Frank Turek looks at Scientism of the gaps

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 30, 2021

Atheism, Christian Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy, Religion, Science}

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

You’ve heard atheistic naturalists and Christian Darwinists talk about the “God of the Gaps,” right?

= Every time it seems like something in the universe looks designed — whether it is the laws of mathematics or the complexity of nervous systems — “science” will come along and show that, sure enough, it all just randomly happened that way.

“The universe can and will create itself from nothing,” as Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow argued in The Grand Design. (Note that it is called The Grand Design even though it argues the opposite. )

So, in the atheistic naturalist’s and the Christian Darwinists’ view, anyone who doubts that Everything Comes About by Accident from Nothing” is undermining people’s faith.

Presumably, people will find out the truth and then they will no longer believe in the God Who Makes No Difference and they will stop going to … Churches No One Goes To Any More Anyway.

Here, apologist Frank Turek of CrossExamined talks about the point of view they all seem to prefer, “Scientism of the Gaps”:

Christians are sometimes accused of the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy. In contrast, naturalists are occasionally guilty of a ‘Scientism of the gaps’ fallacy. Watch this! pic.twitter.com/W7Wr6fTSLK
— Frank Turek (@DrFrankTurek) May 28, 2021

To summarize Scientism of the Gaps: No mountain too high, no river so wide that sheer chaos cannot contrive to create an inextricably interlinked system that seamlessly navigates it.

Even though chaos never works that way in your own life, you must believe — if you are really science-friendly — that it works that way at the foundation of all of life, the entire universe and all that.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Comments

@1 Seversky "Accusing naturalists of “scientism of the gaps” doesn’t make “God of the gaps” any better." True, but it shows that we both have faith. It shows that Materialists BELIEVE there really is no problem anywhere that is too difficult for chance to solve. Sure, it's a free country. Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't try to pass off you belief as more rational or somehow superior to the ID cause simply because one is natural and the other supernatural. Personally, it seems to me that an explanation with a sufficient cause is much more logical and probable than one that depends on chance. Always resorting to Chance as your Savior doesn't seem very scientific.tjguy_{June 1, 2021
June
06
Jun
1
01
2021
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

You cannot get "ought" from "is". There is no way for physical reality to be the foundation for moral claims. That is as true for God or alien intelligent designers as it is for us. Whatever they might claim, no one has a certain foundation for their "cans" and "cannots".Seversky_{June 1, 2021
June
06
Jun
1
01
2021
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Sev- Your thinking can be reliable and unreliable , you can be moral and immoral at times , this is not the point that us believers make is that, not that you can or cannot, but that your position means you have no foundation to base your can and cannot on. If you disagree state you position for rational thinking and reasoning based in your material only world.Marfin_{June 1, 2021
June
06
Jun
1
01
2021
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

People who dismiss ID as "goddiddit" should be aware that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary explanations amount to nothing more than "darwindiddit".EvilSnack_{May 31, 2021
May
05
May
31
31
2021
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Seversky claims that
"Sorry, I am attesting here and now that, as far as I can tell, my mind is the same now as an atheist as it was when I was a Christian."
Well actually no it isn't. Studies show that the design inference is a 'knee jerk' reaction that is built into everyone and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing the intuitive design inference that they themselves harbor.
Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever." The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers' words, "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful." Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712
So no, your mind is not the same as it was when you were a Christian. Your mind has to work double time to try to 'explain away' the Design they you yourself intuitively knows exists. Ir regards to this statement I made, "Seversky, when you deny the reality of the Mind of God, and by default deny the reality of your own immaterial mind, you end up denying that the universe can have any purpose and also end denying that your own thoughts can have any intentional, goal directed, teleological, purpose." Seversky responds, "Non sequitur, as I pointed out above, I have been able to find the existence of your God unproven without suffering any ill-effects mentally." As should be needless to say, the person suffering 'ill-effects mentally' is often the very last person to know that they are suffering mentally. Contrary to what you believe Seversky, studies show that, mentally speaking, atheists suffer much more than Christians do.
“In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims - former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100
Seversky then states, "And without your God, if the Universe does have some overriding purpose, we’re going to have to look elsewhere. Also, you still haven’t answered the question I’ve posed several times before, if we are made in God’s image and He can form purposes then why can’t we? Why should His purposes be the only ones that count?" Huh? For crying out loud Seversky, you are the one holding onto a worldview that directly claims that the universe, and humans, are the product of unforeseen accidents and therefore, by definition, the universe and all life it can have no real purpose and/or meaning to their existence. Random, i.e. purposeless, accidents is literally the foundational defining precept of your entire worldview Seversky! Moreover, for you to claim that the meaning that you create for yourself is just as good as the meaning that God imparts to your life is simply delusional thinking your part. As the following article surmises the 'invented' meaning that atheists impart to their own lives, "it’s meaninglessness creating the illusion of meaning.,,,"
How I’m Planning to Celebrate Darwin Day – TOM GILSON – February 11, 2020 Excerpt: Tomorrow, February 12, is Darwin Day.,, ,,, Darwin’s theory “showed” that the human species was the product of unintended accidents (random variation) and natural selection. Natural selection means “survival of the fittest,” where “fittest” is known only by “that which survives.” Every species that’s ever appeared on earth was the product of accidents and the survival of, well, the survivors. Making Humanity Meaningless If that looks meaningless at first glance, it remains so under full-length analysis. To be human (under naturalistic or undirected evolution) is to have meaningless origins, and those meaningless origins mean we live in a meaningless world. Many staunch Darwinists will grant there’s no meaning behind human existence, but still insist, “I create meaning for myself.” But that hardly makes sense. More likely, it’s meaninglessness creating the illusion of meaning.,,, https://stream.org/how-planning-celebrate-darwin-day/
In regards to this statement I made, "The universe, and everything in it, including all your thoughts, are just one big ole mess of unintended accidents according to your atheistic worldview." Seversky responds, "Partly, but the Universe is also governed by regularities we call “laws”. Where they come from nobody knows but they mean it’s not just “one big ole mess of unintended accidents” although, looking at some people, I can see why you might get that idea." Hmm, interesting hypothesis. So are you saying that the laws are not unintended accidents? Perhaps you should get word of your hypothesis to the multiverse proponents who claim that the laws are the unforeseen products of random quantum fluctuations, instead of being the intentional product of the Mind of God. Moreover, for you to claim that rationality can be based on a law of nature simply does not follow. Rationality entails a mind, via its free will, choosing between logically viable options.
(1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism). (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD
Moreover, (besides the fact that, since naturalism denies that we have free will, and that therefore we are not in control of our thoughts), logic itself cannot be based in any naturalistic framework,
Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Thus, naturalism is simply a non-starter in so far as to providing a coherent foundation for rationality. Moreover it is interesting that Seversky would try to appeal to laws of nature to try to ground rationality., Laws, by their very nature, do not choose between logically viable options but simply dictate that some entity will always behave is such and such fashion. On top of all that, it is ironic that a Darwinist would try to appeal to a law of nature in order to try to explain rationality. There simply are no known laws of nature that Darwinists can appeal to in order to support their theory.
The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr - 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don't know exceptions so I think it's probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that's what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. per scientific American WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. - per the edge “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
Whatever law of nature Seversky is appealing to to try to ground rationality apparently exists solely in Severky's imagination and not in the real world. Moreover, Darwinists themselves admit that, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, then any beliefs that we might have about reality would be untrustworthy and unreliable as to their inherent truthfulness
“Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” - Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion” “the illusion that our brains evolved to have, a very compelling and persistent illusion – namely that the reality we perceive is real, rather than a constructed representation.” – Steven Novella – academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” – Steven Pinker “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” – John Gray “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.” – Francis Crick “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” – Eric Baum
Simply put, the Darwinian atheist, if his worldview were actually true, has no basis to ground rationality itself. As Nancy Pearcey explains, “Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.”
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015 Excerpt: 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.,,, Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/
Thus although Seversky may try to claim that he, in his Darwinian worldview, can be just as rational as the Christian can be in his worldvie, the facts of the matter betrays Seversky. His worldview simply can not ground rationality. Verse and quotes:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html “Atheists can give no reason why they should value reason, and Christians can show how anyone who believes in reason must also believe in God.” Cogito; Ergo Deus Est by Charles Edward White Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn’t Dead
bornagain77_{May 31, 2021
May
05
May
31
31
2021
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

seversky:
Partly, but the Universe is also governed by regularities we call “laws”. Where they come from nobody knows but they mean it’s not just “one big ole mess of unintended accidents” although, looking at some people, I can see why you might get that idea.
The laws are evidence for Intelligent Design. Materialism says they just happened to happen. "One big ole whole mess of unintended accidents" means that nothing was planned. So, with Intelligent Design, all there is to try to account for our existence is "one big ole mess of unintended accidents". Laws do NOT plan. Laws, well the forces they represent, cannot account for codes. But the proper wording would be "differential accumulations in one ole mess of unintended accidents". Very untestable. And as such very much pseudo-science.ET_{May 31, 2021
May
05
May
31
31
2021
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Seversky Sorry, I am attesting here and now that, as far as I can tell, my mind is the same now as an atheist as it was when I was a Christian.
So you have always been an atheist. PS:who is a real Christian ,stays Christian forever.Sandy_{May 31, 2021
May
05
May
31
31
2021
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/8
Written proof that atheists, when they forsake God, have literally ‘lost their minds’.
Sorry, I am attesting here and now that, as far as I can tell, my mind is the same now as an atheist as it was when I was a Christian.
Seversky, when you deny the reality of the Mind of God, and by default deny the reality of your own immaterial mind, you end up denying that the universe can have any purpose and also end denying that your own thoughts can have any intentional, goal directed, teleological, purpose.
Non sequitur, as I pointed out above, I have been able to find the existence of your God unproven without suffering any ill-effects mentally. And without your God, if the Universe does have some overriding purpose, we're going to have to look elsewhere. Also, you still haven't answered the question I've posed several times before, if we are made in God's image and He can form purposes then why can't we? Why should His purposes be the only ones that count?
The universe, and everything in it, including all your thoughts, are just one big ole mess of unintended accidents according to your atheistic worldview.
Partly, but the Universe is also governed by regularities we call "laws". Where they come from nobody knows but they mean it's not just "one big ole mess of unintended accidents" although, looking at some people, I can see why you might get that idea.
As C.S. Lewis explained in his ‘argument from reason’, “(Atheists) ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.
Is that the best Lewis can do? Reason is a process by which we try to model, describe and explain the Universe in which we find ourselves. It doesn't matter whether that Universe was created or came about through natural processes. We still have to deal with what's in front of us. Reason helps us do that because we have found it works.Seversky_{May 31, 2021
May
05
May
31
31
2021
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

How was your comment any different from the millions of comments spewed out of the mouth of Jerry Coyne That the mind is nothing more than an illusion? With that type of thought you literally saw the branch you’re sitting on right off the tree If there is no mind then you have no place to believe in God, and you have no place to not believe in God, that’s the point It’s not some adolescent stupidity like you like to try to re-interpret it What he means by that is that’s your philosophy, that you push, and your rules, but I don’t have to worry about that hypocrisy because I don’t believe that’s the case It’s like when you idiots tell me there’s no free will and then chastise me for not being able to change my mind and believe you That came from your court but I don’t have to worry about it because I believe in free will so I believe you’re capable of changing your mind It’s not us chasing our tails, it’s you The fact that the mind is an illusion and free will is an illusion came from your court of thinking and that’s what BA77 is pointing out And that type of thought comes with those types of consequences Your opinion and everything you do is just a result of chemical soup that if a different set of chemicals hit your brain at a different point of your life your perspective might not even exist So no one can really tell what is real because everything is fake Except for my opinion If anything is adolescence it is that type of thinkingAaronS1978_{May 31, 2021
May
05
May
31
31
2021
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

re #6 CS Lewis says "unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” Like I said, this is being seduced into a madhouse of adolescent pseudo-intellectualism. "Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought....” Really? Unmitigated poppycock....chuckdarwin_{May 31, 2021
May
05
May
31
31
2021
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Darwinism = the biggest engineering challenges solved by a series of miraculous events ...martin_r_{May 31, 2021
May
05
May
31
31
2021
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

^^^^^ Written proof that atheists, when they forsake God, have literally 'lost their minds'. Seversky, when you deny the reality of the Mind of God, and by default deny the reality of your own immaterial mind, you end up denying that the universe can have any purpose and also end denying that your own thoughts can have any intentional, goal directed, teleological, purpose. The universe, and everything in it, including all your thoughts, are just one big ole mess of unintended accidents according to your atheistic worldview. As C.S. Lewis explained in his 'argument from reason', "(Atheists) ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.
Long before I believed Theology to be true I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it…. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula … obeys the thought laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory—in other words, unless Reason is absolute—all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. The difficulty is to me a fatal one;,,, C. S. Lewis - From “Is Theology Poetry,” in The Weight of Glory, 134–136.
In short, the atheist, in denying the reality of the Mind of God, and, by default, denying the reality of his own immaterial mind, ends up denying rationality altogether. As Martin Cothran explains, "By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order."
The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It: Sam Harris’s Free Will Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. https://evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre/
Of related note, in the following article neurosurgeon Michael Egnor explains the intimate link between teleology in nature and the intentionality of our thoughts, and how atheists must deny both in order for them to maintain a consistent worldview. He states, "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."
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. The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others. Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). 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/
bornagain77_{May 30, 2021
May
05
May
30
30
2021
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/2
^^^^^^^ Says the mindless meat robot which has been named Seversky! ?
Both you and Lewis ignore the fact that Lewis's argument can be turned against his God. If not being designed somehow makes our thinking untrustworthy then the same must be true of God since - according to believers - He was not designed and has no purpose. So even if there were your God, His thinking could not be trusted so neither can ours. Except, so what? We naturalists/atheists know we are fallible, imperfect and our thinking is not always reliable. But neither is it always unreliable. Either way, it's al we've got so we'll just have to make the best of it.Seversky_{May 30, 2021
May
05
May
30
30
2021
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

@ seversky you are right, no it doesn’t make it better, but it’s shows that naturalist are just as guilty of the same crap @ chuckdarwin your opinion is equally childish and much dumber nice empty addAaronS1978_{May 30, 2021
May
05
May
30
30
2021
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

ChuckieD, do you think that C.S.Lewis, if he were alive on earth today, (instead of being in heaven), should actually be offended by the sounds that a mindless meat puppet, such as yourself, makes?
“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” - Jerry Coyne (Science Uprising 02) – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20
bornagain77_{May 30, 2021
May
05
May
30
30
2021
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Re #2 Always good to re-experience the adolescent thought process of CS Lewis as he attempts to caricature a “godless” universe.....chuckdarwin_{May 30, 2021
May
05
May
30
30
2021
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Earth to seversky: Using our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships is not a gap argument.ET_{May 30, 2021
May
05
May
30
30
2021
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

^^^^^^^ Says the mindless meat robot which has been named Seversky! :)
“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” - C.S. Lewis
bornagain77_{May 30, 2021
May
05
May
30
30
2021
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Accusing naturalists of "scientism of the gaps" doesn't make "God of the gaps" any better.Seversky_{May 30, 2021
May
05
May
30
30
2021
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply