Humanist philosopher James Croft goes after Steve Meyer’s Return of God Hypothesis

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 23, 2021

Books of interest, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, theism}

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

But in an interesting, traditional way (no Cancel Culture, no weirdness, no hysterics):

James Croft is with the Humanist Community at Harvard:

It was sponsored by the group Christian Heritage in Cambridge, England. The conversation is very genial but Dr. Croft offers a strong and aggressive critique about the nature of abductive inferences, and more. His three main points are what he calls the “Background Knowledge Problem,” the “Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence,” and that, as he sees it, the “Totality of Evidence Favors Naturalism.” I would say Meyer responds to these handily. But it was helpful to see him do so.
Croft is charming as an interlocutor, and he did his homework. He even read Steve’s Cambridge PhD thesis. He absorbed the case that Meyer makes in Return of the God Hypothesis and while accepting the science (just for the sake of argument!), he doesn’t concede the philosophy, even as he speaks its language.
David Klinghoffer, “A Philosopher Takes on Meyer’s God Hypothesis” at Evolution News and Science Today

Comments

Jerry, "A “God of the Gaps” assessment is a logical fallacy. It is form of begging the question. It assumes a non intelligent intervention when none has been shown likely." Bingo! The ‘God of the gaps’ argument from Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists fails on so many levels that it is hard to know where to begin. So let’s start with the origin of the argument itself. The origin of the argument goes back to the infamous atheist Friedrich Nietzsche and to theistic evolutionist Henry Drummond.
God of the gaps – Origins of the term From the 1880s, Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part Two, “On Priests”, said “… into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God.”.[3] The concept, although not the exact wording, goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th-century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on The Ascent of Man(1904) . He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science cannot yet explain—”gaps which they will fill up with God”—and urges them to embrace all nature as God’s, as the work of “an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology.”[4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Origins_of_the_term
Nietzsche’s claim, “into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God”, was a very interesting claim for Nietzsche to make. The reason why it is very interesting is that if God is not real, but is merely a delusion as atheists hold, then everything else becomes a delusion and/or illusion for the atheist. To repeat what I stated before in this thread,
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 2021 – Detailed Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327 Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Verse:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
The fact that the atheist, via his claim that God is an illusion, himself turns into a 'neuronal illusion' should be the very definition of 'poetic justice.' :)
A Dream Within a Dream BY EDGAR ALLAN POE Take this kiss upon the brow! And, in parting from you now, Thus much let me avow — You are not wrong, who deem That my days have been a dream; Yet if hope has flown away In a night, or in a day, In a vision, or in none, Is it therefore the less gone? All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream. I stand amid the roar Of a surf-tormented shore, And I hold within my hand Grains of the golden sand — How few! yet how they creep Through my fingers to the deep, While I weep — while I weep! O God! Can I not grasp Them with a tighter clasp? O God! can I not save One from the pitiless wave? Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream?
Of related note, Stephen Meyer addresses the "God of the gaps' accusation from atheists in this following short video
A God of the gaps argument is an argument that has a formal logical structure that in logic is known as a ‘argument from ignorance’. It is an informal fallacy. Arguments from ignorance have the following form.,,, 1. Cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X 2. Therefore cause B must have produced effect X ,,, but if I have no independent evidence that cause B can produce effect X, then I have committed a fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Because, just because cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X doesn't mean that some other cause did it. You have to have independent evidence that that other cause is capable of doing it (i.e. producing the effect in question). That then becomes a God of the gaps argument when you say various natural processes are not sufficient to produce, say, the origin of the first life or the origin of the first animals in the history of life. If I were then to say, “Therefore God did it”, that would be a God of the gaps argument. It would be an argument from ignorance. But that is not how we are arguing when we make the case for Intelligent Design because we are adding an additional premise. We are saying that.,,, 1. Various natural processes are not sufficient to produce new functional information, (specifically the digital code that is stored in the DNA molecule). 2. We do know of a cause that does produce (functional digital) information. (We have independent evidence that intelligent agency, that mind,,, can create (functional digital) information.),,, ,,, so we are not arguing from our ignorance. We are arguing from our knowledge of cause and effect in the world. (Specifically we are arguing from what we know minds can do, i.e. produce information.) - Stephen Meyer Debunks the “God of the Gaps” Objection - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGqzCA1mnyM
bornagain77_{June 24, 2021
June
06
Jun
24
24
2021
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

A “God of the Gaps” assessment is a logical fallacy. It is form of begging the question. It assumes a non intelligent intervention when none has been shown likely. So anyone using it has to show it is likely there is another explanation.jerry_{June 24, 2021
June
06
Jun
24
24
2021
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Really? Come on…..
:)) This is all materialists have. How in the world they don't hear the irony alarm.Sandy_{June 24, 2021
June
06
Jun
24
24
2021
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

#13 John Lennox is an affable, somewhat impish purveyor of bromides. "God is not a ‘God of the gaps’ but He is the God of the whole show." Really? Come on..... Sorry, folks, but Meyer gets fed his lunch expertly by Croft in this go around.....chuckdarwin_{June 24, 2021
June
06
Jun
24
24
2021
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

propensity to import non-empirical explanations
:)) Best explanation is the point of reference not materialist-naturalist dogma. Science is limited ,it's just a tool . Who control that tool? Reason. Reason is first power of humans that control the way in which humans aquire knowledge (as a theology or as a science). Theology is a superior kind of knowledge we receive from above us(where reason , conscience, intuitions and faith are used).Science is an inferior kind of knowledge where reason+sensory organs are the source of science and reason have supremacy over science that means a simple farmer that have no science background can detect a fallacy ("a BS")in an argument of a scientist.Sandy_{June 24, 2021
June
06
Jun
24
24
2021
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin claims that Meyer is making a "repackaged god of the gaps" argument. It might interest Chucky to know, (or it might hurt his feelings to know), that God is not a 'God of the gaps' but that He is the God of the whole show.
Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - John Lennox Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." The Nobel prizewinner Melvin Calvin traces the rise of modern science to the conviction "that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science." https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show.html
And via Stephen Meyer’s book, Return of the God hypothesis", here are the three necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA April 2021: Defense of all 3 presuppositions 1 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727893 2 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727959 3 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727980
In short, modern science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of Intelligent Design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of 'methodological naturalism' as atheists falsely believe,,
"From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism."
Moreover, assuming 'methodological naturalism', and/or reductive materialism, as a starting presupposition in science, as Darwinian atheists do, instead of presupposing Christian Theism as a starting presupposition in science, (as the Christian founders of modern science did), leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 2021 - Detailed Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
What else is so interesting in that oft repeated "God of the gaps' claim from Atheists is that Atheists, from at least David Hume onward, have falsely assumed that the laws of nature are completely 'natural' and that we do not need God in order to explain the existence of the laws of nature in the first place. Yet Atheists, with their ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations, simply have no clue why there should even be (finely tuned) universal laws that govern the universe in the first place:
“There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations. Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws. Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.” Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.” – Origenes – UD blogger
Einstein himself stated, ““You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way”,,,
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952 Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.” -Albert Einstein - per letter to Solovine
Likewise, Eugene Wigner also stated, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,”
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. - per Dartmouth
In short, the existence of the laws of nature, and our capacity to divine them, is, according to both Einstein and Wigner, to be considered miraculous and is certainly not to be considered 'natural'. And thus, as John Lennox pointed out, and no matter how much Chuckdarwin may try to deny it, God is not a 'God of the gaps' but He is the God of the whole show.
Psalm 119: 90-91 Your faithfulness continues through all generations; You established the earth, and it endures. Your ordinances stand to this day, for all things are servants to You.
bornagain77_{June 24, 2021
June
06
Jun
24
24
2021
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin No matter how much Meyer denies it, his “thesis” is simply repackaged god of the gaps…
You are an automaton appeared by chance . Why would you belive any idea you have ?Sandy_{June 24, 2021
June
06
Jun
24
24
2021
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

#8 Kairosfocus When Charles S. Pierce, arguably America's greatest logician, innovated abductive reasoning (which is what Meyer touts using), he envisioned using it to infer to the best empirical (i.e. observable and measurable) explanation, not metaphysical, spiritual or supernatural explanations. Following Hume, he took the position that knowledge is derived only from the senses. Although not overtly hostile to religion, for this reason Pierce admonished that theologians, religionists and religious clergy should not do philosophy or science due to their propensity to import non-empirical explanations (e.g. "God") in lieu of doing the hard work of science.chuckdarwin_{June 24, 2021
June
06
Jun
24
24
2021
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

CD, fallacious switcheroo; actually no matter how you package it your refusal to acknowledge cogency of inference on tested reliable signs to an observed class of cause reflects refusal to be led by evidence backed by cognitive dissonance leading you to project your hostility to God to the despised other. KF PS: You cannot even concede to God the courtesy of a capital letter.kairosfocus_{June 24, 2021
June
06
Jun
24
24
2021
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

No matter how much Meyer denies it, his "thesis" is simply repackaged god of the gaps...chuckdarwin_{June 24, 2021
June
06
Jun
24
24
2021
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

The God hypothesis is wrong, he should instead generically refer to "the creator hypothesis", or "intelligent designer hypothesis". Because by hypothesizing he inclines to categorize God into the material and objective category, and not as should be categorized, in the spiritual and subjective category. Nobody who understands intelligent design would make God a hypothesis. God is not material, or factual. Similar would be the "love hypothesis", the "jealousy hypothesis". It is all a category error. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact God belongs in category 1, not category 2. What is in category 1, can only be identified with a chosen opinion. Logic dictates, you are free to choose to believe in God, or not, either answer is equally logically valid. It is a logical error to be forced to believe in God, forced by evidence, or forced by the conclusion of some philosophical reasoning (neccessary being). Same as to be forced to say a painting is beautiful, provides an invalid opinion. There is no doubt about it, that to choose to believe in God, is logically valid. It is immediate belief without doubt. It is straightforward. And not surreptiously maybe-ing your way to some kind of certainty of belief, by evidence.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 24, 2021
June
06
Jun
24
24
2021
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Ha I love James Croft’s argument against Meyers based on mind brain dualism It’s brilliant!!!!! Because I’m a naturalist your argument for dualism and God fails This is literally his argument I’m a naturalist and therefore believe that the brain in the mind of one in the same so you were disembodied mind means nothing I would’ve kicked him out right there and said you were absolutely worthless and have nothing to add your naturalism doesn’t refused my position The fact that this dingdong actually thinks that because he’s a naturalist he’s immune to Meyers argument is silly just straight silly I would’ve booed him off the stageAaronS1978_{June 23, 2021
June
06
Jun
23
23
2021
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

Sev, Well, if the humanist philosopher is really looking for truth, and looking clearly at today's humanity, there's not much to get excited about. (Flirted with humanism briefly earlier in life.) All the wonderful predictions that modern (1900-1940) thinkers had for the future!--and it has all come crashing down since then--except technological progress, that is still on-going. Moral progress? Not with 100+ million people murdered in the last 100 years. Educational progress? Hmm. Man as the master of his own destiny? Nope, we're subjected to the whims of our worst. The nation that was once the "last best hope of earth" is more deeply divided than it has been in over a century, and it has no clue how to heal the rifts that are expanding every day. Yeah, I hope humanist philosophers are daily taking a cold, hard look at humanity's reality.EDTA_{June 23, 2021
June
06
Jun
23
23
2021
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

What about secular humanism/atheism isn't ultimately depressing?zweston_{June 23, 2021
June
06
Jun
23
23
2021
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Why so?Seversky_{June 23, 2021
June
06
Jun
23
23
2021
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

>Humanist philosopher... Boy, that must be depressing!EDTA_{June 23, 2021
June
06
Jun
23
23
2021
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply