Response to Comments: The Problem With Miracles

_{Cornelius Hunter
July 7, 2011

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Imagine if a police detective was told his theory had to be strictly natural. The evidence at the crime scene was obvious, but the boss wants no criminals indicted. The cause of the crime must be limited to the wind, rain, earthquakes, polar shifts, whatever. Absurd you say? Welcome to evolution. Read more

Comments

DrREC:
And yes, Mung, I defend my definition of natural=constrained by natural laws; supernatural= transcending natural laws and unbound by them.
What natural law constrains the natural laws you seem to have in mind? Or are they not themselves constrained by natural law? Are natural laws, according to your definition, supernatural?Mung_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Joseph: Ever since Plato in the laws bk x.kairosfocus_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Methodological naturalism breaks down at the origin of nature, ie the universe. That is because natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had. Let DrREC choke on that...Joseph_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Neil and DrREC, "Artificial" fits in perfectly well with what Intelligent Design claims.Joseph_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

BA: Interesting [loved the alien tech theme], this one seems a bit more explicitly instructional. Gkairosfocus_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Hi mike1962, just in case you missed my comment over on the "God and Evil" thread, I'm justing taking the opportunity to flag it again as, if you're willing, I'm genuinely interested in a response: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/god-and-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-388584Chris Doyle_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

(57), "if a demon committed the crime then that still means that there is no way this was death by suicide, accident or any other *natural* causes." How would one know? Surely if a demon did it then the demon could, with its supernatural powers, commit the perfect murder: by making it look like a suicide and without leaving any evidence of the demon's involvement.Grunty_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

PS: Trying once more: Evidence ch 1kairosfocus_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Mike (and CD): excellent point, and it points to the issue of empirically equivalent -- e.g. brains in vats [or souls in jars . . . ] -- worlds. Also, a subtlety is that were demons or the like (space aliens would do) to frame someone for murder, the evidence pointing to art not chance or undirected mechanical necessity would still accurately flag up design; and that is all the science is trying to do. You don't fault the infamous left handed spin bowler who just took down the opposed team in four overs, for failing to then go on to knock a century in your own innings. That is not what he is there for. (Resemblance to recent failings of the Windies batsmen is -- sadly -- not coincidental. You take down a team in 200 or so runs then cannot match them, at the pitch in Barbados?) So, we see the switcheroo game again. The issue being substituted is an onward question in forensics beyond science proper -- whodunit, not that tweredun. Note, therefore, how DR is regrettably persistently refusing to read even 3 pp of Greenleaf on how evidence works in courts, and if he were willing to go on through the next few chapters, how it warrants a case on applied inference to best explanation -- whodunit -- in a context where serious consequences apply. if you want a handy summary of Greenleaf's methods [as he applied them to the case of the historicity of the gospels], cf here. DR might profit from reading on, on how to build a worldview starting with first principles of right reason and self evident truths. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

DrREC: How would one ever rule out a demon committing a crime, and planting evidence to frame a suspect, in a manner that left no traces discernable by humans? Me: Why would one rule it in, in the first place? DrREC: Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or a presumption of methodological naturalism? Is your response a vote for the latter?
You didn't answer my question. No need to "rule it out" if you don't "rule it in" in the first place. Why would you rule it in (the demon theory) in the first place?mike1962_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

Morning Rec, I’d like to address your demon doubts. First of all, you have a point: to begin with, there is no way to distinguish between actual evidence of murder and demon-planted evidence of murder. I’m with Descartes on this one: how do we know that all existence is not simply an illusion created by a demon (who presumably has your soul in a jar!)? However, the important point that you are missing here is that ‘something’ is definitely behind existence rather than ‘nothing’. And coming back to the crime, if a demon committed the crime then that still means that there is no way this was death by suicide, accident or any other *natural* causes. This was murder: and murder requires a murderer. Intelligent Design is simply concerned with establishing whether or not purely naturalistic causes can account for existence on the one hand and demonstrating that existence can only be brought about by Intelligent Design on the other. Determining whether or not the Intelligent Designer is human, alien, demon or the Creator is not within the remit of Intelligent Design. But surely it is enough to know that there is no way it all made itself: something is definitely behind it. Wouldn’t you agree, Rec?Chris Doyle_{July 8, 2011
July
07
Jul
8
08
2011
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

exploring kairoskairosfocus_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

JDFL: welcome.kairosfocus_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

F/N: And, a slime trail is a sign pointing to a rather humble but nonetheless real agent.kairosfocus_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

F/N: Dr Rec's mistaken etymological games on kairos -- a Greek word now well on its way into general English vocabulary [like logic, stomach, idea[l] and a lot of other words . . . ] -- and related Dan Brownish speculations on the roots of the Christian position in the teeth of the pattern of credible historical evidence, if meant seriously, would be diagnostically suggestive of a breakdown in basic abductive reasoning skills; for history is of course an extension of the sort of courtroom reasoning Greanleaf was discussing. I think we are beginning to see a pattern here on the breakdown of logic and epistemology in our day.kairosfocus_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

"BTW, Holmes’ “deduction,” is really ABDUCTION." Thanks, noted.junkdnaforlife_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

So Dr REC - You have decided that methodological naturalism is the only thing allowed in science. Is your decision a result of purely natural processes? Then it was NOT rational. Rationality implies a choice. Rational choices by their very nature involve the exercise by an agent which must NOT be ruled ONLY by natural choices. Any choice ruled ONLY by purely natural forces is not a real choice, only an illusion or choice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You shouldn't promote premises which can not possibly be true. Either the practice of science is unnatural or it is irrational. I will take the former. You think its possible to believe and to argue the latter. That is why I do not respect you. You are not intellectually honest. But then again few materialists are. Its hard to defend that which is massively self contradictory.JDH_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

BTW, Holmes' "deduction," is really ABDUCTION.kairosfocus_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

JDFL: I ~~assume~~ [accept] [the uncensored] argument to [empirically grounded] best explanation.kairosfocus_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

PS: It bears underscoring that all reasonably exposed persons will be familiar with the distinction between confident inference that something happened, and confident inference that a specific agent was on best explanation, likely to be responsible. Applied to origins science, a: we can identify signs that point to our observed cosmos having a beginning and being contingent, dependent on one or more causally necessary external factors for its existence. b: we can identify similar signs that point to a peculiarly finely balanced operating point in the physics and circumstances of the observed cosmos making it suitable for C-chemistry cell based life. c: Such factors, on our experience of design, appear to be signs of design in the origin and setting up of the cosmos we inhabit. Design is an empirically warranted, plausible inductive inference, absent censorship by a priori materialism. d: We can characterise the sort of agent responsible for such: first, a necessary being, to explain a contingent world -- even through multiverse speculations [cf linked on that, esp Leslie's remarks]. e: Second, an intelligent, purposeful and rather powerful being to be able to give effect to a cosmos of 10^80 or so atoms, as we observe. f: Going beyond, we recognise what this is pointing to, a cosmic architect of great power and purpose. g: if we factor in other aspects of our reality relevant to building a coherent worldview, like our conviction that rights are real, that points to moral government of the cosmos. h: So, it is quite reasonable -- and consistent with scientific findings -- to infer to a cosmic architect and moral governor of our observed cosmos. i: In that context, it can easily be shown that this is the dominant pattern of thought of the key founders of modern science, and that it is still a strongly represented view among scientists and the educated public. j: So, the sort of pretence that to believe in such a generic theism [or even to go on to accept a given specific tradition], even one open to interventions by God above and beyond the usual course of the cosmos, for good reason, is inimical to science is a falsehood, even a slander in the teeth of easily accessible facts. Exhibit A is Newton, easily the most important scientist in the past 400 years. k: So, it is high time that materialist censorship on science be dropped. l: On origins science, it is high time that we accepted the signs pointing to design of life -- digital code in the cell, give me a break -- and of the cosmos.kairosfocus_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

"So you assume metaphysical naturalism?" I ~~assume~~ accept the argument to best explanation.junkdnaforlife_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

Dr Rec: Pardon, but you have in the main been invited to read three pages -- two minutes at a moderate reading speed -- in a classic that more than anticipates the issues we face today [not 800 -- which BTW would not be excessive to help you rebuild your worldview to a more reasonable state], and you are refusing to attend to the logic of inference to best explanation, in light of facts, which includes the reality of chance, necessity and art in causal patterns. Someone else above even pointed you to a current headlined murder case on how the logic of the explanatory filter applies. Let me cite from Wiki as linked on abduction, following Peirce c 100 - 130 ya:
Abduction allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a to be abduced from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent or Post hoc ergo propter hoc, because there are multiple possible explanations for b. For example, after glancing up and seeing the eight ball moving towards us we may abduce that it was struck by the cue ball. The cue ball's strike would account for the eight ball's movement. It serves as a hypothesis that explains our observation. There are in fact infinitely many possible explanations for the eight ball's movement, and so our abduction does not leave us certain that the cue ball did in fact strike the eight ball, but our abduction is still useful and can serve to orient us in our surroundings
[cf Newton in Opticks, Query 31, who fully understood this: ". . . although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur." ].
This process of abduction is an instance of the scientific method. There are infinite possible explanations for any of the physical processes we observe, but we are inclined to abduce a single explanation (or a few explanations) for them in the hopes that we can better orient ourselves in our surroundings and eliminate some of the possibilities . .
The heart of abduction is inference on tested, reliable signs; similar to how Hippocrates of Cos highlighted for medicine C5 BC. Apparent deer tracks on the side of a mountain are not a proof, but may warrant a responsible and often successful process of reasoning to the presence and actions of a certain kind of animal. Necessity has its signs, chance has its signs, and art has its signs. We may not in all cases be able to trace whodunit, but we can often identify that twerdun on signs. And, in some cases, wider circumstances allow us to infer reasonably and responsibly to whodunit, as the onward several chs to p, 20 or so in Greenleaf show. As well, you cannot tell the truth by the clock so dismissal of a founder of the modern theory of evidence by pointing to the clock is fallacious. Likewise the fact that you are being pointed to materials I happen to have put up by way of a contribution to the global info commons, does not warrant an implicit inverse argument by authority. The only appeal in the end that warrants a conclusion as responsible and reasonable is the credible material facts and well-applied, properly founded logic, including the underlying logic of science, abduction. Which FYI, is what the explanatory filter is about. Abduction in science is fatally censored by imposing materialism as an a priori. If we don't fix the rot now, institutional science will suffer a massive loss of credibility, which has already begun once the climategate revelations began to soak in, despite the usual media shield. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

" the demon would be on the bottom of the list," Why? Do you have a bias against supernatural explanations? Same number of agents involved. 1 criminal. 1 demon. So you assume metaphysical naturalism? Now, why is that?DrREC_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT}

DrRec: "From best explanation seems to be your favorite phrase." No, this week it is "dry humping." "and get back to the demon defense." Sounds good. "best=best=true" Unless the murder is on videotape, there is no way to be certain. There is only argument to best explanation. In the case of a murder, mechanism, motive etc will be established, based on this suspects will be listed etc, the demon would be on the bottom of the list, right after secret society that frames people arbitrarily for murder, which in turn would be right after George Bush did it, and on and on up the list until we get to the top five suspects. From there, in a Sherlock Holmes style epic deduction, the cops will start eliminating possibilities, from a top down approach, until they find a suspect that fits all the known evidence better than any other. "Let’s skip the digression to origin of life," You brought up biology. DrRec: "philosophically lazy" I'm not much about philosophy. If your looking for that kind of action, you got the wrong guy.junkdnaforlife_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

"design seems to be the argument from best explanation." From best explanation seems to be your favorite phrase. Applying it to science is novel, and invoking it without explanation or defense is interesting. You seem to think saying it absolves you from making a point. (I think it it philosophically lazy to say best=best=true). Let's skip the digression to origin of life, and get back to the demon defense. What in "argument to best explanation" gets you out of that?DrREC_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

to best explanationjunkdnaforlife_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

DrRec: "but never biology. Curios." I don't think "never" is accurate. In the case of OOL, after hearing both arguments at length, design seems to be the argument from best explanation.junkdnaforlife_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

"Argument to best explanation." Go on.... Are we channeling McCullagh? Scope, power, plausibility, etc.... What is it? Is it less plausible because your presuppose methodologically natural explanations? Seems we're comfortable with that in meteorology, seismology, economics, the courtroom.....but never biology. Curios.DrREC_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

DrRec: "How do we dispose of the demon defense..." Argument to best explanation.junkdnaforlife_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

"Why would one rule it in, in the first place?" Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or a presumption of methodological naturalism? Is your response a vote for the latter?DrREC_{July 7, 2011
July
07
Jul
7
07
2011
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next