Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Thought that Stops Thought

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Eric Hedin writes:

Do we believe that rational thought is possible?

We may at times reason badly, but we do not thereby mistrust the existence or efficacy of reason.

www.dreamstime.com

There are those, however, who do dismiss reason. “There is a thought that stops thought,” wrote G. K. Chesterton.[i] It’s the idea that there is no fundamental basis for reason. Such a self-destructive thought is aided and abetted by thinking nature is all that there is. If nature is only particles in the void obeying mindless regularities, where in that scenario is there any room for rational inquiry?

The atheist rejects faith in God and holds that reality is limited to objective scientific reasoning within the constraints of the laws of nature and the material universe.

Perhaps not all who call themselves atheists are consistent atheists, but a consistent atheist would necessarily adhere to the view that the thoughts in his brain are only the result of interactions between charged particles governed by the laws of physics.

G. K. Chesterton wrote, “It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.”[ii] Thought itself requires a separateness from the mechanism of thinking. If naturalism is true, then our thoughts are not real in themselves; they are only random physical states of the molecules which make up the neurons of our brains. With such an assumption, we could not think. Our thoughts would only be interactions following the laws of nature, unguided by anything higher than the forces between atoms.

What becomes, then of “you”? Naturalism allows no identity of the individual beyond the probabilistic output of the three pound collection of atoms between our ears. “You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought,” Chesterton continued. “Descartes said, ‘I think; therefore I am.’ The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, ‘I am not; therefore I cannot think.’”[iii]

Our minds, however, are unnatural in at least one important sense: they have the ability not only to comprehend nature, but also to transform nature’s elements into objects and machines that would never assemble themselves in that way. This fact is underscored by the common distinction between natural and artificial, between nature and artifice.

Years ago, I read something that brings the claims of naturalism into a stark light: Naturalism insists that hydrogen gas, given enough time, will turn into people. And since people make the technological marvels of our culture, we can extend this claim of naturalism to say that hydrogen gas, given enough time, will turn into cars, computers, and cathedrals. That’s one explanation on the table. The question is whether we are willing to consider another possibility, that mind is as much behind our finely tuned, unfolding universe as it is behind cars, computers, and cathedrals—the possibility, as C.S. Lewis put it, that “human thought is… God-kindled.”[iv] If so, then reason has a foundation far better than hydrogen gas, far better than particles in the void.


[i] G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Hollywood, FL: Simon & Brown, 1908, 2010), 28.

[ii] Chesterton, Orthodoxy (2010), 28.

[iii] Chesterton, Orthodoxy (2010), 29.

[iv] C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: Harper Collins, 1947, 2001), 44.

Excerpted and adapted from Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See, by Eric Hedin (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2021), ch. 11.

Comments
1. If naturalism is true, then all our actions and thoughts are consequences of events and laws of nature in the remote past before we were born. 2. We have no control over circumstances that existed in the remote past before we were born, nor do we have any control over the laws of nature. 3. If A causes B, and we have no control over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B. Therefore 4. If naturalism is true, then we have no control over our own thoughts and actions. Therefore, assuming that rationality requires control, 5. If naturalism is true, we are not rational.Origenes
December 4, 2022
December
12
Dec
4
04
2022
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
PM1 @70
We can (to some extent) control what we say and do.
Indeed.
But very often, at least this is my experience, thoughts and feelings arise and disappear with little guidance.
Sometimes we loosen our control over our thoughts and engage in daydreaming.
I can deliberately set myself to solving some problem …
This is important. When necessary, we strengthen our grip, our focus. 13 x 67 = ? Perhaps one can say that we (even) control the extent to which we control our thoughts.
… but the ideas that get generated in the ‘brainstorming’ process must themselves be examined, tested, explored, etc. Sometimes the ideas work out, and sometimes they don’t.
True. Note that, also here, one can, at will, intensify one’s focus/control in order to get to a thorough examination of a particular brainstorm-idea.
At any rate I don’t experience myself as being the creator of all the ideas that I come up with — sometimes they really do seem to come ‘out of nowhere’: inspiration, creativity, sudden epiphanies are real phenomena (at least in my experience), and I’m trying to describe the experience of thinking.
All this is true. And there is definitely something mysterious about ‘thinking’. I have often wondered how it is possible for us to engage in impromptu speaking; to spontaneously form sentences. Why is it not necessary for us to carefully arrange each word one by one in a painstakingly slow process? Somehow, when we talk (and think), we are being assisted by a mysterious process that speeds things up dramatically. However, for me it is clear as day that I am in control when I speak or write. So, this mysterious assistance is an aspect of me and certainly not another person. I say exactly what I want to say. And when a word comes up which is out of tune with my intent (when the ‘assistance’ fails, so to speak) I immediately notice that something is off and look for a better term.
So the question, “do we control our thoughts?” does not seem to be the right kind of question to ask, if what we’re trying to do is explain the nature of human rationality.
Here we completely disagree. Without control over one’s thoughts, one cannot be rational. If something other than you is in control over “your” thoughts, it’s game over, then you are disconnected from “your” thoughts; from rationality. It is that simple.Origenes
December 3, 2022
December
12
Dec
3
03
2022
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
@67
So, according to you, a rational person does not control what he says or does, but, nevertheless, he is responsible for what he does not control.
I never asserted that we are not in control of our thoughts. I said that I don't know what "being in control of one's thoughts" means, and quite frankly I have reservations about the concept of control here. We can (to some extent) control what we say and do. But very often, at least this is my experience, thoughts and feelings arise and disappear with little guidance. I can deliberately set myself to solving some problem, but the ideas that get generated in the 'brainstorming' process must themselves be examined, tested, explored, etc. Sometimes the ideas work out, and sometimes they don't. At any rate I don't experience myself as being the creator of all the ideas that I come up with -- sometimes they really do seem to come 'out of nowhere': inspiration, creativity, sudden epiphanies are real phenomena (at least in my experience), and I'm trying to describe the experience of thinking. Feelings, emotions, and moods are quite different, in large part because here we're dealing with the less-than-rational dimension of subjective mental life. Consider all the times that we get suddenly angry with someone for no discernible reason, only to realize much later that the anger was not directed at them but because of some association between how they acted in that moment and how one was treated by an older sibling many years ago. (There are many cases like this that one could vary with respect to the moods involved and the kinds of underlying unresolved issues of childhood and upbringing that are entangled with those moods.) So the question, "do we control our thoughts?" does not seem to be the right kind of question to ask, if what we're trying to do is explain the nature of human rationality.PyrrhoManiac1
December 3, 2022
December
12
Dec
3
03
2022
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
I really don’t want to read the rest of your answer, because this is already too much for me to take in.
lol indeed. I thought the prosecution was always careful not to pose questions to which they did not know the answer.Alan Fox
December 3, 2022
December
12
Dec
3
03
2022
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
. lolUpright BiPed
December 2, 2022
December
12
Dec
2
02
2022
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1 @
Origenes: 1. Does rationality require a person who is in control of his thoughts?
No, I don’t think so.
Utterly baffling. I should probably stop reading right here.
I think that rationality requires a person who is responsible for what they say and for what they do.
So, according to you, a rational person does not control what he says or does, but, nevertheless, he is responsible for what he does not control. - - - - - - Ok. I have tried, but I really don’t want to read the rest of your answer, because this is already too much for me to take in. So, this is where our discussion ends. Have a good day sir.Origenes
December 2, 2022
December
12
Dec
2
02
2022
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
@65
1. Does rationality require a person who is in control of his thoughts?
No, I don't think so. I think that rationality requires a person who is responsible for what they say and for what they do. This involves acknowledging that what they say and do is governed by rules, both epistemic and ethical. And this also requires the ability to recognize when they have violated those rules and to make amends. It also requires the ability to recognize when others have violated those rules and to tell them to make amends. I think of this as being different from "being in control of one's thoughts", although certainly anyone who has been socialized as a rational being will have some capacity of self-regulation. This involves noticing which thoughts and feelings are appropriate to the situation and which are not, and how to express them in ways that are healthy and respectful. For example, one can notice that a thought is not grounded in the reality of a situation but driven by fear or anger, and thereby refrain from acting on the basis of that thought. I don't know if that's what you mean by "being in control of one's thoughts," but that's what I think rationality involves.
2. Do you agree that, under naturalism, all events are caused by laws of physics and can be traced back to events long before we were born?
No, I wouldn't say this at all. Firstly, the laws of physics are descriptions of causal powers and not themselves causal powers, so laws of physics can't cause anything. Secondly, naturalism entails rejecting anything that violates the laws of fundamental physics. But that's all. More specifically, it says that nothing can happen that would violate the laws of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and/or general relativity. I don't think that knowing all the laws of fundamental physics would allow us to determine everything that could happen in the universe. That's part of the point of emergentism: genuine unpredictable novelties can occur because the space of possibilities cannot be prestated in advance.
3. Do you agree that we neither control laws of physics nor events long before we were born?
Yes, but given my answers to (1) and (2), this is not quite the "gotcha!" that you were hoping for. I don't see how there would be any violation of the laws of fundamental physics in the idea that people (for the most part) can and should be held responsible for what they say and do, and can and should hold themselves responsible for what they say and do.PyrrhoManiac1
December 2, 2022
December
12
Dec
2
02
2022
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Questions for PyrrhoManiac1 1. Does rationality require a person who is in control of his thoughts? 2. Do you agree that, under naturalism, all events are caused by laws of physics and can be traced back to events long before we were born? 3. Do you agree that we neither control laws of physics nor events long before we were born?Origenes
December 2, 2022
December
12
Dec
2
02
2022
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
We would need to distinguish between some closely related questions if we are to avoid hopeless confusion.
Confusion about what? 1. Yes 2. No. In particular physical laws cannot be explained. 3. Emergence of what? 4. No, as I have argued. 5. No, as I have argued, starting with mindless particles, one can, at a very maximum, get to the illusion of rationality.Origenes
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
@62
No the reasonable answer is no to most.
Well, at least we've identified what the issue is. Progress?PyrrhoManiac1
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
No, the reasonable answer is no to most. Definitely 1 is yes but 2, 4 and 5 are no. Whatever emergence that happens in 3 is trivial for life. For example, water is amazing but has nothing to do with OOL. So is this a no? I believe it would count as a no. Minds are the only explanation for any emergence at all including water. Some creator made the laws that led to water. If one wants to keep talking about emergence, they should provide meaningful examples. They should be reproducible.jerry
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
@60
Naturalism attempts to have mindless particles in the void obeying mindless regularities to perform behavior as if it is informed by rationality, without that being actually the case. IOW it wants irrational particles to mimic rational behavior – to create the illusion of rationality. It wants mindless particles to perform a behavior that is, from the outside, indistinguishable from behavior that would stem from an embodied person who is factually rational.
We would need to distinguish between some closely related questions if we are to avoid hopeless confusion. 1. Can we be reasonably assured that the physical universe, considered independently of all finite minds, has any causal and modal structure at all? 2. Can metaphysical naturalism explain why the physical universe has any detectable causal and modal structure at all? 3. Does the causal and modal structure of the physical universe allow for emergence? 4. Does the causal and modal structure of the physical universe allow for the kind of emergence that would be necessary for the emergence of real teleology in the absence of supernatural intervention? 5. Do the natural sciences (biology, psychology) give us sufficient detail that one can construct a rough-grained account from the emergence of life to the evolution of mindedness, intentionality, and rule-governed rational thought and conduct? To these questions, I think "yes" is a reasonable answer to all of them except for (2). But, I don't think that it's coherent to explain the causal and modal structure of the universe in terms of supernatural origins, either. I think that this is one of those points at which the principle of sufficient reason hits a brick wall: we can know that the physical universe has the detectable causal and modal structure necessary for the emergence of rational animals capable of constructing increasingly reliable maps of that causal and modal structure, but we cannot really know why it has that structure.PyrrhoManiac1
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
... self-organizing far-from-equilibrium systems can emerge spontaneously ....
Naturalism attempts to have mindless particles in the void obeying mindless regularities to perform behavior as if it is informed by rationality, without that being actually the case. IOW it wants irrational particles to mimic rational behavior – to create the illusion of rationality. It wants mindless particles to perform a behavior that is, from the outside, indistinguishable from behavior that would stem from an embodied person who is factually rational. Suppose this naturalistic attempt is somehow successful, what’s being achieved? “Rationality is just an illusion, it’s just blind particles fooling us [arguendo assuming that there is something like 'us persons' who can be fooled]”? This would undercut their own position. As I have stated before, the naturalistic attempt to explain rationality is a non-starter.Origenes
December 1, 2022
December
12
Dec
1
01
2022
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
I did. It does not address my question.AnimatedDust
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Stick with the question. AND SHOW YOUR WORK.
Good grief, another commenter with allcapsitis!. Did you follow my link?Alan Fox
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
AF@56. Non-responsive. Stick with the question. AND SHOW YOUR WORK.AnimatedDust
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
What emerged first, the penis or the vagina?
Neither. First was the cloacaAlan Fox
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
PM1 @ 45 Please see my post for today, commenting on the difference between self-organization as highlighted in Prigogine's work and the complex functional information required for a living organism. The suggested causal powers of emergence that you mention don't seem to arise naturally, although I would again agree with you that once a living organism is brought into existence (for the sake of argument, by whatever means), then it represents a system of which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Perhaps this is explainable by what we don't know about nature, but it seems to contradict what we do know about nature. Therefore, I believe that life, consciousness, and the human mind are evidence of something that can reasonably be described as having a supernatural source.Caspian
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
@52
Starting with a vigorously shaken mixture of oil and water, oil aggregates and separates from the water. Behold … “self-organization”.
Ha ha, very funny. Except also no, that's not at all what self-organizing systems are. I'm referring to what are also called dissipative structures (see also https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33287069">here. They've been known and studied for about fifty years now.PyrrhoManiac1
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
PM1 What emerged first, the penis or the vagina? Pick your mammal species. Show your work. Also describe how a purposeless unguided process made dual purposiveness emerge in the penis, a mechanism for elminiating liquid waste as well as for the delivery of cellular material outside the body. Again, show your work.AnimatedDust
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
PM@
If self-organizing far-from-equilibrium systems can emerge spontaneously from equilibrium thermodynamics (and we know that they can), ….
Starting with a vigorously shaken mixture of oil and water, oil aggregates and separates from the water. Behold ... “self-organization”.
… why can’t teleological systems emerge spontaneously from self-organizing far-from-equilibrium systems?
Why can’t oil separated from water not produce a teleological system, you ask? Because it lacks the ability to make a plan?Origenes
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
@49
“The root idea of emergence is “the whole is different from the sum of its parts” This isn’t scientific. It’s poetry.
It's part of a branch of philosophy called metaphysics, and I gave a very brief argument for why we should accept it, based on a very brief statement of how I think we should think about causation. If you want to say that metaphysics has no place here, and that it's just about science and nothing else, then I'll allow you and KF to argue about positivism and scientism.PyrrhoManiac1
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
"The root idea of emergence is “the whole is different from the sum of its parts” This isn't scientific. It's poetry. Andrewasauber
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
@45
don’t think that the “biological phenomena” of a living creature can be entirely reduced to physical explanations. However, I would not suggest that they can be explained by some sort of emergent phenomenon (something that “emerges” from the physical once the arrangement of atoms gets complex enough). This sounds like a belief in magic.
I can understand why it might seem like 'magic'. Let me explain why I disagree. The root idea of emergence is "the whole is different from the sum of its parts": specifically, the whole has causal powers that are distinct from the causal powers that belong to each of its parts, taken individually. I think that this is not only true, but it is necessarily true given a correct understanding of causality itself. Causation is a relation: a causal power is the realization of a difference between things. (As a trivial example: oxygen causes iron to rust because of the relational difference between the orbitals in the atoms, such that iron tends to become iron oxide in the presence of oxygen.) Once we see that causation is always about a relational difference, then it becomes rather easy to see that different kinds of organization will bring forth different causal powers. These causal powers will include the power to bring forth new kinds of organization. What's needed to naturalize teleology is to combine this generic account of emergence with a specific idea about the levels of complexity that emergence can bring about. There are, I think, at least three distinct levels: (1) basic thermodynamic systems, which tend to maximize entropy over time unless additional energy is put into the system; (2) self-organized far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic systems, which tend to resist entropy over time if the system is set up with background parameters; (3) teleological systems, which tend to resist entropy over time by virtue of generating their own parameters. We know that systems of class (2) can emerge from systems of class (1). (Ilya Prigogine got the 1977 Nobel Prize in chemistry for demonstrating this.) So the $64,000 question is, can systems of class (3) emerge from systems of class (2)?
Moreover, it (the emergent phenomenon) cannot violate known laws of nature.
Right, but notice that "cannot violate" is very different from "can be predicted from" or even "are entailed by". The only constraint that the naturalist would insist upon is that no emergent phenomena (teleology, intentionality, normativity) can violate the laws of fundamental physics -- no violation of the laws of quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, or general relativity. (Or any successor theory to any or all of those.) That's perfectly consistent with also insisting that the laws of fundamental physics do not allow us to predict the behavior of emergent phenomena.
I would argue that known laws of physics preclude the natural development of the systemic complexity of atoms that we find in even the simplest living organism.
If self-organizing far-from-equilibrium systems can emerge spontaneously from equilibrium thermodynamics (and we know that they can), why can't teleological systems emerge spontaneously from self-organizing far-from-equilibrium systems? As I see it, here's the fundamental issue at contention: is the difference between a teleological system and a self-organizing but non-teleological system the same kind of difference as the difference between a self-organizing non-teleological system and a system that tends towards equilibrium? I might be wrong in thinking that the answer to that question is "yes". If I'm wrong, then that would strengthen the case for ID. But I don't think it's irrational to think that the answer is "yes", which means that naturalism is not an irrational position to hold.PyrrhoManiac1
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
The concept of emergentism does nothing to change the naturalistic core belief that causality fundamentally lies with mindless particles in the void obeying physical laws. Emergent properties are hypothesized to be not fully explainable by physics, but, nevertheless, their full dependence on the physical layer on which they sit is not in question. It follows that an ‘emergent mind’ must act in full accord with whatever the mindless particles in the void are instructed to do by mindless physical laws. Conclusion: emergentism offers no pathway to rationality — mindless particles in the void rule supreme.Origenes
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
The most remarkable molecule in the universe is the result of emergence. That is water. I understand that no one can explain how joining two hydrogen atoms to an oxygen creates the amazing properties of water. ——————- Teacher: Johnny, what is the chemical formula for water? Johnny: H I J K L M N O Teacher: That’s ridiculous. Where did you ever hear that? Johnny: From you. You said yesterday that the formula for water was H to O.jerry
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
It is their presupposition of 'Pure chance, absolutely free but blind', instead of God, as the creator of all things that precludes Atheistic Naturalism from ever being rational.
“It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition - or the hope - that on this score our position is ever likely to be revised. There is no scientific concept, in any of the sciences, more destructive of anthropocentrism than this one.” -Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology
As Wolfgang Pauli himself pointed out, the presupposition of 'Pure chance, absolutely free but blind' makes evolutionary biologists "very irrational", because they are using the word 'chance' no 'longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability', but instead they are use the word 'chance' in such a way that it becomes "more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
“As a physicist, I should like to critically object that this model has not been supported by an affirmative estimate of probabilities so far. Such an estimate of the theoretical time scale of evolution as implied by the model should be compared with the empirical time scale. One would need to show that, according to the assumed model, the probability of de facto existing purposeful features to evolve was sufficiently high on the empirically known time scale. Such an estimate has nowhere been attempted though.” (p. 27) “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.'” - Wolfgang Pauli - Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science - Harald Atmanspacher - (pp. 27-28) - 2006 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c374/50c4ef317ac03685450b6dce4acff47295fa.pdf
The key difference between 'pure chance' and miracles being, of course, there is no reason, nor rationale, to ever be found for why something happens by 'pure chance', while there is always a reason, or rationale, for why God does a 'miracle'. As Dr. Bruce Gordon explains, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle. Yet, In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. Therefore, Scientific materialism, (Naturalism), is epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. - Contemporary Physics and God - Part 2 - Dr Bruce Gordon - video (25:17 minute mark) https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=1517
This reliance on pure chance, i.e. "random miracles as an explanatory principle", by Atheistic Naturalists, and thus their denial that there is any ultimate purpose reason and/or rationale to be found for why the universe and life exist, is more than a small problem for atheistic naturalists. In short, in his reliance on completely free 'pure chance' as the ultimate explanation of the universe and life, the atheistic naturalist is forced to forsake teleological explanations altogether,
tel·e·ol·o·gy noun PHILOSOPHY the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise. "no theory of history can do without teleology" THEOLOGY the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.
As Dr. Egnor explains, "It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied."
Teleology and the Mind - Michael Egnor - August 16, 2016 Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature. Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. ,,, A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/
Yet, although the atheistic naturalist is forced to forsake teleological, purposeful, explanations, (lest they give credence to the explanations of Intelligent Design), it is simply impossible for biologists to do their research without illegitimately resorting to teleological, i.e. purposeful, explanations. As J.B.S. Haldane himself honestly admitted, “Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.”
“Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” - J. B. S. Haldane
In the following article, Stephen Talbott challenges Darwinists to, “pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness (i.e. teleology)”
The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
Denis Noble also notes that “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.
“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. - per the best schools
This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble’s assessment and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011 Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
And as the following 2020 study found, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”
Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology Annie L. Crawford – August 2020 Abstract: Excerpt: However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/
In fact, whereas “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power", the 'purposeless' concept of evolution itself can be readily jettisoned from, and/or replaced in, research papers without negatively effecting the actual scientific research of the papers. As the late Philip Skell pointed out, “In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core.”
“In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
In fact, stripping the 'narrative gloss' of evolutionary concepts from research papers actually makes the science of the papers, "healthier and more useful."
No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology? – December 4, 2019 If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts, (“Darwin-ectomy”), should make research incomprehensible. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage.,,, So, here are three papers in America’s premier science journal that appear at first glance to need Darwinism, use Darwinism, support Darwinism, and thereby impart useful scientific knowledge. After subjecting them to Darwin-ectomies, though, the science not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/no-harm-no-foul-what-if-darwinism-were-excised-from-biology/
Thus, teleological, i.e. purpose based, language is found to be absolutely essential for doing biological research, whereas ‘evolutionary language’ is found to be a superficial 'narrative gloss' that can be readily stripped away, and/or jettisoned, from the research papers without negatively effecting the actual science in the papers. In fact, and again, stripping away evolutionary language actually makes the science of the papers, "healthier and more useful." If Darwinists are to maintain that their words actually mean anything, and if they are to maintain that they are being 'rational' in their reasoning, then this a 'hard falsification' of their theory that they should readily accept. It is found that the very words that Darwinian biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian explanations, and validates the teleological explanations of Intelligent Design.
Matthew 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
bornagain77
November 29, 2022
November
11
Nov
29
29
2022
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
PM1@ 30: I appreciate your thoughts. Part of what you said is: "This contains, I think, the main idea that I disagree with: that “natural forces lead to predictable outcomes”. If that were right, then I can see how the rest of what you say might follow. I think this is wrong because it relies upon a certain version of reductive materialism. Specifically, it assumes that biological phenomena can be reduced to physical ones. But I don’t think that they can be." In some sense, I agree with you. I don't think that the "biological phenomena" of a living creature can be entirely reduced to physical explanations. However, I would not suggest that they can be explained by some sort of emergent phenomenon (something that "emerges" from the physical once the arrangement of atoms gets complex enough). This sounds like a belief in magic. Moreover, it (the emergent phenomenon) cannot violate known laws of nature. I would argue that known laws of physics preclude the natural development of the systemic complexity of atoms that we find in even the simplest living organism. So, the origin of living things must have a metaphysical cause (consistent with God). Further, the origin of thought, consciousness, selfhood, would come from a metaphysical source (or a spiritual source), not from physical phenomenon that emerges from physical arrangements of matter.Caspian
November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
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
; and 6) rationality does not exist. It follows that, given that naturalism is true, Charles Darwin understood nothing, since blind particles in the void mindlessly obeying physical laws understand nothing.Origenes
November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
My problem is with the notion of emergence or essentially, it just happened. This is part of the Rosen book. For which I only read the reviews. No one could really explain the book. If such thing as emergence is real, then it must still be happening and one could point to what has emerged at various times in history. But there is nothing to point too. And why not today? There must also be a mechanism for emergence. Biology is full of mechanisms that obey the laws of physics. Why should emergence not obey these laws too?. Biological systems are complicated and there is no theory on how they arose. To say that they emerged is just question begging. Life is incredibly complex and unfathomable, the essence of the Rosen book. I agree. How it arose/emerged/happened is a mystery though.jerry
November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply