Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Religious fervor or mental illness: SciAM guest blogger wonders how to tell

Categories
Mind
Naturalism
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From physician Nathaniel P. Morris at Scientific American:

Take an example of a man who walks into an emergency department, mumbling incoherently. He says he’s hearing voices in his head, but insists there’s nothing wrong with him. He hasn’t used any drugs or alcohol. If he were to be evaluated by mental health professionals, there’s a good chance he might be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder like schizophrenia.

But what if that same man were deeply religious? What if his incomprehensible language was speaking in tongues? If he could hear Jesus speaking to him? He might also insist nothing were wrong with him. After all, he’s practicing his faith.

It’s not just the ambiguities of mental health diagnoses that create this problem—the vague nature of how we define religion further complicates matters. More.

Actually it is quite easy to tell: The outcome in the person’s life. Persons who have had near-death experiences, for example, tend to focus more on relationships and less on acquisitions. While it is not possible to tell from the outside what exactly happened, a change that cannot be attributed to mental illness becomes evident. Consider the case of philosopher A. J. Ayers:

“Freddie became so much nicer after he died,” said Dee. “He was not nearly so boastful. He took an interest in other people.” Ayer also told the writer Edward St. Aubyn in France that he had had “a kind of resurrection” and for the first time in his life, he had begun to notice scenery. In France, on a mountain near his villa, he said, “I suddenly stopped and looked out at the sea and thought, my God, how beautiful this is … for 26 years I had never really looked at it before.”

What is also undeniably true — and has never been reported on — is that at the end of his life, Freddie spent more and more time with his former BBC debating opponent, the Jesuit priest and philosopher Frederick Copleston, who was at Freddie’s funeral at Golders Green crematorium.More.

See also: Templeton sets out to find the afterlife for $5 million

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Origenes,
Then how do you arrive at the “provisional conclusion that atheism is true”? How do you get from e.g. ‘I don’t find the fine-tuning argument convincing’ to ‘therefore atheism is probably true’. What is the line of reasoning here? Why don’t you arrive at “I don’t know”?
Similarly to the way I provisionally conclude that aliens have not visited Earth. If aliens were here, presumably there would be strong evidence for this, correct? Cameras are everywhere. NORAD monitors the airspace over a large portion of the globe. Granted, we could be in the presence of aliens who are very good at concealing themselves, in which case I would be wrong. However, alleged alien sightings involve exotic ships, clearly nonhuman Grays, rather unpleasant "probes", etc. In response to the question of alien visitation, do you just say "I don't know", or do you believe they likely haven't happened? The God I am talking about (primarily the Christian one), is a being who rather obviously exists, according to my Christian friends. I am told one can have a personal relationship with and actually feel the presence of this God. This God performs miracles and sends angels to assist those in need. On the flip side, The Evil One and demons also (rather obviously) exist, and some say they have witnessed these demons personally during exorcisms. (I would count evidence for such evil beings as an indication that God exists as well). I believe this God should be fairly easily "detectable" to the common man, especially since one's salvation rests on just this. There should be clear evidence that doesn't require a PhD in philosophy, biology, or physics to understand, but I haven't found such (my subjective judgement). Again, I could be wrong---I could be deluded, perhaps our God prefers to keep a low profile, and so on, but I'm only claiming a provisional conclusion.daveS
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
daveS: I don’t have pro-atheism evidence.
Then how do you arrive at the "provisional conclusion that atheism is true"? How do you get from e.g. 'I don't find the fine-tuning argument convincing' to 'therefore atheism is probably true'. What is the line of reasoning here? Why don't you arrive at "I don't know"?Origenes
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Origenes,
Okay, but after weighing the evidence for both sides — theism and atheism — you lean towards atheism. Now, again, what is this evidence which supports atheism?
I don't have pro-atheism evidence. Like you, I don't know what that would consist of. What would evidence in favor of the lack of alien visitation to Earth look like? I don't know. Rather, I have considered pro-theism evidence/arguments and have not found them persuasive. Just as I have not found evidence for alien visitation to be persuasive.daveS
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
JAD,
What is the difference in the way we believe the basic claims of theism vs. naturalism? I don’t see any. So the battle of world views, in my opinion, is not really faith vs. reason, as many if not most modern atheists would have us believe; it’s a battle of faith vs. faith: faith in the infinite (God) vs. faith in the finite (man). Anyone who understands that understands that man cannot possibly win.
I don't know if I'm following your point here, but I might agree with the first sentence quoted above. I have a pastor friend who is a YEC. Even though I am a lifelong atheist, I don't think we really have fundamentally different "worldviews" in that we both approach questions in the same common-sense way. I suppose both of us must exercise some amount of faith simply in assuming that we aren't in a sort of Matrix simulation and that we exist in a (somewhat) intelligible universe. But in sermons, I remember him talking about reason more than about faith. Of course he has come to different conclusions regarding the existence of God, but I understand the logic behind his arguments.daveS
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
daveS: The evidence I’m speaking of purports be in favor of theism, but I haven’t found any that I find convincing.
Okay, but after weighing the evidence for both sides — theism and atheism — you lean towards atheism. Now, again, what is this evidence which supports atheism?Origenes
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Origenes, Yes, I should probably amend or at least clarify that. The evidence I'm speaking of purports be in favor of theism, but I haven't found any that I find convincing. Just like I haven't found convincing evidence for alien visitation of Earth. Perhaps I should just leave it at that? I have yet to find a compelling (IMHO) reason to believe a God exists. JAD: I'll have to think a little longer about your post #30 before responding.daveS
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
daveS: Based on the evidence I’ve seen, my provisional conclusion is that atheism is true.
What evidence might that be? Honestly, I cannot come up with any evidence in support of atheism.Origenes
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
DaveS @ 26, Faith can be defined a number of different ways, however, when it comes to basic world view assumptions I would argue that faith means exactly the same thing for theists and non-theists alike. A few years ago in 2013 I had this brief exchange on-line with someone who identified himself as David P. He asked me if I would consider a world view that actively disagreed with my current Christian world view. Since David had already identified his own world view as naturalism, I told him that if he could prove to me “that naturalism was true, I would.” He replied, “If that is your condition, you are essentially saying “no”, because naturalism cannot be proven.” I responded by asking him, “So, on what basis are you warranted in believing in it?” That question prompted the following dialogue:
David wrote: “Believing that naturalism cannot be proven? Because we can only perceive a tiny part of the entire system. We may one day be able to formulate naturalistic theories that explain beautifully all that we perceive, but we cannot prove that that is all there is.” I asked: “So then, you accept naturalism by faith… Correct?” David replied: “I accept naturalism as a working assumption because of the evidence that it helps drive us to understand reality in a way that allows us to make increasingly better predictions. Also, the evidence that so many phenomena attributed to supernatural causes have turned out to have natural causes” .
Notice how David smuggled faith into his world view without calling it that. What I mean is that he was actually acting on the biblical definition of faith and he doesn’t even realize it. Let me prove it to you. Hebrews 11:3 says: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Someone committed, like David, to naturalism is actually just modifying the verse so that it reads: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed [by some kind of mindless natural process], so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” What is the difference in the way we believe the basic claims of theism vs. naturalism? I don’t see any. So the battle of world views, in my opinion, is not really faith vs. reason, as many if not most modern atheists would have us believe; it’s a battle of faith vs. faith: faith in the infinite (God) vs. faith in the finite (man). Anyone who understands that understands that man cannot possibly win.john_a_designer
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
rvb
Prayer is an unusual thought process if you think about it. You are talking to a disembodied entity that never replies, and will never reply ...
Why do you think God never replies and will never reply?Silver Asiatic
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
asauber,
DaveS, then you aren’t an atheist. You are agnostic.
Well, my position is often referred to as "weak atheism" or "agnostic atheism", so it's not uncommon to label it as a variety of atheism. But again, I don't really care what label we use, provided we are clear on definitions.daveS
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
"my provisional conclusion" DaveS, then you aren't an atheist. You are agnostic. Your "atheism" is a jump to a conclusion, despite your being fully aware you possess very little reliable information relative to the big, big universe. Andrewasauber
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
JAD,
Can you prove to me that atheism is true?
Certainly not. I think that would be impossible. In fact there are very few propositions concerning "real life" (as opposed to things such as mathematical statements) that I believe one can prove.
If you can’t then that means you must accept atheism to be true on the basis of faith. That is rather absurd position for an atheist to take, isn’t it? I thought atheists rejected faith.
Based on the evidence I've seen, my provisional conclusion is that atheism is true. In much the same way, I provisionally conclude that aliens have not visited the Earth. Of course either of those conclusions could be overturned at any time. I don't normally choose to say that my position on aliens visiting the Earth (or atheism) is a matter of faith, just because it doesn't sound to me like the "faith" that is discussed in a religious context. I'm not averse to using the word, however, as long as we're clear on the meaning.daveS
January 7, 2017
January
01
Jan
7
07
2017
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Origenes, Good points. However, to keep things simple, I think the main problems with Rosenberg’s atheistic naturalism are epistemological. In his 2013 debate with Rosenberg, William Lane Craig argued that the philosophical naturalism that Rosenberg espouses does not provide a sufficient grounding, or foundation, for truth or knowledge. 1. It is a false theory of knowledge for two reasons.
a. First, it is overly restrictive. There are truths that cannot be proven by natural science and the success of natural science in discovering truths about the physical world does nothing to show that it is the only source of knowledge and truth. b. Secondly, it is self-refuting. The statement “natural science is the only source of knowledge” is not, itself, a scientific statement and therefore it cannot be true. For these two reasons, epistemological naturalism is a false theory of knowledge that is widely rejected by philosophers. But leave that point aside. The really important point for tonight’s debate is the second:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/debate-transcript-is-faith-in-god-reasonable#section_2 Then Craig offers a refutation of Rosenberg’s “argument from truth:”
1. According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then there are no true sentences. That is because they are all meaningless. 2. But, premise (1) is true. That is what the naturalist believes and asserts. 3. Therefore, naturalism is not true.
In other words, an atheist can only make ungrounded assertions about truth, knowledge and meaning. He cannot say anything meaningful about them. If he were truly honest with himself he would say nothing about these things. That is what Wittgenstein appeared to conclude. He said in Tractatus, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Indeed, on atheism, or atheistic naturalism/materialism, I don’t see how you can conclude or say anything about anything. DaveS, Can you prove to me that atheism is true? If you can’t then that means you must accept atheism to be true on the basis of faith. That is rather absurd position for an atheist to take, isn’t it? I thought atheists rejected faith. The point made in the OP is that atheists view religious people, including Christians like me, as deluded-- indeed, according to Richard Dawkins, they are even dangerous. That is what I am addressing here on this thread. I am not claiming that atheists are incapable of showing resilience-- I believe many of them do. show resilience. But let’s be honest, whatever hope they have it is only for this world because there is nothing else.john_a_designer
January 6, 2017
January
01
Jan
6
06
2017
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
Prayer is an unusual thought process if you think about it. You are talking to a disembodied entity that never replies, and will never reply, and you do this to the 'one true God', which ever flavour you prefer. Now, as a child I had an imaginary friend, but I grew out of him. The analogy that a praying person is sane, and a person talking incoherently to thin air is insane, is apt, and reversable.rvb8
January 6, 2017
January
01
Jan
6
06
2017
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
JAD,
Atheists would say that there is nothing to faith. So how would they suggest that we respond to suffering?
First, I hope everything's ok for you healthwise now. The question you raise is a big one, which I can't hope to fully answer. But I have observed that my response to suffering is similar in some ways to theists'. I don't believe there is a deity listening to my prayers, but I can draw on past experience. I know that humans are resilient and suffering (mental, at least) subsides. Reaching out to others helps. Self-care sometimes goes by the wayside in difficult times, which makes it especially important to pay close attention to one's mental and/or physical health. All very basic stuff of course, but I don't think atheists and theists are that far apart on this issue.daveS
January 6, 2017
January
01
Jan
6
06
2017
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
John_a_designer @20, 21, thank you.
John_a_designer: Atheists would say that there is nothing to faith. So how would they suggest that we respond to suffering?
The atheist may suggest something like this:
There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. [Ch. 10]
As in, “you have to understand that there is no one who suffers”? Yes …
The self, the person, the “I” inside the body is an illusion, along with all those others. That means that even if there is a loophole in Epicurus’s argument that death is something you shouldn’t worry about, science still backs him up: there isn’t really any “you” or “me” or “him” or “her” to worry about death, post-death harm, boringly endless post-death existence, or anything else. [Ch. 12]
And then there is Prozac:
As with a justification for core morality, when it comes to making life meaningful, what secular humanists hanker after is something they can’t have and don’t need. What they do need, if meaninglessness makes it impossible to get out of bed in the morning, is Prozac. … o, what should we scientistic folks do when overcome by Weltschmertz (world-weariness)? Take two of whatever neuropharmacology prescribes. If you don’t feel better in the morning . . . or three weeks from now, switch to another one. Three weeks is often how long it takes serotonin reuptake suppression drugs like Prozac, Wellbutrin, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, or Luvox to kick in. And if one doesn’t work, another one probably will. … If you still can’t sleep at night, even after accepting science’s answers to the persistent questions, you probably just need one more little thing besides Epicurean detachment. Take a Prozac or your favorite serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and keep taking them till they kick in. [Ch.12]
[Source: Rosenberg, ‘The Atheist Guide To Reality’]Origenes
January 6, 2017
January
01
Jan
6
06
2017
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
I mentioned above that I am a cancer survivor. Here briefly is what happened to me. In the summer of 2014 after having been sick on and off for a couple weeks with nausea, abdominal pain and then severe bloating, I found myself in crisis, so I called EMS who transported me to my local hospital’s emergency room… After evaluation I was rushed into surgery… When I woke up the next day in the ICU my surgeon told me that a cancerous tumor had created a blockage which caused my colon to rupture. Along with the tumor he had to remove 2/3 of my colon. He also told me that he had performed a colostomy and that going forward I would have to use a colostomy bag. After a ten day stay in the hospital I was sent to a nursing home for another few weeks to recover… After that there was six months of chemo therapy. I had never been sick like that in my life, indeed, I had been extraordinarily healthy and had led an active and vigorous life style-- lap swimming, hiking, mountaineering, and scuba diving to name a few things. Now everything had changed. Of course, I felt deeply depressed but paradoxically I also found myself reconnecting with my faith (not to suggest that I ever lost it.) Some skeptics argue that faith is just wishful thinking. But there was nothing wishful about it for me during that time. Faith was the only thing I had to grab hold of. It was that or nothing. Other skeptics say that faith is just a crutch. Well sometimes you need a crutch. Story’s like Anna’s which I related above @ #18 & 20 are inspiring but they can also be misleading. Faith is not about just miracles-- though on rare occasions it is. Faith, among other things, is how we confront suffering in our lives. Clearly that is what is being taught in the Book of Job. There are no miracles in Job. Job’s faith is born out through his endurance and personal integrity in the face death (of his children), disaster and disease. Even in his darkest hour Job did not give up. He never stopped believing in God. He never gave up hope. Atheists would say that there is nothing to faith. So how would they suggest that we respond to suffering?john_a_designer
January 6, 2017
January
01
Jan
6
06
2017
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Thankyou TWSYF, A few more comments about the movie, Miracles from Heaven-- some critical ones. One of the things these docudrama movies always do is take some “dramatic license.” Sometimes this is justified, sometimes it is not. For example, the real life Anna suffered for fours and half years before she was cured. However this would have been impossible in a two hour movie with a tight time schedule. Could Kylie Rogers have played a five year old then a nine year old? So, the “time compression” IMO is justified. On the other hand, the movie portrays Anna’s mom Christy flying herself and her daughter up to Boston to see a specialist without an appointment. According to History vs. Hollywood that never happened. In my opinion the movie was dramatic enough, I don’t see why being inaccurate here was necessary. When portraying real life events I think you should strive to be as accurate as possible. http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/miracles-from-heaven/ However, I do think the fictional subplot where Anna shares her hospital room with a girl named Haley who is cancer patient is justified. The two quickly become friends. Haley asks Anna if she afraid to die and that begins a discussion about faith. However, Haley’s dad Ben learns about the conversation and confronts Anna’s mom about it. A skeptic, he tells her that he would prefer that Anna keep her religious beliefs to herself. (“We don’t believe that way.”) Of course this raises an important question. Anna learns at the end of the movie after she has been healed that Haley has died. Is this fair? And, what about all the other suffering children in the world? In other words, if God is really all powerful and loving why doesn’t he heal all of them? That is a difficult question and there are no easy answers. In my opinion miracles are not about being fair. They are signs which God uses to reveal His power and His mercy. Maybe that won’t satisfy everyone, but as a cancer survivor who is still in danger of a recurrence, I found the movie to be very encouraging and reassuring. It strengthened my faith. Let’s be honest, all of us are terminal. Yes, they needed to confront that question. I think they did so very artfully and very honestly. But maybe I am wrong. What do other people think?john_a_designer
January 4, 2017
January
01
Jan
4
04
2017
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
JAD @ 18: Thank you for sharing that very important and powerful information. I often tell atheists, especially the aggressive, hostile type, that they should be thankful some of us believe in what they call a "delusion." I have been restrained many times by a gentle whisper in my head repeating these words: "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." (Romans 12:19) That gentle voice has saved many people, including myself, from very ugly and violent endings.Truth Will Set You Free
January 4, 2017
January
01
Jan
4
04
2017
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Here is another quote from the article linked to in the OP:
Some have gone so far as to argue religion may actually be a form of mental illness. In 2006, biologist Richard Dawkins published his book The God Delusion, in which he characterizes belief in God as delusional. Dawkins cites the definition of a delusion as “a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder.”
Consider the following story reported by the UK’s Daily Mail on March 21, 2016:
It is a moment Christy Beam will never forget – the darkest of the dark. She was sitting by her nine-year-old daughter Annabel's hospital bed when the little girl turned to her and said: 'Mommy I just want to die. And I want to go to heaven and live with Jesus where there's no more pain.' After four and a half years of chronic, progressive, incurable illness - of hospital stays, procedures, myriad medications and unending pain - both mother and daughter had reached their limit. Annabel had stopped fighting. Christy had nothing left to give. 'However much my faith had been tested and I'd questioned Him,' she says, 'At that point I just turned it over to God.' They needed a miracle. One week later, on December 30, 2011, they got one. That was the day when Annabel fell 30 feet into a hollow tree and emerged physically unscathed, cured of the 'incurable' illness that had plagued her…
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3502738/Mommy-just-want-die-little-girl-story-told-Miracles-Heaven-just-wanted-suffering-end-days-later-miraculously-cured-Jesus-fell-hollow-tree.html#ixzz4UmxOrqP5 Here’s a little bit more detail. Anna, as she prefers to be called, had with her older sister climbed up into a large old cottonwood tree whose trunk, unbeknownst to them, had rotted out. The branch they were sitting on had started to break and Ana jumped into a large hole, again not realizing the whole tree trunk had rotted out, and fell 30 feet inside the tree all the way to the bottom. There was no way out except the hole near top. It took several hours for the rescue team from the local fire dept. to get her out. Fortunately she was not seriously injured. Afterwards her doctor was able to ween her off her medicines and conclude that she was asymptomatic… Eventually he was able to release her from his care. So are her parents and friends deluded for believing that Anna had been miraculously healed? As the U.K. article reports Anna’s stranger-than-fiction story has been made into a movie starring Jennifer Garner as Anna's mom. Here’s the trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se8f_y1iAYo I have to give five stars to Kylie Rogers, the young actress who plays Anna. I cringed watching her re-enacting the pain Anna went through in real life. It was that convincing. As matter of fact in one of the interviews that I saw the director said that she and her producer had discussed cutting one of the scenes-- it was that horrific. (This is after all billed as a family film.) As mentioned in the article, Anna also claims that while she was in the tree she had an out-of-the-body experience. The movie does a great job recreating that experience. Here is a brief clip. It is beautiful, peaceful and awe inspiring as well as mystical-- another five stars! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ttnHQ8uP7A So was Anna just hallucinating? If your world view is some form of naturalistic reductionism I guess that is the only explanation you really have. And therefore, the miraculous survival from the fall, and the cure afterwards from an incurable disease, was all just coincidence and Ana’s parents are morally wrong for filling her head with this kind of religious nonsense in the first place.john_a_designer
January 4, 2017
January
01
Jan
4
04
2017
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
P^4S: In case some imagine the Rational Wiki clip just above is idiosyncratic, we may note the US National Science Teachers' Association [NSTA] in a notorious July 2000 Board declaration:
The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [--> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD's weak argument correctives 17 - 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.
It is entirely fair and well warranted comment to say that his is indoctrination in evolutionary materialism under false colours of education, and too often backed up by state power.kairosfocus
January 3, 2017
January
01
Jan
3
03
2017
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
PPPS: Philip Johnson's on-target reply November that year:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses."
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
kairosfocus
January 3, 2017
January
01
Jan
3
03
2017
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT
PPS: Lewontin inadvertently confirms, Jan 1997:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus
January 3, 2017
January
01
Jan
3
03
2017
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
PS: Plato warns, in The Laws, c 360 BC:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus
January 3, 2017
January
01
Jan
3
03
2017
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
Seversky: I think I need to point to J B S Haldane, turn of the 1930's -- yes THAT J B S Haldane:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
Nancy Pearcey, in Finding Truth recently expands:
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.]
This is NOT a strawman tactic, and you should be ashamed of your projection and glib turnabout tactics. There is a very serious problem on the table for Evolutionary Materialistic Scientism, and it has been on record in fact since Darwin inconsistently tries to doubt the musings of a Monkey's jumped up mind only when it was tempted to doubt the whole edifice. Beyond, from 2350 years ago, lies the warning from Plato. KFkairosfocus
January 3, 2017
January
01
Jan
3
03
2017
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
Dean_from_Ohio @ 10
The scientific revolution is a gift of the Judeo-Christian world view and none other.
No one is denying that science in Europe was fostered by religious institutions for a period or that most, if not all, of the great scientists of those times were believers to some extent. But if, as a Christian, you actually value truth above all things, then neither can you deny that, at various times, science has flourished in ancient China, India, Egypt, Greece and under Islam, all without the alleged benefits of the "Judeo-Christian world view"
Truth over narrative, please.
Exactly, even over the Judeo-Christian narrative.Seversky
January 3, 2017
January
01
Jan
3
03
2017
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
Origenes @ 7
According to materialism, the answer to your question is “yes of course”.
That might be the answer to your strawmandered version of materialism but not to anyone who's given it a moments thought.
Seversky: And atheist/materialists are just as well aware of that as you are.
No they are not. And you are well aware of the fact that they are not. Do you want the quotations that prove you wrong?
Go ahead. Surprise me.
Seversky: Do we have a step-by-step a/mat account of how a human being can be built from water and chemicals?
Irrelevant. Materialism is an incoherent belief. The fact that it cannot be proved to be correct is irrelevant.
The old version of materialism was shown to be inadequate by quantum theory. Which means it was a scientific claim, not metaphysics, according to naïve falsificationism.Seversky
January 3, 2017
January
01
Jan
3
03
2017
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Materialism is a faith-based philosophical worldview/secular religion relying on "Darwin of the Gaps" to create the illusion of scientific plausibility. It is just an opinion, nothing more.Truth Will Set You Free
January 2, 2017
January
01
Jan
2
02
2017
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Sev
Do we have a step-by-step a/mat account of how a human being can be built from water and chemicals? No, we don’t and neither does anyone else, least of all believers.
That is an honest (and striking) admission. The key term there is "can be". That is, the a/mat account does not even know if it is possible. And yet, it is claimed as the default explanation. The second sentence is true also: believers do not have an a/mat account of how a human being can be built from water and chemicals either. Nobody does. But believers do have an account of how a human being "can be built" by an intelligent, transcendent power that can confer being from its own actuality. We do not know the mechanics of such an events, but we can know philosophically that it is possible. That power could be God directly, or it could be from creatures created by God (angels), or it could be sourced from alien beings. So all of those are possible, but they all refute the a/mat story that we are built entirely from unintelligent bosons and fermions (which is the a/mat story, nothing more).Silver Asiatic
January 2, 2017
January
01
Jan
2
02
2017
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Seversky: Yes, at one level human beings can be described as just bags of water and chemicals or, at another level, collections of fermions and bosons. Does that mean that is all they are? No, of course not.
According to materialism, the answer to your question is "yes of course".
Seversky: And atheist/materialists are just as well aware of that as you are.
No they are not. And you are well aware of the fact that they are not. Do you want the quotations that prove you wrong?
Seversky: Do we have a step-by-step a/mat account of how a human being can be built from water and chemicals?
Irrelevant. Materialism is an incoherent belief. The fact that it cannot be proved to be correct is irrelevant.Origenes
January 2, 2017
January
01
Jan
2
02
2017
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply