Stephen Meyer Events, Visits to Churches

_{Salvador Cordova

June 2, 2009

Creationism, Culture, Intelligent Design, Religion}

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

Listed below are some events with Dr. Stephen Meyer. I expect more to be forthcoming!

Those of us who are part of promoting ID know how hard it is to get churches to appreciate the importance of ID. Most of the biology teachers who opposed ID at Dover were professing Christians and Sunday School teachers. The unfortunate situation in Dover is not unique. Darwinism has remained in the culture because churches have allowed it to spread. Churches have allowed it to spread because they are unwilling to engage the facts but rather resort to theology.

I often get harsh reactions from fellow creationists when I tell them they have to stop arguing theology and start engaging the facts. Recall the words of the father of modern ID, Phil Johnson, “Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate.”

Theistic evolution can be successfully opposed in the churches by arguing the facts. Maybe your experience is different than mine, but I’ve not known a single individual who was truly converted away from Darwinism by purely theological means or trying to pound them over the head with theology and the Bible…

With that in mind, I am happy to report the following ID events, two of which will be at churches, and one where I hope to be present (in McLean, Virginia, near Washington, DC):

Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Calvary Chapel – Olympia
Here is the official Discovery Institute Announcement and Calvary Chapel Direction

June 3, 2009
Stephen C. Meyer at Calvary Chapel – Olympia
The God Hypothesis

“The universe as a whole has a structure in its basic fabric, in its laws, and in its other parameters that suggests design right from the very beginning.” A proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution would call this statement “unscientific” – but is it really? Join Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute as he lays the groundwork for an extensive discussion of the science that strongly suggests that our universe was intelligently designed.

The event will be held on Wednesday, June 3rd, at 7:00pm in the main sanctuary of Calvary Chapel at 919 Division Street NW in Olympia. For directions to the church go to the Calvary Chapel website.

Thursday, June 4, 2009
Puget Sound Community College
Here is the official Discovery Institute Announcement and Puget Sound Direction

June 4, 2009
Signature in the Cell: What your professors aren’t telling about the new evidence for Intelligent Design
Stephen C. Meyer at South Puget Sound Community College

June 4, 2009, 12pm (noon)
South Puget Sound Community College
Building 26, Room 101

The Christian Fellowship Club is sponsoring a lecture by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer at South Puget Sound Community College on June 4th at noon.

In his forthcoming book Signature in the Cell, Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin? Listen as Dr. Meyer presents how new scientific discoveries are pointing to intelligent design as the best explanation for the complexity of life and the universe.

This free event is open to the public.

Click here for directions to the campus/building.

Thursday, June 25th , 2009
McLean Bible Church, McLean Virginia
Here is the Official McLean Bible Church Announcement

The MBC Apologetics Ministry Team Presents:
“Signature In The Cell”
Come spend an evening with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer – a leading voice in the national discussion over intelligent design (ID).
Dr. Meyer’s brand new book release: “Signature in the Cell” DNA evidence for intelligence Design.
Dr. Meyer’s will be talking about the evidence as a Christian author.

Date: Thursday, June 25th , 2009
Location: MBC Tyson’s Campus in Community room C
Time: 7:30pm to 9:00pm
Cost: $10 for Adults or $5 for students

Registration will open up on June 3

For more information contact

apologeticsconference@mcleanbible.org

Comments

I don’t think I could go quite that far with you, because, remember, in order for an event to be causeless, there can be no necessary or sufficient conditions at all.
So, then, that component of volition that is not traceable to physical, biological, environmental, psychodynamic, or divine causes is nevertheless caused, and therefore determined, in the same sense that other events in the world (say, a rockslide) are caused?Diffaxial_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "That is to say, there is a component of volitional behavior that has no non-volitional determinants, as well as no divine determinants, and are therefore uncaused?" I don't think I could go quite that far with you, because, remember, in order for an event to be causeless, there can be no necessary or sufficient conditions at all.StephenB_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 128: StephenB:
However, I gather that you are getting at something a little deeper, namely the point about whether the creature can use that power in an independent way and cause something to happen different from what God causes to happen, and again, on that matter, I would have to say yes.
Wouldn't it be fair to say, then, that this remaining parcel of volition - that fraction of volition to which you refer that is independent of physical, chemical, biological, environmental, psychodynamic (etc.) and even divine causation and constraint - issues in differences in the world (through behaviors) that are uncaused? That is to say, there is a component of volitional behavior that has no non-volitional determinants, as well as no divine determinants, and are therefore uncaused? Of course, we can say that the "cause" of these volitional behaviors is volition itself, but that doesn't get us very far, since we have above distilled a fraction of volition that is independent of all non-volitional causation (biological, environmental, psychodynamic, etc.), as well as independent of the volitional causation of God (vis particular choices). Hence the description of this parcel of volition as causeless appears to hold, as choices that issue therefrom to not reflect a chain of prior causal events at all (all the while acknowledging that there are necessary conditions for the expression of this fraction of human volition - e.g. one must have a body, be a creature sustained by God, and so on). Would you say that is correct?Diffaxial_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

RDK says "And as for events without any seeming physical causation, well, once again, your ignorance of quantum mechanics displays itself. On the subatomic level, nothing is something. Particles literally do pop out of nowhere. It’s bizarre, it completely bypasses the law of conservation of mass, but it happens all the time." How you know particles are popping out of nowhere? Last I checked these particles popped out of a "sponge" of possibility per physics. I don't know anyone in physics saying something can come from nothing, and if someone does, aren't they "just saying it"? Quantum physics is pulled out of the atheist sleeve like an ace card over and over on this site but why? I'd like someone to explain how something can literally come from nothing considering that once the something comes into existence, the nothingness from whence it came was always retroactively a nothingness with potential, and so a somethingness. That's one argument against it anyways. I never see an atheist here simply acknowledging that this is impossible, on every conceivable level. Yet RDK would probably say it's inconceivable but empirically proven. Well how so? It's a blind assertion and the ultimate stretch to say something pops from no-where. The answer is usually "fine then, things are eternal" Well eternity isn't even "just a concept". As we understand eternity, it's not a concept because it can't be conceived of, and not because it's such a long time, but because we have no concept basis for non-causative non-starts in this universe, period. Therefore, although we're all agnostics by force in the end, I lean towards a sentient entity from another universe with laws that do allow for an infinity; as the cause for this universe. Maybe this other universe is total static or total thought based. Thought seems to have some infinite qualities.lamarck_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "For example, when an individual employs volition and chooses one course of action over another, is that difference in the world also a function of God’s causation, or is there an element of such an expression of volition that is independent of not only of physical, biological, environmental, and psychodynamic causes, but is also independent of causation attributable to God?" I am not sure I would say that individual's volitional act was independent of God's causative power, because from a classical theist view, God must sustain [not just create] the creatures power to think and decide. However, I gather that you are getting at something a little deeper, namely the point about whether the creature can use that power in an independent way and cause something to happen different from what God causes to happen, and again, on that matter, I would have to say yes.StephenB_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Even in that realm, I would still be inclined to say yes. First, for theists, God would be the cause of all intellectual and volitional power. From that perspective, one could not reason or will without that power...it also seems plausible to me that the will can operate freely from the inside in the sense that it can decide what objects or ideals are worth choosing and select the means to obtain the objects of those choices from a wide variety of options [limited, of course, by the biological, environment, and psychodynamic elements]. To that extent, it seems to me that the individual who exercises these intellectual and volitional faculties has some control over his/her own destiny.
Fair enough again. Stipulating the forgoing, that the very capacity to display volition derives from God, are all choices that express volition thereby attributable to God? For example, when an individual employs volition and chooses one course of action over another, is that difference in the world also a function of God's causation, or is there an element of such an expression of volition that is independent of not only of physical, biological, environmental, and psychodynamic causes, but is also independent of causation attributable to God?Diffaxial_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

KF @ 605:
Diff et al: What part of “an uncountably infinite number of arbitrary choices” is in any reasonable sense a FINITE entity...
I've made no comment on the Banach-Tarski paradox.
And, observers, note that “error exists” is being tip-toed around quietly; just as Sir Thomas Wilson advised in his notorious 1560 the Arte of Rhetorique...
I posted a noisy response to "Error exists" on the "Science is Self-Correcting" thread. We know you read my post, because you expressed (misplaced) umbrage at my use of "KF has stopped beating his wife." I added a clarifying followup post, to which you also responded at length. (Neither of your responses address the argument I made, but that is a different issue.) I was subsequently placed in moderation, effectively ending my ability to engage in exchanges on any topic (moderation that has since been rescinded without explanation). Given that, why do you continue to state that "Error exists" has been ignored in Wilsonian fashion?Diffaxial_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Hi Sal,
Do these counter-intuitive results imply we have a logically inconsistent system? Is it possible our axiomatic systems which we can build ordinary arithmetic are self-contradictory? We accept by faith they are not.
Things like the Grandi series are interesting to think about, but I'm not sure what the significance of this is concerning our mathematical systems of axioms. You can't just manipulate a divergent series as if it were a finite sum and expect to get sensible results. It is true that the Grandi series has a Cesaro sum of 1/2, but that definition is different from the "regular" definition of the sum of a series. I don't think there's anything particularly "deep" here concerning alternate realities. We just have two related but different definitions for how to "sum" a series, each with its own range of applicability.herb_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

The way one chooses perceive something is a way alternative realities can be created. From the wiki entry on Grandi:
One can arrive at two conclusions:
The series 1 ? 1 + 1 ? 1 +... has no sum. but its sum should be 1/2.
In fact, both of these statements can be made precise and formally proven, but only using well-defined mathematical concepts that arose in the 19th century. After the late 17th-century introduction of calculus in Europe, but before the advent of modern rigor, the tension between these answers fueled what has been characterized as an "endless" and "violent" dispute between mathematicians.
There is free will in mathematics after all.scordova_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

For the reader's benefit, the Banach-Tarkski paradox is likened to creation ex-nihilo. Using ones mind and imagination, one create something out of nothing mathematically. To illustrate using the Grandi Series 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 ...... 0 = [1 -1] + [ 1-1] .... but using the rules of association 0 = 1 + [-1 + 1] + [-1 + 1] .... 0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 = 1 Yikes!!!!!!! See: Grandi Series Another example, consider the real numbers between 0 and 2. For every real number between 0 and 2 we can map to every real number between 0 and 1. That is let f(x) = x/2 where x is a number between 0 and 2. But this is like black magic! Intuitively we would think there as twice as many points in the interval between 0 and 2 as there are between 0 and 1, but that is not the case! Do these counter-intuitive results imply we have a logically inconsistent system? Is it possible our axiomatic systems which we can build ordinary arithmetic are self-contradictory? We accept by faith they are not. Godel showed we can create statements from our axiomatic systems which say: 1. A is true 2. or not-A is true But we know from logic, this is deeply disturbing when we have systems were there is a free will choice of choosing A and not-A and coming up with perfectly valid arguments. There is free will in mathematics after all.scordova_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Folks: A couple of follow-up points. 1] B-T paradoxes; Let's use Wiki to amplify Sal's rebuttal just a bit, for those of us standing in the Clapham bus stop and so needing a 101 approach:
The reason the Banach–Tarski theorem is called a paradox is because it contradicts basic geometric intuition. "Doubling the ball" by dividing it into parts and moving them around by rotations and translations, without any stretching, bending, or adding new points, seems to be impossible, since all these operations preserve the volume, but the volume is doubled in the end. Unlike most theorems in geometry, this result depends in a critical way on the axiom of choice in set theory. This axiom allows for the construction of nonmeasurable sets, collections of points that do not have a volume in the ordinary sense and require an uncountably infinite number of arbitrary choices to specify. Robert Solovay showed that the axiom of choice, or a weaker variant of it, is necessary for the construction of nonmeasurable sets by constructing a model of ZF set theory (without choice) in which every geometric subset has a well-defined Lebesgue measure. On the other hand, Solovay's construction relies on the assumption that an inaccessible cardinal exists (which itself cannot be proven from ZF set theory); Saharon Shelah later showed that this assumption is necessary.
And, such non-measurable sets are:
In mathematics, a non-measurable set is a subset of a set with finite positive measure where the subset's structure is so complicated that it cannot itself have a meaningful measure. Such sets are constructed to shed light on the notions of length, area and volume in formal set theory. The notion of a non-measurable set has been a source of great controversy since its introduction. It is intuitively obvious to many people that any subset S of the unit disk (or unit line) has a measure, because one can throw darts at the disk (see Freiling's axiom of symmetry), and the probability of landing in S is the measure of the set. A non-measurable set means that it is inconsistent to talk about randomly picked geometric points. Historically, this led Borel and Kolmogorov to formulate probability theory on sets which are constrained to be measurable. The measurable sets on the line are formed by countable unions and intersections of intervals. These sets are rich enough to include every conceivable definition of a set that arises in standard mathematics, but they require a lot of formalism to prove that sets are measurable. In 1979, Solovay established that it is consistent with standard set theory, excluding uncountable choice, to assume that there are no non-measurable sets.
In short, the B-T paradox is deeply controversial in mathematics and does not relate to a world of real objects made up from real atoms, but instead is linked to the many paradoxes of infinity, here "an uncountably infinite number of arbitrary choices." Diff et al: What part of "an uncountably infinite number of arbitrary choices" is in any reasonable sense a FINITE entity, relevant to, say, a ball made up of a finite number of real-world atoms much less than 10^80, most likely 10^20 - 10^26 or so? (For, while geometric point groups are in principle infinitely divisible on a process that requires "an uncountably infinite number of arbitrary choices," a real world ball plainly is not.) Verdict: More "blind 'em with science." (Here by keeping back relevant information that provides a crucial balancing point.) The attempt to dismiss the self-evident truth that "a finite whole is greater than any of its proper parts," fails. (And, observers, note that "error exists" is being tip-toed around quietly; just as Sir Thomas Wilson advised in his notorious 1560 the Arte of Rhetorique: "Matters hard to auoyde should alwaies be past ouer, as though wee sawe them not at all . . . " That suggests that there is no serious answer so avoidance on the merits and distraction is a useful tactic.) 2] Of minds and cause-effect bonds While we wait in the Clapham bus stop . . . Let us note -- in addition to SB's excellent remarks -- that we have identified two crucial and distinct senses of cause, necessary and sufficient; illustrating by the case of the fire triangle. That acts of embodied agents in a physical world will be influenced by physicality will be indubitable. Unless you have appropriate body parts, you cannot speak, write or type. (And yes, that includes those who are able to use their mouths or even feet to do such, having become paralysed otherwise.) So, embodied agents plainly have necessary causal factors that are physical. But of course that which is necessary needs not be sufficient; a crucial difference. But, again, something has been passed by in a conveniently Thomas Wilsonian rhetorical silence. Namely, the issue of the massive difference between acts of volitional choice and reasoned thought, and physical cause effect chains of sufficiency. SB has reminded us that on the Judaeo-Christian view, this power of mind to reason and to choose and to understand behind both, is a gift of our Creator. One that we experience every day, even to post here. Q1: Is the act of posting here constrained by necessary physical causal factors? A1: Of course. Q2: is that cluster of facrtors credibly not only necessary but also suffcient? A2: Not at all. For, as the previously linked discussion (again, passed over in a convenient silence) raised, there is the issue of lucky noise as failing of being a credible source of what is meaningful, decisional or reasonable in any sense worth talking about. So, adapting Richard Taylor:
. . . suppose you were in a train and saw [outside the window] rocks you believe were pushed there by chance + necessity only, spelling out: WELCOME TO WALES. Would you believe the apparent message, why? Now, it is obviously highly improbable [per the principles of statistical thermodynamics applied to, say, a pile of rocks falling down a hill and scattering to form randomly distributed patterns]. But, it is plainly logically and physically possible for this to happen. So, what would follow from -- per thought experiment -- actually having "good reason" to believe that this is so? 1 --> We know, immediately, that chance + necessity, acting on a pile of rocks on a hillside, can make them roll down the hillside and take up an arbitrary conformation. There thus is no in-principle reason to reject them taking up the shape: "WELCOME TO WALES" any more than any other configuration. Especially if, say, by extremely good luck we have seen the rocks fall and take up this shape for ourselves. [If that ever happens to you, though, change your travel plans and head straight for Las Vegas before your "hot streak" runs out! (But also, first check that the rocks are not made of magnetite, and that there is not a magnetic apparatus buried under the hill's apparently innocent turf! "Trust, but verify.")] 2 --> Now, while you are packing for Vegas [having verified that the event is not a parlour trick writ large . . . ], let's think a bit: [a] the result of the for- the- sake- of- argument stroke of good luck is an apparent message, which was [b] formed by chance + necessity only acting on matter and energy across space and time. That is, [c] it would be lucky noise at work. Let us observe, also: [d] the shape taken on by the cluster of rocks as they fall and settle is arbitrary, but [e] the meaning assigned to the apparent message is as a result of the imposition of symbolic meaning on certain glyphs that take up particular alphanumerical shapes under certain conventions. That is, it is a mental (and even social) act. One pregnant with the points that [f] language at its best refers accurately to reality, so that [g] we often trust its deliverances once we hold the source credible. [Indeed, in the original form of the example, if one believes that s/he is entering Wales on the strength of seeing such a rock arrangement, s/he would be grossly irrational to also believe the intelligible and aptly functional arrangement of rocks to have been accidental.] 3 --> But, this brings up the key issue of credibility: should we believe the substantial contents of such an apparent message sourced in lucky noise rather than a purposeful arrangement? That is, would it be well-warranted to accept it as -- here, echoing Aristotle in Metaphysics, 1011b -- "saying of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not"? (That is, (i) is such an apparent message credibly a true message? Or (ii) is any observed truth in it merest coincidence?) 4 --> The answers are obvious: (i) no, and (ii) yes. For, the adjusted example aptly illustrates how cause-effect chains tracing to mechanical necessity and chance circumstances acting on matter and energy are utterly unconnected to the issue of making logically and empirically well-warranted assertions about states of affairs in the world. For a crude but illuminating further instance, neuronal impulses are in volts and are in specific locations in the body; but the peculiarly mental aspects -- meaningfulness, codes, algorithms, truth and falsehood, propositions and their entailments, etc -- simply are not like that. That is, mental concepts and constructs are radically different from physical entities, interactions and signals. 5 --> So, it is highly questionable (thus needs to be shown not merely assumed or asserted) that such radical differences could or do credibly arise from mere interaction of physical components under only the forces of chance and blind mechanical necessity. For this demonstration, however, we seek in vain: the matter is routinely assumed or asserted away, often by claiming (contrary to the relevant history and philosophical considerations) that science can only properly explain by reference in the end to such ultimately physical-material forces. Anything less is "science-stopping."
________________ In short, worldview issues have serious consequences, and can blind those caught up in such systems to the force of evidence. This includes those places where scientific research programmes inevitably have core worldviews level commitments and blind spots. (NB: I am of the strong opinion that at both undergrad and graduate level, science majors should do a compulsory seminar in phil and history of science; with both "survey of" and "current topics in" foci. many gross errors would be corrected thereby.) In any case, comparative difficulties that forces us to look in a balanced and comparative way across different systems, at facts, coherence of explanations and the explanatory power of such views, will help us. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "Given those limits: Of those several causes that determine human behavior, does the volitional component itself have causes? By that I mean, does the volitional component (as distinct from these other causes) itself have causes that are themselves not volitional?" That is an interesting follow up. Even in that realm, I would still be inclined to say yes. First, for theists, God would be the cause of all intellectual and volitional power. From that perspective, one could not reason or will without that power. Second, that which the will aspires to, that is, whatever it wants, also has a kind of causal power in the sense that it demands some kind of response. If one strives to be loved, appreciated, or noticed, for example, it seems to me that those needs are causes in the sense that they cannot be ignored. So, I would hold that both of those forces operating from the outside would qualify as causes. On the other hand, it also seems plausible to me that the will can operate freely from the inside in the sense that it can decide what objects or ideals are worth choosing and select the means to obtain the objects of those choices from a wide variety of options [limited, of course, by the biological, environment, and psychodynamic elements]. To that extent, it seems to me that the individual who exercises these intellectual and volitional faculties has some control over his/her own destiny. In that sense, I would disagree strongly with compatibilists who, claiming to believe in the power of choice, speak of a kind of free will that is nevertheless completely bound by pre-determined forces, meaning that the chooser’s destiny cannot be influenced or changed even in the smallest way. To me, such a concept of free will is farcical. What good is free will if the one who has it cannot influence outcomes?StephenB_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
I would say that the answer is yes in the sense that human behaviors are the effects of biological, environmental, psychodynamic, and volitional causes. The last part, of course, refers to agency, and, in that sense, agents are, themselves causes, although the free will option which defines their capacity to act, while significant, is also limited due to several other factors including the other three causes just mentioned.
Fair enough. Given those limits: Of those several causes that determine human behavior, does the volitional component itself have causes? By that I mean, does the volitional component (as distinct from these other causes) itself have causes that are themselves not volitional?Diffaxial_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "StephenB: Are human behaviors “effects?” Since there are many kinds of causes in addition to efficient causes, and since human behavior is different than the physical events often associated with causation, the question gets a little complicated. Still, I will attempt an answer without appealing to final or formal causes, although they are relevant in many respects. I would say that the answer is yes in the sense that human behaviors are the effects of biological, environmental, psychodynamic, and volitional causes. The last part, of course, refers to agency, and, in that sense, agents are, themselves causes, although the free will option which defines their capacity to act, while significant, is also limited due to several other factors including the other three causes just mentioned. The biological need to eat, for example, causes the agent to search for food. On the other hand, the volitional component, composed of an intellect, which can recognize the dangers of overeating, and a will, which can choose to ratify or not ratify the intellect’s verdict, can shape the agent’s behavior in the direction of temperance or intemperance.StephenB_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

----scordova: "The invitaiton is still open. Are there any former TE’s who converted to ID because someone successfully argued with them and demonstrated the TE position was logically incoherent? ----"The reason I prefer to argue the facts is that it makes the arguments about philosophical and theological assumptions moot." I am not suggesting that one approach be used in lieu of the other, but that both approaches should be used in concert. One thing you will notice is that you cannot argue facts in evidence with those whose philosophical system interprets that evidence in ways that confirm their philosophical bias. Just as the atheist physicist typically posits infinite multiple universes in the teeth of evidence for design, TEs typically posit "a wise God that would not have done it that way" in the teeth of evidence for design. To be truly effective we must use philosophy and science, reason and evidence, common sense and facts to make our points. That good philosophy has been unfairly discredited in our times owes to the fact that bad philosophy reigns, that science is unduly worshipped, and, under the circumstances, doesn't want to be held accountable to rational standards of behavior. We can't do good science without good philosophy, and we can't do good philosophy without good science. The problem is not just that TE skeptics deny evidence. The problem is that TE skeptics are grounded in the kind of skepticism that rules out evidence that challenges the skepticism. Notice how many on this very thread believe that design is not necessary because physical effects can occur without causes. To such a person, evidence for design is useless, because it will be interpreted as more evidence that something can come from nothing. TEs, insofar as they are subject to Darwinist ideology, are are subject to that same mind set. You can't just go with evidence, you must also confront the mind set that disdains it in principle. In other words, you must restore faith in reason itself, a faith that has been corrupted by postmodernism. In any case, you are not going to get a TE to admit publically that he/she embraced an illogical position. Even if that is the cause, they will likely attribute theirStephenB_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

KF:
Diff, repeating already long since adequaely answered questions in a new thread — here on causal influences on human thoughts — simply reveals closed-minded objectionism at work, a manifestation of selective hyperskepticism, virulent form. We must all live by the acted out premise that humans can reason decide and act in ways that reveal them to be agents, capable of living above the merely mechanical and stochastic patterns of he physical cosmos, including our own bodies (of which our brains) are a part, on pain of self-referential absurdity. So, while bodily influences are necessary causal factors, we have no non-absurd grounds for reducing mind to body including brain and its neural networks; thus the “hardness” in the so-called hard problem of consciousness — for evolutionary materialist views.
When humans reason, decide and act in ways that reveal them to be agents, capable of living above the merely mechanical and stochastic patterns of the physical cosmos, are those behaviors at least in part physically uncaused? That is, behaviors certainly entail physiochemical events (say, muscle contractions); are those physiochemical events, to the extent they reflect human agency, in part caused by other physical events, and in part uncaused by any physical event?Diffaxial_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Hi Sal,
This only underscores what troubled me about math as an undergrad, so many question had no logical resolution, except to make up an arbitrary rule!
I understand where you're coming from. What you've shown is that both the "regular" integers as well as integers mod 2 are useful in certain settings. And that's ok---the symbols "0", "1", etc. were constructed by humans, and we get to make the rules governing their use. If a certain set of rules turns out to be conducive to solving problems, that's a good thing.herb_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

BTW, if discussing QM seems repetitive, we can always shift over and talk about the Banach-Tarski Paradox. As I’m sure you know, it calls into question the relation of finite wholes and parts.
The banach-tarski paradox will disappear if one chooses to have a different set of starting assumptions, namely, removing the axiom of choice. Is accepting by faith the axiom of choice a better way of doing math? This only underscores what troubled me about math as an undergrad, so many question had no logical resolution, except to make up an arbitrary rule! You get one kind of math if you accept one rule, and another if you accept the negation of that rule. The only inherent truth was whether a system was logically consistent. 1 + 1 = 2 was not an immutable truth. As I went to study digital communications where error correction polynomials in modulo-2 vector spaces was the norm, I had to re-learn math. Because in that world: 1 + 1 = 0scordova_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Let me say, I don't disrespect someone for because he is an atheist. I can understand someone looking at the pain and suffering in the world and concluding there is no God or that God is indifferent to the plight of humanity. It is hard to look at all the bad designs and conclude an intelligence created the world. That problem of evil is the strongest argument against God being the Intelligent Designer. One can reconcile this by invoking other Intelligent Designers apart from a benevolent God, or explanations for the problem of evil. I think if someone accepts Darwinism and is an atheist, his belief system is at least more logically consistent than a theistic evolutionists. But all these issues are moot if Darwinism and mindless OOL are wrong to begin with.scordova_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

“If anything has discredited the belief in universal god-given rules, it was the 19 devout believers who hijacked four airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.
Not all religions are equal. If one is afraid of radical Islam and belief in God, it unwise to try to stop belief in God by first trying to exterminate Christianity. There are plenty atheists who would prefer to live in a Christian land like Italy versus aheists paradises like the Soviet Union, Communist Cambodia, or Moaist China. I don't see the logic of trying to stop radical Islam by first trying to exterminate Christianity.scordova_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

are there any former TE’s at UD that somehow accept ID after realizing their philosophical system was logically inchoherent?
The invitaiton is still open. Are there any former TE's who converted to ID because someone successfully argued with them and demonstrated the TE position was logically incoherent? The reason I prefer to argue the facts is that it makes the arguments about philosophical and theological assumptions moot. For example, if someone said: "God moves the planets according to epicylces". If epicycles are proven wrong, then all the philsophical and theological questions about the statement: "God moves the planets according to epicylces" become completely moot. If Darwinism is false, there is no need to deal with trying to reconcile theology with Darwinsim, there is no need for Theistic Darwinism. A large percentage, dare I say perhaps even the majority of Darwinists, are TE's. I find it encouraging many of the major ID proponents today were TE's. I believe there can be a trend away from TE toward ID.scordova_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, You are correct that it did not happen to me, I only heard it told of my math professor.Nakashima_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Nakashima said, "The professor sat down and scribbled on some paper for twenty minutes, ignoring the class. Then he lifted his head in triumph, “Yes! It _is_ obvious!”" I don't believe this happened with you but that you have read past posts on UD. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-the-facts-speak-for-themselves/#comment-126503jerry_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

RDK (et al): First, I was not aware that you had made a significant comment, so I looked up-thread, seeing only that there were a few dismissive remarks at 13 above. So, no, I am not responding to you specifically. (The names I have specified above are the ones I am responding to directly, but there is an obvious relevance to your own remarks, as there is an anti-objectivity, selectively hyperskeptical intellectual movement at large in our civilisation.) For a couple of threads now, I have been quite explicitly following noted philosopher Josiah Royce, thank you. It is he who -- I think back in the 1870's (in his PhD if I recall right) -- first identified the significance of a general consensus on the reality of error (and I am also influenced by Elton Trueblood's later remarks on it; Trueblood being no mean philosopher-theologian). But in fact that names-dropping question, up to and including Hofstadter [Godel, Escher, Bach?], is a bit of a distraction: the material issue is, that error exists is not only a consensus truth, but it is undeniably so, on pain of self-referential incoherence</b.. So, it is a case where once we understand what is being said, we see that it is true, and indeed must be so on pain of at once descending into self-referential incoherence and absurdity. Thus, we see here a specific instance of a relevant self-evident truth. And if the demonstration that this is so is not a bit of an eye-opener for relativists; then that says more about the blinding effect of that position than it does about the force of the point on the merits. But then, at this point, I am more interested in the man in the Clapham bus stop than the jaded dismissive advocate indoctrinated in and committed to radical relativism, regardless of absurdities that it entails. Moreover, the ordinary man will be open to the onward implications and associations of this self-evident truth no 1. For example:
a --> Since a known truth exists, truth exists and is in some cases objectively knowable, even to the level in this case of warranted, self-evidently true belief. b --> Knowledge, even in the strong sense: warranted, true belief, thus also exists -- and knowledge to self evidence on pain of absurdity is only changeable by rejecting the basic principles of right reason. One is of course free to do so, but cannot then properly claim to be anything more than incoherent, absurd and confused in his thought life. All of which our man in the Clapham bus stop is duly noticing. (That he is being taxed to support whether or no he agrees, an established intellectual class and de facto magisterium that professionally professes such absurdities and insists on teaching them as received wisdom in schools and colleges will doubtless also be duly noted. So, he is doing a slow burn . . . ) c --> Further, attempted denial of the truth that error exists immediately illustrates why affirming {A and NOT-A} leads to absurdity and confusion, so we may see -- i.e UNDERSTAND -- why the law of non-contradiction is also self-evidently true and relevant to deciding reasonably on what to accept as true. d --> At the same time, the particular truth is humbling: we may err. So, it leads logically to being open to the correction of error in light of principles of right reason and warranting of knowledge claims, chief among which stands the law of non-contradiction. (And, attempts to trot our Quantum theory in the cause of dismissing the principle of non-contradiction, are little more than the fallacy known as "blind[ing] 'em with science.") e --> Moreover, that error exists is undeniably true is also a warning, for, undue closed-minded commitment to errors may lead us to impatiently or even irritably reject or dismiss such truths as cut across our views, demonising also those who point our errors out to us -- and lead us into Mrs Barbara Tuchman's notorious march of folly, the oft-repeated ruiner of countries, empires and civilisations. As Jesus warned the elites of Judea 2,000 years ago. [Would that they had heeded it before 66 - 70 AD; after all prophecies of ruin, as Jeremiah advises are implicitly conditional, i.e. they are dramatised calls to repent even on the brink of disaster brought on by stubborn folly. As Jonah informs us, even scarcely a month out from ruin, there is hope that God will relent the judgement due and overdue, if we would but REPENT; starting from the top. Resemblances to the current state and trends of a certain friendly neighbourhood civilisation are NOT coincidental.] f --> So, the principle is a call to open-minded, critically aware humble realism that seeks a reasonable faith: an approach to the life of the mind in which experience, logical insights and self-evident first principles are all vital. [It bears noting that self evident truths will never amount to being a full base for a worldview, but provided useful guide-stars in a confused hyper-modern (more accurate than much of what is called "postmodern") world. When it comes to my own faith/ worldview, its anchor point is certain C1 historical realities centring on the death, burial and resurrection of one who is God's yardstick of judgement for the world, as is discussed in Ac 17 for one instance.] g --> Reasonable faith as an approach to worldviews is also worth a pause: A claim we accept, A, requires supporting experience, evidence and argument B, which in turn leads to C, D, . . . So, we face an absurd infinite regress [we cannot ever get to the first established truth because as soon as we propose X, we must address Y beyond it, ad infinitum] or else we pause at some F, our set of first plausibles (including of course the vast body of our direct perceptions that we instinctively trust without even thinking about it). Such will include also self-evident truths and axioms chosen as reasonable start points for systems to thought etc. h --> By looking at such worldviews on a comparative difficulties basis, we may each come to a reasonable faith on which is acceptable on balance, knowing that ALL significant worldviews will bristle with difficulties. Such analysis therefore looks for the balance on factual adequacy, coherence [logical and dynamical], and explanatory elegance/ "cleanness" and power [neither an ad hoc patchwork nor simplistic].
So, when we get common sense realism and rationality straight, we can then proceed to fixing the magisterium's imposition of evolutionary materialism on science, and the import of the fact that here are empirically reliable signs of intelligence. Also, since the man sitting in the pews of the churches in Seattle may well be a good American equivalent to the man in the Clapham bus stop, Mr Meyer's outreach to churches as community based organisations is an appropriate move. Going over the heads of the de facto magisterium to the public they have presumed and imposed upon at taxpayer funded expense, in short summary. The lurking radical protestant in me loves it! GEM of TKI PS: In case you are worried [all that agitprop against the real and imagined sins of Christendom that censors out the positive contributions across tech centuries and today is bound to have some impact . . . ], I am a small-c catholic, small-o orthodox, small-e evangelical Christian. (And, if you can name the top ten [real or imagined] sins of Christendom and "fundamentalism" -- this last so much reduced to being a demonising smear word that AP advises against its use -- but cannot find a balancing list of major civilisational contributions, guess what has happened to you at the hands of the dominant elites and their media popularisers . . . ) PPS: Interesting stuff on physics Sal et al. I am not specifically following up on recent experimental tests of these topics -- drinking from a firehose is the metaphor that comes to mind -- but if they turn out to be significant. will look up. Your onward thoughts will be appreciated. PPPS: Diff, repeating already long since adequaely answered questions in a new thread -- here on causal influences on human thoughts -- simply reveals closed-minded objectionism at work, a manifestation of selective hyperskepticism, virulent form. We must all live by the acted out premise that humans can reason decide and act in ways that reveal them to be agents, capable of living above the merely mechanical and stochastic patterns of he physical cosmos, including our own bodies (of which our brains) are a part, on pain of self-referential absurdity. So, while bodily influences are necessary causal factors, we have no non-absurd grounds for reducing mind to body including brain and its neural networks; thus the "hardness" in the so-called hard problem of consciousness -- for evolutionary materialist views. Cf my always linked, Appendix 8, for a more detailed discussion. (And of course there is a lot more out there on the subject, I am just giving a handy note for the man in the Clapham bus stop. For, in the end, he and his friends are collectively our boss -- as more than one ruling elite has found out to its cost, at length when that slow burning fuse hits the powder keg.)kairosfocus_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Vjtorley @ 103:
Diffaxial You ask whether human behaviors are effects. Here’s a fascinating Web site which I think will answer your question: http://www.informationphilosop.....om/cogito/ . Enjoy!
Thanks, VJ. Of course, there are many possible answers to my question. Does that link summarize your view? StephenB: Are human behaviors "effects?" KF: Are human behaviors "effects?" Note I am not asking if human actions are "causes."Diffaxial_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Djmuller wrote
"If anything has discredited the belief in universal god-given rules, it was the 19 devout believers who hijacked four airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. If that wasn’t enough to make a lot of people think twice about religion and morals, having a hyper religious, god-fearing president who was put into office largely by conservative Christians tell us that he had prayed long and hard and that God told him to go ahead with his disastrous war on Iraq certainly gave a lot more people reason to reconsider their beliefs."
Dj there has been plenty, in fact more, radical violent behavior from so called secular, atheistic or agnostic people. Most of the war in the 20th century was the result of secular crusades like those of Stalin, Moa, and other. There are plenty of murders in jail who are atheists. The point is that theism does not correlate with terrorism- what you had on 911 was a radical political fundamentalist Islamic agenda carried out by brainwashed terrorists. The point about Theism is that science is definecent in ceertain respects like ethics, morality, first cause/creation, puirpose etc- and that how one does sceince is infclused by their beleifs and theism is the main form of beleife for most people- so to synthetically make it off limtis compromises sceince. If you want to be an atheist that is your choice but if your view is theistic you should be allowed to use that as motivation for doing good sceince. That's why I would reccoemend private chrich based education for people rasing kids and I support vouchers to ballance out the secular monoply of the edcuation establishment. Secondly my point was that a liberal theological climate makes people not really care about things like ID in regards tot heir faith. Manny modern Christians just say a prayer to Christ and think that is enough- that there is no bigger plan or picture or judgment. ID will benefit from people who take theology seriously, and things like Obama's incident at Notre Dame prove a dieing theological culture especially among the Catholic Vatican 2. So taking theology seriously will help ID as there should be a serious and natural theological interest in seeing evidence of God though his creation.Frost122585_{June 4, 2009
June
06
Jun
4
04
2009
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

I understand what you are saying here, but there is another point to be made. It is essential that a theological case be made for the “unity of truth.” While theistic evolutionists claim to reconcile their faith with their religion, they do nothing of the kind. For them, there are two truths, one for religion and one for science. In order to accommodate their Darwinism, which for them is primary, they must compromise their theology. Thus, many of them trade away basic Christian beliefs.
I agree the TE's belief system seems awfully conflicted. They believe in miracles, the resurrection of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and somehow cannot even entertain the possibility that life could also be a miracle.... However, as a former TE myself, it was not through theology that my views were changed. Neither was this the case for Michael Behe or for many other former TE's including Bill Dembski. I'm a pragmatist. The question at hand is what form of argumentation is most effective: 1. presuppositional 2. evidential As far as I can tell, evidential arguments carry the day. To that end, are there any former TE's at UD that somehow accept ID after realizing their philosophical system was logically inchoherent? The account of Michael Behe renouncing Darwinism after reading Michael Denton seems more representative of how TE's will change their minds.scordova_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

RDK wrote: But to purport that your religion is justified just by the simple fact that mathematics contains unprovable axioms is silly.
I never made that assertion. Ascribing arguments to me which I never made is a quick way to get on my bad side.scordova_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

vjtorley wrote: Sal (#73): Thanks very much for providing a link to the abstract of Frank Tipler’s paper, The Structure of the World from Pure Numbers. A complete version of the paper is available online here .
Wow! Thank you for the link. I didn't know where to find the whole paper! Marvelous! Some quotes from the paper:
Can the structure of physical reality be inferred by a pure mathematician? As Einstein posed it, ‘Did God have any choice when he created the universe?’ Or is mathematics a mere handmaiden to the Queen of the Sciences, physics? Many Greeks, for instance Plato, believed that the world we see around us was a mere shadow, a defective reflection of the true reality, geometry. But the medieval universitywas based on the primacy of the physics of Aristotle over mere mathematics. Galileo, a poor mathematician, had to live on a salary of 520 ducats at the University of Padua, while Cesare Cremonini, the university’s natural philosopher (physicist), had a salary of 2000 ducats (Tipler 1994, pp 372–3). Recently, mathematics has regained some of its primacy as theoretical physicists and mathematicians have struggled to determine if there is a Brane theory picked out by mathematical consistency. I shall investigate the idea that physical reality is pure number in the second section of this paper. I shall point out that quantum mechanics—more precisely the Bekenstein Bound, a relativistic version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle—implies that the complexity of the universe at the present time is finite, and hence the entire universe can be emulated down to the quantum state on a computer. Thus, it would seem that indeed the universe is a mere expression of mathematical reality, more specifically an expression of number theory, and of integers to boot.
and
According to Aristotle, the Pythagoreans devoted themselves to mathematics, they were the first to advance this study, and having been brought up in it they thought its principles were the principles of all things. Since of these principles, numbers are by nature the first, and in numbers they seemed to see many resemblances to the things that exist and come into being—more than in fire and earth andwater (such and such a modification of numbers being justice, another being soul and reason, another being opportunity—and similarly almost all other things being numerically expressible); since, again, they saw that the attributes and the ratios of the musical scales were expressible in numbers; since, then, all other things seemed in their whole nature to be modeled after numbers, and the numbers seemed to be the first things in the whole of nature, they supposed the elements of numbers to be the elements of all things, and the whole heaven to be a musical scale and a number. And all the properties of numbers and scales which they could show to agree with the attributes and parts and the whole arrangement of the heavens, they collected and fitted into their scheme; and if there was a gap anywhere, they readily made additions so as to make their whole theory coherent. (Metaphysics A5, 985b, 24–33, 986a, 1–7 (Barnes 1984), p 1559.) This ideal of the primacy of number is what I wish to develop in this section. As we shall see, by ‘number’ the Greeks probably meant ‘real number’ and not ‘natural number’ (positive integer), but in this section I shall follow modern (post-18th century) opinion and assume that ‘number’ means ‘integer’. The physical evidence that integers are fundamental comes from quantum mechanics. James Clerk Maxwell, in a little known article for Encyclopedia Britannica, was the first to state that energy of certain systems was quantized; that is, the energy of these systems could not be a continuous variable, but instead would have to be discrete. In the system analysed by Maxwell, the system energy could have only two possible values (see Tipler 1994, pp 230–1 for a discussion of Maxwell’s discovery of quantized energy). Max Planck in 1900 and Albert Einstein in 1905 established that the energy of the electromagnetic field was quantized.
Thank you!scordova_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

Sal (#73): Thanks very much for providing a link to the abstract of Frank Tipler's paper, The Structure of the World from Pure Numbers. A complete version of the paper is available online here . I would be very interested to know if the simple experiments proposed by Tipler on pages 950-958 (to test his hypothesis regarding the cosmic microwave background radiation) have in fact been performed. KairosFocus, have you heard any news on this score? While looking at Tipler's Wikipedia biography, I also stumbled across a very interesting article by him on the fact-value distinction. The title of the article is: The Value/Fact Distinction: Coase's Theorem Unifies Normative and Positive Economics. To say that it is bold and refreshingly original would be an understatement. It is a pleasure to read, whatever your philosophical perspective. It can be downloaded in its entirety at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959855 . Diffaxial You ask whether human behaviors are effects. Here's a fascinating Web site which I think will answer your question: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/cogito/ . Enjoy!vjtorley_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply