PZ continually displays his ignorance of the foundations of science. Being totally imbued with inferential evolution as “valid science”, it is little wonder that he does not connect with the actual empirical process, and the underlying support axioms. He is perpetually incensed that anyone would conclude that there is “faith” involved; after all, faith is evil.
So I will again bring up the inductive fallacy, the deductive fallacy, and the group of axioms called the First Principles. Science exercises all of these. And evolution exercises even more due its lack of experimental verifability. Even Dawkins acknowledges that. The axiomatic foundations are not based on scientific factoids and they are not vulnerable to experimentation, although they are falsifiable and have not been.
What PZ is on about is usually not related in any way to valid scientific assessment or the ways in which knowledge is accumulated. PZ is focused only on defending Materialism and Atheism. To do that he uses a slap-dash scientism-in-your-face attack. Its always an attack: that’s what his congregation likes about PZ’s sermons, he’s an uncivil explosive device, and that appeals to the rebellious adolescent emotional level, those who wish they had the nerve to do that. In our time, there are plenty of those, it seems.
6 comments:
What I don't get, if I recall correctly, is you not believing in Creation and believing in an old age earth etc... Then I see a link to a creation website that is opposite of your beliefs.
I also link to several Atheist and Materialist sites which are opposite of my beliefs.
And I should say that what I don't accept is "creationism", young-earth, literal translation style, as being congruent with physical evidence.
I do think that the universe had a First Cause, existing outside of space and time; that the universe is built in a rational fashion suggesting that the First Cause was rational and intentional; and that our rational intentionality indicates an exceptionalism inexplicable via materialist scientism.
I was getting at the fact of it being titled "A Site of Interesting Atheist Information". Whatever that means.
What necessitates this first cause to be conscious or have divine attributes that haven't been physically observed? If you are going off the Laws of Logic, we can demonstrate and observe the effects of them. Why Label them God? Anything "Materialist/ism" is irrational and foolish, but something like atheistic Platonism seems reasonable. It seems you are attacking atheism from an argument form ignorance.
Anonymous, welcome and thanks for your comments. You said,
"If you are going off the Laws of Logic, we can demonstrate and observe the effects of them."
Yes, of course we can, that's how they were discovered: by observation. But that is just the start. The universal orderings which are described by the laws of logic are effects, themselves. In other words, the First Principles describe attributes of the universe which have been observed for millenia. But the universe being observed here is, itself, an effect.
Now, if the universal orderings that are observable are effects, and of course they are, then there are two possibilities: We may presume either that they are uncaused, or that they have a cause.
If they are uncaused, it means that order in the universe and logic and rationality arose accidentally.
If they are caused, it implies a causal agent that has the qualities of order, logic and rationality.
Atheism claims that the second possibility, a rational cause for the order of the universe, is impossible; but they cannot prove that using their criterion of proof: empirical data - so it is merely dogma.
However, if one follows the general concept of cause and effect, it is not possible to use a non-rational cause for producing rationality in an effect (the cause is always greater than the effect).
So, a non-rational cause is eliminated logically; and a rational cause is eliminated by dogma.
We are left with a logical elimination vs. a dogmatic elimination.
Moving on, please describe your understanding of atheistic Platonism, and we'll discuss it.
You seem to reject materialism at one point, but insist on it at another point in your comment. Do you insist on material evidence of a rational First Cause to be presented directly to you, as you seem to suggest?
And, of what do you think I am ignorant? I have written over 750 posts; none of them addresses the issues you think pertinent?
Also, it would be helpful to identify yourself as other than anonymous, so that I can know it is you specifically that I am addressing, thanks.
Lets say you are right and have a logically sound argument for Deism. How does this Deist justification carry over to a specific mind out of the countless claimed to be "the one"?
Coherence; differentiation, discernment and introspection.
First, coherence.
Coherence is always the first test for validity. Not the idea of coherence with other dogmas, such as coherence with Philosophical Materialism, or coherence with competing religions or philosophies, but internal coherence. If a religion or evangelist is delivering valid premises, the premises will be internally sound, and the axioms will be valid all the way down to the First Principles.
No human (or human religion) is coherent all the time; but the basis and underlying foundations will be coherent, universal, and meta-universal. By this I mean that the source of the universe and its rules is located not within the universe it created, but outside: outside of our space-time, mass-energy restricted experience.
Being outside of our zone of experience, the source of the universe is not describable using our universals, and is not limited by those universals. So Materialism cannot be valid, because it claims that the universe is the limit of reality - which it cannot prove, and which is logically not valid.
Similar logic can be applied to the various claimants to truth. Do their claims lend to material validation? If not, are the claims coherent, internally? Are they coherent with what is currently known of the universe? If they are based on deviations to the laws of the universe, is there a coherent purpose that could be served by that?
Now for differentiation, discernment and introspection. These are the human mental faculties used for logical determinations, including scientific judgments. There is a movement afoot to deny any value to these faculties, since they could be "deluded". Yet there is no value at all to science without the existence of a scientist who exercises these evaluation faculties in the design of the experiment and the testing of the data.
These faculties are personal and not testable nor falsifiable. Yet they can be used to determine coherence of propositions, and to trace premises back to axioms and First Principles. And the results can be compared to the results that others have obtained in their own evaluations.
So first you would need to evaluate what I have said for coherence.
Let me know your results...
Post a Comment