Physicist Sean Carroll suggests that someday science can rule out God — revealing his philosophical agenda under the holy lab coat, yet again

_{kairosfocus

September 19, 2012

Philosophy, Physics, worldview}

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

This morning, as I opened up my computer, the following Yahoo News headline leaped out:

Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?

By Natalie Wolchover | LiveScience.com

Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.

Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there’s good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.

Carroll argues that God’s sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe. “As we learn more about the universe, there’s less and less need to look outside it for help,” he told Life’s Little Mysteries.

He thinks the sphere of supernatural influence will eventually shrink to nil.

This is the sort of set up and knock over a God-of-the-gaps strawman materialist ideological agenda tactic that so often does disservice to the genuine cause of seeking to study and understand the universe, humbly and provisionally in light of the pattern of the evidence.

This is of course an attempt to drag a red herring across the track of the mounting up pile of evidence pointing to the evident fine-tuning of the observed cosmos that sets it to an operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life. The red herring is then led out to a convenient “God of the Gaps” strawman, duly set alight to the delight of the ideological atheists and their fellow travellers. (Cf. also here on building a sound worldview.)

It also brings to mind the classic blunders made by Lewontin in his declaration in the January 1997 NYRB, that:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [[–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [[–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [NB: To save a side track, the linked more extensive cite deals with the distractive talking point usually trotted out about how this is alleged quote-mining. Accurate and inconvenient citation will always attract such objections form Darwinist zealots.]

I leave it as a warm-up exercise for commenters to identify and correct the basic fallacies in the reasoning of both. END

Comments

The universe is about 13.7 billion years old, earth is about 4.5 billion years old, in all these billions of years why are we "humans on earth" the only life (civilizations) found in the universe. No ET has ever been detected or made known to us in all these billions of years? by now advanced beings could have developed faster than light travel speed, If we are not a special creation then according to evolution and random process then other more advanced civilizations would of made themselves known to us. Occam's razor has always been used against God and the Bible, but the simplest explanation is that God indeed did create the universe, earth and humanity just as he has stated in Genesis, Psalms, Colossians and Revelation. There is no ET because man was CREATED, now evidence tells us that this is right and is simplest explanation. Evolution proponents cannot have it both ways, acting as if the Bible is a magic show. There has never been found a single shred of evidence anywhere in support of any other civilization(s)found anywhere in the universe, and we (many) are looking too! Now they dream up a multiverse(s), because this one seems too designed, too fine tuned and ordered, but they fail to realize that the same transcendent and sovereign creator can easily do this as well.pete_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

kf. God bless you my friend!Mung_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Mung:
There are certain Christians who, even though Jesus claimed he would return within a specific period, are still awaiting his return today, some 2000 years later.
kf:
I think you need to revisit your understanding of Mt 24 i/l/o Eph 3:14 - 21 and 2 Pet 1 & 3; but this is not a theological forum.
What does this this have to do with theology? What Jesus said in Matt 24 is pretty plain. However, my position is not limited by the statements Jesus made in Matt 24. Please don't attempt to dispute what I say unless you are willing to debate it. The view I am putting forth has a long and accepted history in the church. Please search on "The Proof of the Gospel" Eusebius, Ferrar. The view that Matt 24 refers to some yet future coming of Jesus is relatively new. There are many other New Testament texts which demonstrate an expected imminent return of Jesus. Hebrews:
For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay..."
James:
...he Lord’s coming is near.
Peter:
The end of all things is near.
and many other texts. You'd like to separate Jesus' prophecy of his resurrection from his prophecy of his coming, but how can you in good conscience do so? Matt 16
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Jesus:
27 For the Son of Man is going to [Greek: ABOUT TO] come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. 28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
___________ Mung, you have given your view, which I will let stand. I point to this [and onward to Grudem's Systematic Theology], to give an introductory summary of a different one; where as I already said, I -- this is my own view -- think your views, with all due respect that they are held in more or less that form by relevant scholars, need to address the specific texts given (including Peter's caution in 2 Peter 3 on how the text of Scripture is sometimes not as easily understood as we may assume). And no, we should not take this thread off track with an exchange on the reasonable views on eschatology. KF Mung_{September 23, 2012
September
09
Sep
23
23
2012
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_GingerichMung_{September 23, 2012
September
09
Sep
23
23
2012
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Timaeus, I don't know if there is a such a physicist, though I share your skepticism. What would be needed here, I think, is someone who had enough respect for theology that she or he would be willing to admit that the theistic solution is intellectually attractive -- so much so that the multiverse hypothesis has to be at least equally plausible. I know some philosophy, but I don't have the background in physics or mathematics to make heads or tails of it myself. One point that might be worth making, though, is that the question about the origins of the universe is quite separate from the probability of life within our universe. I mean, sure, the laws of physics do seem to be "fine-tuned" for life. And if that's right, then given that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe, it could be -- for all we know (and quite likely, for all that we'll ever know) -- that life in some form or other is rampant throughout the cosmos. But regardless of whether life is common or rare in the universe, the question remains as to why those laws are the way they are, and the debate about whether those laws are best explained by a Creator or by infinite universes will continue so long as "why are the laws of physics the way they are?" is thought to be a question worth asking. On the general "science and religion" issue, I tend towards Gould's NOMA position, so I'm curious as to what people here think of that position. (I certainly don't think that science will put religion out of a job, or that it would be a good thing for civilization if it did!) KNKantian Naturalist_{September 23, 2012
September
09
Sep
23
23
2012
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Barr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_%28creationist%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_John_RussellMung_{September 23, 2012
September
09
Sep
23
23
2012
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Kantian: No comments on Kaufmann, whom I've not read. Regarding your first point, while I think that "multiverse versus Creator" *could* be "just a debate between rival metaphysical systems," I think that, given the human factor, i.e., given that most people who discuss these issues are not "pure philosophers" who just want to know the truth for the sake of knowing the truth, but are human beings with vested interests in certain things being true, I think that "multiverse versus Creator" is rapidly becoming the most recent version of "science versus religion." (I add immediately that I reject the whole notion of "science versus religion," as if the two are intrinsically in conflict, but in the minds of some, they are.) In the typical "science versus religion" scenario, according to "science" (more accurately, an ideological use of science, but of course those claiming the authority of "science" never put it that way), everything takes its origin from blind natural laws and sheer chance, and according to "religion" everything takes its origin from the intelligent design of the Creator. Now, let's ask, why is the multiverse so popular *now*, among not merely a few physicists who have calculated that it logically follows from what we know of astrophysics, but among legions of popular science writers, journalists, bloggers, anti-religious polemicists, members of Skeptical societies and so on? Here is the reason. Until very recently, it was thought that blind natural causes could provide a substitute creation story, with only *one* universe. After all, there were, as Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of stars, and even of galaxies. But now, the more we learn about biochemistry -- the complex conditions needed to set up even the simplest of working cells -- and about the fine-tuning of the cosmos -- the odds of things forming by chance are looking less and less every day. Why? Because the universe, though very large, is still, according to the standard model of cosmology, *finite*. There are only so many galaxies, and only so many stars, and only so many planets, and only so many planets of approximate earthlike qualities. And even given the right kind of planet, the chances of life forming by chance seem extremely low; the origin-of-life scientists are pulling out their hair in frustration. Then there are the difficulties in getting Darwinian processes to explain all the variety of life, given the vastly greater number of evolutionary dead ends than useful pathways, and the limited time (even 4 billion years is starting to look too short now). So if there is only *one* universe, the standard substitute creation story, the one preached by Asimov and Sagan and Gould and Star Trek and so on, becomes less and less the rational option. So atheists and materialists are casting about for a means of holding onto their anti-Genesis version of Genesis. So what drops into their lap? The multiverse. There are many universes, not just one. There may be a thousand. There may be a million. There may be "billions and billions." In principle, there may be an infinite number. This means that, no matter how low the odds are against man, or even life, coming into being in *one* universe, the odds are high that in *one* universe out of "billions and billions" (possibly infinitely many), life and even man will evolve. And, while to someone *within* that universe, who thinks there is only one universe, such an evolution will seem vastly improbable, to those who realize there are many universes, it is not improbable at all, but almost dead certain, that such a thing will happen in some universe. So naturally, the atheists will grab onto it. And if they are famous and have a Ph.D. in Physics, they can lend the authority of their degree to the speculation, and 99% of the human race doesn't know enough math and physics to argue with them. And if they don't have a Ph.D. in physics, they can just point to the guy who does, and say: "He teaches at an Ivy League school, so he's smart, and he's right." In other words, the motivation for accepting the multiverse is deeply tainted, both inside and outside the scientific community. I'm not saying the people who came up with it were necessarily motivated by atheism, because I don't know that. But it certainly is what an atheist needs today, just as Darwinism was what an atheist needed in 1859 (as Dawkins pointed out). Now, I know, as a philosopher, that bad motivations for accepting a theory don't make a theory wrong. The multiverse might still be true, even though most of its adherents hold to it far more because they hate religion and hate the idea of God than for any scientific reason. But the fact that the extrinsic motivation is obviously so high, coupled with the fact that there is as yet no empirical evidence for the existence of other universes, and the fact that there may never be such evidence -- meaning that belief in the multiverse may ultimately rest entirely on trust in the theoretical physicists' equations (and the premises on which those equations rest, in a field, cosmology, that changes almost every couple of years) -- should make all sober, cautious philosophers highly guarded in thinking about the multiverse. It is a wish-fulfillment for those who do not want to believe in teleology of any kind. And most philosophers lack the training in mathematics and physics to even being to assess the working assumptions that the physicist champions of the multiverse are making. I can talk to a Kantian philosopher and soon discern the assumptions he is making. But if I read a book of theoretical physics I'm lost after the first paragraph; I cannot bring my philosophical skills to bear to assess the premises of the physicist -- unless he is gracious enough to give me a careful layman's summary, a candid one in which he admits exactly what is not really known, but only assumed, by his professional colleagues. And most theoretical physicists aren't willing to do that. Most of them would rather "talk shop" and leave the lay translation to journalists. But 90% of the journalists living today are ideologues and propagandists rather than truth-tellers -- and this is *especially* true of the famous journalists who work for the big newspapers, magazines, broadcasters, etc. -- and since almost the same percentage of them are committed to a left-liberal, secularist, humanistic, atheistic view of life, it is very hard to get a balanced presentation of the physicists' assumptions. So before I will seriously consider the multiverse, I want to see it written about by (1) a physicist who actually currently works in the field of cosmology, not a journalist; and (2) a physicist who is literate enough to write in the English language rather than jargon and equations; and (3) a physicist who is not already committed for personal reasons against teleology in nature, God, and religion. Condition (3) rules out Sean Carroll, from everything I've read of his writing. (His childish temper tantrum over the appearance of Mike Behe on Bloggingheads gives away his prejudices.) It also rules out the obviously prejudiced Stephen Hawking. Condition (2) rules out most Ph.D.s in theoretical physics, who are geeky poor communicators, like the guys on *The Big Bang Theory*. So where is the literate, prose-gifted, theologically neutral (or, if not neutral, at least scholarly and fair) physicist, who will tell us the real story about the evidence for the multiverse, the assumptions made by the physicists who support it, etc.? Who realizes that the foundations of physics, like those of everything else, are subject to metaphysical analysis and criticism? I've not yet encountered such a person. I would trust a working physicist who was known to be quite willing to tread on toes and be unpopular among his physics colleagues for breaking ranks on various issues, especially if, even if he was not a religious believer, he regularly read, with sympathy and interest, works by religious authors or about different religious traditions of the world, and did not hold to crude reductionism. And if in addition, he showed independence of popular thinking -- if, for example, he thought that AGW was a pile of baloney, I would immediately warm to him, because it would mean he was not a tool of the journalistic and political left. And if he questioned neo-Darwinian theory as shoddy science, I would warm to him even more. Such a person, I would think, would have no motive for misleading me about the multiverse. But is there such a person?Timaeus_{September 23, 2012
September
09
Sep
23
23
2012
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Timaeus and Upright Biped: thank you! I myself don't quite know what to make of the multiverse hypothesis. But I do believe that "multiverse vs. Creator" is not about "science vs. religion", but just a debate between rival metaphysical systems. The relation between metaphysics and science is quite complicated, and so too is the relation between metaphysics and religion. I do think that if more explicit attention was given to the category of "metaphysics", a lot of these "science-and-religion" issues would be clarified. I don't recall what Kauffmann says about the origins of the universe -- I'm not even sure he says anything at all! -- but yes, he's not a reductionist, which is one of the reasons why I like his work. More specifically, he claims that biology is not reducible to physics, and that seems basically right to me. (My commitment to teleological realism has a lot to do with that.) At some point I'm going to have to sit down with the literature on emergence, just to figure out my own views on the subject. KNKantian Naturalist_{September 23, 2012
September
09
Sep
23
23
2012
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

God, Humanity and the Cosmos Topic: The Many-Worlds Interpretation Many Worlds: God and the Multiverse Theory - YouTubeMung_{September 23, 2012
September
09
Sep
23
23
2012
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist:
Clearly there is a tendency towards increased complexity over the course of cosmic history. Perhaps the naturalist would say that there are physical laws we’re not yet aware of. I believe Stuart Kauffmann has said something along these lines.
Kauffmann's an interesting sort. He denies a personal Creator God. But he also rejects reductionism and the idea that everything can be reduced to physical laws. So I'm not sure he feels he needs to rely on many worlds. I'll have to see what I can find of what he has to say on the origin of the cosmos.Mung_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

Folks I am always concerned when infinities are being tossed around cavalierly. Quasi-infinity (large, indefinite no, maybe; actual infinity of discrete objects, questionable.) To give an idea, consider how the set of natural numbers is shown transfinite, by 1:1 correspondence of a known proper subset with the set N:
1, 2, 3, 4 . . . Do for each n, 2*n: 2, 4, 6, 8 . . . Now, do 2*n -1: 1, 3, 5, 7 . . .
That is, we can match the evens and the odds with the whole, there must be in inexhaustible cardinality, known as aleph-null. Now, consider a plane mirror. Behind it, it forms a virtual half-universe of reflected images, that can be located. (The classic pins and rays experiment shows this. Similarly two parallel mirrors mutually reflect a series of receding images.) Convert this to an operation of mathematical reflection with a plane, say Y-Z, that reverses the x-values to -x. Impose the plane at an arbitrary point in the cosmos. This puts a virtual reflection "behind." Now, we have left and right halves and the whole. Imagine that galaxies or sub cosmi are numbered. That is the whole. Now those in the right half are matched to those in the left half by a nearest-to-virtual image operator. Are you prepared to argue that the cardinality of those in one half matches that in the second half and that in the whole as well? On what observational grounds? Do you see the implied problems with thinking of as a scientific claim, that there is an infinity of galaxies, stars or sub cosmi? Quasi-infinity is a better concept. Going on, what is the observational evidence of a multiverse of sub cosmi, of whatever scale? NIL Why then are so many speaking of it as though it were a fact of life? This is metaphysical speculation, whether or not presented with a sophisticated mathematical apparatus. And, whether or not done while wearing lab coats. (Great for protecting clothes from the proverbial chalk dust generated by doing theoretical speculations on the chalk-board.) So, let us revert to the actual subject: philosophy. So, we are looking at no holds barred comparative difficulties, and cannot arbitrarily cripple or dismiss any serious claim or sketch in arbitrary datum lines fortified with rhetorical barbed wire, machine guns and QF field guns with BL heavies backing up. God sits at the table by right, not by sufferance. And the evidence of life-transforming encounter with the living God also is at the table, with millions of cases from all across the world for thousands of years. We even have the 500 eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus the Christ of Nazareth sitting to the table. These have somewhat to say -- if they (including Pascal and his night of fire, Nov 23, 1654) are all delusional, on what grounds can you trust the mind in claimed knowledge of a real world and in logical analysis? Indeed, I must allow Craig to speak, from a recent exchange with Ludemann (and with an onward input from Bradley), regarding one of Kant's apparent little errors in the beginning:
insofar as these . . . assumptions include Kant's strictures on the scope of scientific knowledge, they are deeply, fatally flawed. For Kant must at least be claiming to have knowledge of the way some things (e.g., the mind and its structures and operations) exist in themselves and not merely as they appear; he confidently affirms that the idea of God, for instance, has the property of unknowability. [10] So the theory relies on knowledge that the theory, if it was true, would not -- could not -- allow. [ Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment, ed. Paul Copan (Downer's Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), p. 13. NB: Ref. [10] is to Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 3 - 30, and is shortly followed by a reference to F. H. Bradley's gentle but stinging opening salvo in his Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn.: that "The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is impossible has . . . himself . . . perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena [of metaphysics] . . . . To say that reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is to claim to know reality." (Clarendon Press, 1930), p.1]
So, maybe there is a different balance at the table of comparative difficulties than is imagined. KFkairosfocus_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist, I agree with others here. You are an interesting voice.Upright BiPed_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist (59): Some interesting observations on the pre-Socratics, Monod, the New Atheists, Plato, etc. I think that you and I could do business. I'm so impressed, I'll even forgive you for being a Kantian. On God vs. the multiverse, I'd argue that God is at least as parsimonious an explanation, and more rationally satisfying, especially regarding your question of the origin of rationality. (I'm speaking of "God" here as the philosopher would, and not with reference to any particular religious tradition.) And, while I'm not up on the origin of the multiverse idea within recent physics -- it may have an intrinsic scientific justification that I don't understand -- there's no doubt in my mind that the reason the multiverse idea is so popular within the blogosphere and in the world of pop science generally is that it increases the probablistic resources of reality infinitely, so that no matter how unlikely an outcome is (origin of life, man from unguided evolution), it can always be asserted that the outcome was the product of chance rather than design. Without the multiverse, it looks as if the molecules-to-man narrative, the substitute creation theology of Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould and Star Trek etc., cannot stand before what we are learning of fine-tuning, of the intricate systems of molecular biology, etc. I'm convinced that 95% of the people on this planet who accept the multiverse accept it for extrinsic reasons -- it gets rid of the need for that existentially inconvenient fellow, God -- rather than on the strength of the intrinsic reasons for it. (In fact, 99% of the people now living couldn't even begin to do the math and physics necessary to understanding the intrinsic reasons. Most people simply take out of modern science whatever metaphysical or theological conclusions they want to take out of it, without any regard for the actual science involved.)Timaeus_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the reading suggestions! I do think that if "information" is a fundamental property of the cosmos -- as seems plausible, taken in a certain light -- then it certainly strengthens theism qua inference to the best explanation. I don't rightly know what the naturalistic alternative would look like. Clearly there is a tendency towards increased complexity over the course of cosmic history. Perhaps the naturalist would say that there are physical laws we're not yet aware of. I believe Stuart Kauffmann has said something along these lines. KNKantian Naturalist_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

In addition to rationality and information, another aspect of our own world that I wonder whether "infinite universes" can explain is causation.
I find Aquinas’ Five Ways problematic, partly because of the objections raised by Hume and Russell, and partly because I just can’t think my way into his conceptual framework with regards to causation and possibility.
I certainly understand that! How to think like a Scholastic? http://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_scholasticism.htmlMung_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

KN: here and onward may help. KFkairosfocus_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

KN, While the following may not address your initial question, you may however find it interesting: Real Essentialism Also: The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science I don't know what you think about the nature and role of information, but I'd say that if it's as much a real aspect of our world as matter and energy, I don't know how a infinite universes explains information. otoh, I think the existence of a creator would. For example, regardless of the supposed self-contained ability of universes to be configured differently, why should any particular configuration actually form anything at all? cheersMung_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist @56, I submit that a transcendent God as the first cause is more reasonable than an appeal to multiple, ever-changing universes composed of matter. The latter would be no less in need of being brought into existence than a single universe. Only a self-existent, unchanging, personal, immaterial being who chooses to create can serve as the first cause. Physical laws or temporal matter cannot play that role. Russell's surprisingly naive question about "who made God" is misguided. By logical necessity, the first cause, which is self-existent and eternal, cannot also be a non-eternal, created effect. For a good account of the Humean/Kantian error, may I suggest "Little Errors in the Beginning," by Mortimer J. Adler. It can be found on the internet.StephenB_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Mung, I find Aquinas' Five Ways problematic, partly because of the objections raised by Hume and Russell, and partly because I just can't think my way into his conceptual framework with regards to causation and possibility. I'm a child of modernity, (un)fortunately. I will say this much for theism: it solves the problem of origins of rationality and the problem of the origins of the cosmos at the same time. Indeed, I think that's a major reason why theistic metaphysics remains attractive -- because it explains the rational intelligibility of the universe, which is to say, it answers the question (to use Kant's vocabulary) "how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?" So, where does that leave naturalism? The main lesson I think naturalists should draw from the theistic critique of naturalism is that naturalists should not be "materialists", in the Democritean/Epicurean/Hobbesian sense. Because, truth be told, I'm a metaphysical naturalist, and I find the theistic critique of "materialism" (from Plato through Leibniz, just to stick with the pre-Kantian period) thoroughly devastating. And, on a side-note, I don't share the views of the so-called "New Atheists" because they follow Jacques Monod's "Epicurean" Darwinism from his Chance and Necessity. Monod "epicureanizes" biology, from his point of view as a molecular biologist. What gets lost as a result is the reality of the organism as a whole -- teleological realism -- which has been rightly emphasized by philosophers such as Aristotle, Leibniz, Kant, and Hans Jonas. Personally, I find the problem of the origins of rationality much more serious than the other problems (e.g. the origins of the universe, the origins of life, the origins of sentience). Lately I've taken a serious interest in the work of two twentieth-century philosophers, Wilfrid Sellars and Robert Brandom, in the hope that they might shed some light on the problem.Kantian Naturalist_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Even given an infinite number of universes in an infinite number of configurations we would still lack a basis for rationality in the first place. God explains the very existence of rationality.Mung_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

KN @56:
Any articles or books folks here would recommend for an argument as to why an eternal & personal Creator is a more rational view than a metaphysics of infinitely many universes?
Good question. I'll see if I can come up with some. In the meantime, what about Aquinas' Five Ways? The Existence of God can be proved in five waysMung_{September 22, 2012
September
09
Sep
22
22
2012
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

I can understand, and accept, that a metaphysics of infinite universes is not supported by our best empirical theories. And I can understand, and accept, that a metaphysics of infinite universes is a very old rejoinder to theism. (It really hasn't changed much since Democritus thought it up in the early 300s or so BC.) What I don't understand, however, is why a metaphysics of infinite universes is supposed to be less reasonable than a metaphysics of an eternal & personal Creator. Rather, it strikes me that both views are equally non-scientific (in the strict sense) and equally rational -- or not -- depending on whether one restricts the use of 'rationality' to empirical knowledge. (Which I, for one, would reject.) Any articles or books folks here would recommend for an argument as to why an eternal & personal Creator is a more rational view than a metaphysics of infinitely many universes?Kantian Naturalist_{September 21, 2012
September
09
Sep
21
21
2012
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

Modern science (the fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the fundamentally information-based nature of living systems) has rendered belief in God superbly rational, and an atheistic/materialistic worldview phenomenally irrational. This is not hard to figure out, unless one has a pathological predisposition to avoid transparent truth, even when it smacks him over the head with a sledgehammer. Carroll has it precisely backwards.GilDodgen_{September 21, 2012
September
09
Sep
21
21
2012
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

Warning ignored, action taken for cause. KFcritical rationalist_{September 21, 2012
September
09
Sep
21
21
2012
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

RE: critical rationalist and "knowledge" Likewise in this thread I find no mention of either "explanatory knowledge" or "non-explanatory knowledge" nor any attempt to disambiguate when the more general term "knowledge" is used. I'll respect KF's wishes that critical rationalist depart from this thread. Perhaps we can take up the discussion elsewhere.Mung_{September 21, 2012
September
09
Sep
21
21
2012
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Mung; Here’s a different test: If Jesus was not raised from the dead then our faith is in vain. CR: Wouldn’t that represent the fallacy of undesired consequences, rather than a test? Mung: No. CR: Because? Vain: Not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless: a vain attempt. in vain 1. To no avail; without success: Our labor was in vain. CR: Can you point out the difference? Mung: Can you point out the fallacy?
Fallacy Files: Appeal to Consequences
(Belief in) p leads to good consequences. (Where the good consequences are irrelevant to the truth of p.) Therefore, p is true. (Belief in) p leads to bad consequences. (Where the bad consequences are irrelevant to the falsity of p.) Therefore, p is false.
"If Jesus was not raised from the dead then our faith is in vain." is a form of the latter. The proposition that Jesus was not being raised from the dead leads to ones faith in themselves being resurrected being in vain, which is a bad consequence. But that's irrelevant to the truth or falseness of whether Jesus was actually resurrected.
CR: Furthermore, are you suggesting that God couldn’t have chosen to resurrect Jesus at some time in the future, or not even at all, yet still resurrect everyone else? It’s as if you think God had to raise Jesus at that specific time, or even at all, before he would be able to raise everyone else, despite God supposedly being all powerful. I’m having difficulty reconciling these to claims. Mung: I suppose it’s possible there could be a cult today still waiting for his resurrection, even though he said it also would take place within a specific period of time.
You're not addressing the substance of my comment. Again, it's unclear what Jesus being resurrected at a specific time, or even being resurrected at all, has to do with whether God could or will resurrect everyone else.
But it would make Paul’s preaching rather pointless. And there’s no reason to think Paul would have been preaching at all, inasmuch as his own conversion was tied to his attempt to stamp out the resurrection cult. He went from denying to proclaiming.
Not the point I'm making. To use an analogy, It's not necessary for me to build *you* an iPhone app at some particular place and time before it's possible for me to make an iPhone app for all of my clients. Nor does my not building you an iPhone app mean I do not intend to build one for all of my clients. My ability or intention to do so does not hinge on whether I build one for you. Now, perhaps you mean, If Jesus was not raised from the dead, which conflicts with some supposed promise that he would, then our faith is in vain? But someone already has found a way to interpret the bible in a way that "explains" how some promise wasn't actually broken, despite significant scholarly acknowledging that Jesus's prediction of when he would return was wrong.

_________ [CR: You have substantiated further the reason why I am calling an end to the pattern of behaviour you have been carrying on with. As just one example, notice how you have failed to observe that in fact there is a chain of implications that are pulled out of a first counter-factual premise, then the whole chain is cut by exposing the falsity of the root premise. You are yet again being impervious to substantial correction and insist on points that are laced with contempt and strawman caricatures. Such being disruptive and distractive, I have asked you to leave this thread. Kindly do so now. Good day. KF]critical rationalist_{September 21, 2012
September
09
Sep
21
21
2012
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

F/N: I trust that the above markup will suffice to help CR take a pause and rethink what he has been doing. (I have no intention to have to go over this again; having been forced to spend considerable time this morning on refuting in one collected place what I and others have had to refute several times already in several threads. I did so to explain my disciplinary action in respect of CR, but of course know that the action will be twisted by the usual fever swamp denizens. Let the above stand as their refutation and exposure as irresponsible and willfully in error and slander.) If CR is unwilling to make amends for his errors and slanderous misrepresentations, sadly, he is not a positive contribution to the process of this thread. KFkairosfocus_{September 21, 2012
September
09
Sep
21
21
2012
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

"As we learn more about the universe, there’s less and less need to look outside it for help" Says the guy invoking a multiverse! Doublethink much?Scootle_{September 21, 2012
September
09
Sep
21
21
2012
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

CR: You are willfully misrepresenting the situation. You have been given more than enough access to information to know that design theory is not a variant of creationism, and that this canard is designed to poison the atmosphere in which serious discussion must happen. You have been given enough to know better. You are not discussing in good faith and in the teeth of adequate correction, insist on slander. You also further insist on false accusations, that are tantamount to calling me a liar. That is uncivil, rude and disrespectful, not merely an act of ignorance. Where there is ignorance involved, it is patently willful. (Onlookers may consult the Weak Argument Correctives and Definition of ID in the resources tab, top of this and every UD page to ascertain what a more reasonable view would be. Similarly, in contrast to the slander-laced hatchet job at Wikipedia [which is itself utterly if inadvertently revealing of the actual balance on the merits once you know that . . . ], the New World Encyclopedia, here, has a good survey of what design theory is, and what motivates it. You may also wish to peruse my own survey starting here on, which will both suffice to reveal the fundamentally scientific character of the issues pivotal to design theory and its approach; contrary to the false accusations that are commonly encountered that go to the character of those who insist on such. I am not acting out of mere pique, but on the premise that willfully slanderous false accusations and arrogance connected to such are so corrosive to discussion on a subject that suffers from polarisation and distortion driven by willful slander that I must nip it in the bud.) KINDLY LEAVE THIS THREAD, AND DO NOT RETURN TO ANY THREAD I OWN. GEM of TKI, Thread Owner PS: I will pause and deal with the slamming the door on the way out just above, but I must deal with first things first.kairosfocus_{September 21, 2012
September
09
Sep
21
21
2012
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

CR, to be completely frank, I don't know if I have ever talked to someone as profoundly deluded as you. You think you don't take positions, but you do. You think you don't justify your beliefs, but you do. And the most amazing part is that you seem utterly adamant about the entire preposterous lot. You hail yourself as an "exponent of critical rationalism" yet you've failed to demonstrate either of those words. Your pathology was exposed when you first came here to explain your schtick. You kept building and building on this immense story of all the things you don't do, only to finish by giving yourself a pass to do them all anyway. I am lucky enough to know people who have truly uncanny inner lives, who are very much what you are attempting to be. You should find one yourself and study them closely over a number of years. You will see they demonstrate none of the neediness you have displayed here. You simply do not have the skillset. Perhaps you will someday, but you will not get there by the disconnectedness you've shown here. In any case, when asked to support your claims, your answer is to simply repeat them. Your position is lost by the act of defending it.Upright BiPed_{September 20, 2012
September
09
Sep
20
20
2012
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?

Leave a Reply