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

F/N: It may help to recall some recent remarks by Pearcey:
A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
[--> that is, responsible, rational freedom is undermined. Cf here William Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” [ENV excerpt, Finding Truth (David C. Cook, 2015) by Nancy Pearcey.]
In short, WJM is quite right. Meanwhile there is the little matter of the logic of induction on empirical evidence and where it points for the design inference. Which is too often studiously distracted from. KFkairosfocus_{August 13, 2016
August
08
Aug
13
13
2016
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

to William: I am aware that is your thesis, and have discussed this with you. I disagree. I sketched some of my reasons once, and your reply was highlighted as a "devastating" rebuttal. I didn't feel devastated, for what that's worth, but it helped me see the details of the chasm between us concerning how we see the world. You wrote a post recently about the value of participating in the kind of discussions that go on here at UD. I agree with you that a large benefit is that it allows one to practice articulating one's arguments: that has certainly been the case for me. Another benefit, which I don't think you mentioned, is that it let's one, if one is so inclined, work at learning the true details of opposing views. In doing so, one learns both the nuances of the opposing position, but also learns that various people who look like they are on on the same "side" on the issue actually have different beliefs once you get past the simple surface. This is valuable for several reasons. First, if one accurately understands the position of one who holds an opposing view, then one can make one's replies truly relevant to the argument. On the other hand, if one holds a simplified, stereotyped view of the opposing views, then one's own arguments will not be truly as relevant and accurate as they might, thus weakening one's own effort to argue for own's position. The second reason is that when one sincerely tries to understand another, even if there are fundamental disagreements, the discussion get humanized: it is easier to be civil, and it is easier to search for and find commonalities that perhaps reach across the differences. However, if one is certain that the opposing view has no merit, if one has no interest in truly understanding the other point of view and is in fact convinced that no sane person could hold it, then the discussion becomes dichotomized and often antagonistic. I am interested in the first kind of discussion, where each side is given a civil welcome in presenting their views, and where a genuine effort is made to really understand the views of others. In a good discussion between people with different views, in honor of our common humanity, each person really ought to try to help the other person do the best job they can of becoming aware of and articulating their views.jdk_{August 13, 2016
August
08
Aug
13
13
2016
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

jdk: "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; no sane person can actually act as if materialism is true. That they can believe these things to be true is irrelevant. People can believe all sorts of irrational things that have no basis in reality or their actual behavior.William J Murray_{August 13, 2016
August
08
Aug
13
13
2016
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

For the record, I'll submit that you are wrong, but refuse to make an effort to understand a view that opposes yours, held by many sane, smart, well-educated people, or to consider that the various issues involved are far from settled, and may not be capable of being settled.jdk_{August 13, 2016
August
08
Aug
13
13
2016
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply