PZ commits his “Sunday Sacrilege” by committing to “non-beliefs” on his list. For starters, his non-beliefs are actually firm beliefs:
! [Q] = [!Q]Can we assume that PZ does subscribe to “natural logic”? If so, then when PZ is committing firmly to not believing in “Q”, he is also committing firmly to positively believing that “Q” does not exist. It is a positive belief system that PZ advocates, and one which his admirers gush their approval.
Here is what PZ believes: Not only does God not exist,
” We deny the Holy Spirit. Jesus was just a man, at best, as were Buddha, Mohammed, and every other prophet and religious figure in history. That much everyone seems to be able to pick up on, but I think there's something even more important that we reject.This is no surprise. Nor is the following:
We don't believe in souls.”
” our minds are the product of a material brain. We are literally soulless machines made of meat, honed by millions of years of ruthless, pitiless evolution.As evidence for this, PZ presents not experimental empirical data, but a cartoon. But he does present his logic, here:
And so is everyone else.
When we die, there is no paradise, no hell, not even a grim gray afterlife of darkness and regret…we are just gone. Everyone who has ever lived has or will simply end, and become nonexistent.”
” telling me that I'll get to go to heaven when I die is about as believable as telling me that I'll be rewarded with beer volcanoes and strippers for my irreverence. I'd rather be honest and aware then (sic) deluded and oblivious.”It’s about believability. Not data; there is no data either way. It’s about a belief system. PZ positively believes and preaches the following:
a) there is no deity. Nor are there any prophets or holy men of any stripe.If we take each of these (religious) positions as a logical conclusion, we are forced to ask, where are the premises upon which these conclusions are based? If there are premises, are they proven valid, clear back through the premise chain? If there are no premises, how are these conclusions derived, logically and rationally? Really, where are the premises?
b) there is no Holy Spirit.
c) there is no Jesus who defied Materialist laws.
d) There is no soul; and therefore presumably no “essence of life”.
e) The human is a meat machine, determined by natural laws: mass / energy which produced life, sentience, intellect, self-determination (intentionality), all by simple selection of mass / energy found in fortuitous conjunction.
f) upon death, all these things, being material, disassemble. The body suddenly takes on entropy.
If we take each of these positions as empirical, scientific conclusions, we are forced to ask, where is the data? Where are the experiments? Where is the peer-reviewed publication of the empirical programs that produced these results?
Clearly there is no premise chain, nor are there empirical, experimental data results that produce these claims.
How then, are these claims made with such assurance of their truth value? If it is not logic, nor is it science, then it must be an unfounded system of beliefs, a system of beliefs that is based on wishful thinking as a substitute for logic and science.
Atheism requires belief in subsidiary absurdities that are necessary for support of their belief system. These include:
1) that determinate mass / energy acting under physical laws could and did spawn non-determinate, intentional, living beings which defy entropy during their lives.
Alternatively, Atheists will believe
2) that there is no non-determinate, intentional life which defies entropy, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Evidence for this is illusion, delusion and is denied.
The first belief, 1), requires that the cause and effect chain be broken, an event that only occurs in Atheist thinking, and evolution. In Atheist belief, an effect (anentropic life, sentience, etc ) occurs that is outside and beyond the scope and capacity of the cause (entropic mass / energy laws). This is counter to the notion that the cause must be greater than the effect and be necessary and sufficient to cause the effect. Of course cause and effect, as a principle, is deniable philosophically (but not empirically). For logic that complies with empiricism, life, sentience, intentionality etc. must have causes that comply with the rules for cause and effect. But the proposed cause (entropic mass / energy laws) fail. So Atheist beliefs, under 1) above, fail logic principles again.
The second belief, 2), requires denying the obvious: that intentionality exists. But such a denial is also immediately seen to deny that all assertions are not intentional, including the assertion that intentionality does not exist.
Non-intentional actions, i.e. actions that are governed by physical laws of the universe, are without teleology, purpose or meaning. They are devoid of anything other than the fact that they occurred: mere sounds or digits or bits with no value. This belief, 2), is then devoid of meaning or value, and is self-refuting, another failure of logic.
Moreover, if empirical evidence for intentionality is deniable as illusion or delusion, then all empirical evidence is deniable and without value under the same criteria. Clearly Materialist Atheists do not intend this outcome.
Why is the logical and scientific absurdity of Atheism lost on its adherants? There are probably as many answers as there are Atheists, but there are likely some common ones. Atheism is convenient; one gets to define both reality and ethics to suit one’s own convenience. Atheism is easy; it makes no demands on the individual. Atheism is simple; it is merely a single denial and you’re in. Atheism is a release from difficult, uncomfortable ethical decisions. Atheism is acceptance into a false society of “elitism”, based on false “rationality” and false “logic”, as well as a complete non-basis in empirical science.
In a word, Atheism is self-focus: convenient; easy; simple; a release; acceptance as an elite. A close look at Humanism illuminates a culture of elites focused on themselves, with objectives of setting the world up so that the world focuses on them also. Possibly this is the main attraction, not logic or science.
59 comments:
Atheism requires belief in subsidiary absurdities that are necessary for support of their belief system. These include:
1) that determinate mass / energy acting under physical laws could and did spawn non-determinate, intentional, living beings which defy entropy during their lives.
What is that suppose to mean? Where do you see physical laws being defied?
Took a few minutes to read another entry on your blog, and the comments.
I would like to add this to my previous question because it's related.
Why do you say: "In materialist evolution, first life – regardless of its source – is not understood to be sentient, conscious, to recognize a separate self, although it is or should be recognized as being a minimal agent, having both the goals and the means to accomplish goals, including finding nourishment and reproducing. These features are beyond the capabilities of entropic mass-energy, unless magic is invoked."
Again, where do you see physical laws being violated?
I don't come here to read often so I don't know how much you discussed all this already, but it seems to me that there is this recurring theme here that you don't accept the idea that being counscious is simply a product of the brain, as are many other faculties that we humans posess.
We process energy received from food, this makes our brain functions, and from the brain emerges our experience of self.
Let me point out before you do so that whether this is an absolute description of the truth of our reality or not is irrelevant, as we could still be connected, somehow, to a network of minds, or something like that, that would be detached from our body and allow the self to persist beyond the physical body.
But that is another idea that needs to be proven, and you seem to think that it's the other way around, that, by default, the self must be considered as not being a consequence of material existence.
In other words, we already have evidence that the physical body has an influence on the self; brain damage being an irrufutable proof that the physical state that the brain is in can affect a person's behavior and thought process.
This does not prove in any way that this is all that there is; but I don't understand how you can be in a position of seeing both as having to be proven.
Ok, last comment for now ;) just thought of a simple question, with follow-up, that I would like to ask...
Do you have an example of a self-conscious intelligent entity that does not posess a physical body?
If no; what makes you think that such entity can exist?
PZ says-
"That's the obnoxious part of religion, and why it's in conflict with science. Science is the world of Let's-Find-Out, while religion is always the land of You-Can't-Know-That. "
All religions that I am aware of teach a great deal of things one can know. (It is best to live by these rules… Jesus taught…)
Our best, our most tested science (physics), more or less begins with a clear statement of what you can't know (Heisenberg's uncertainty).
Hugo, thanks for your thoughtful questions.
Hugo asks,
” Again, where do you see physical laws being violated?
As was discussed in the text, entropy (second law of thermodynamics) is violated. Living beings are anentropic until death, when they suddenly become entropic, decaying according to natural laws. And also cause and effect, where the cause (under entropy) must be greater than the effect, necessary and sufficient to cause the effect.
Cause and effect interactions between mass and mass, mass and energy, and energy and energy are not seen to produce results that are greater than themselves; molecules and fields are not seen to produce sentience for example. The idea that sentience is purely a combination of such physical manifestations is a Materialist hypothesis that has no correlate in the laboratory. There is nothing about molecules and electric fields that suggests that sentience is an expectation of their combination; the only reason to suspect that is the observation – under materialist restrictions – that a) sentience exists, b) only material mass / energy exists, therefore (reasoning backwards) c) sentience is mass / energy. But the Materialist restriction is unproven, and cannot be used as a truth statement in a valid syllogism; it is a belief, and only a belief, not being falisifiable nor verifiable using material measurements.
So mass, operated on by energy, is not sufficient to cause life or sentience which is outside and beyond either mass or energy, or both together.
” we already have evidence that the physical body has an influence on the self; brain damage being an irrufutable proof that the physical state that the brain is in can affect a person's behavior and thought process.
There is no question that the physical brain is a scaffold upon which the mind operates, and that with a broken scaffold, the mind is hampered. That does not mean that the brain is the mind, however. But the brain is more than just a scaffold; it is the non-material mind’s connection to the material universe.
If the brain were all that there is to sentience, then “life” would not be necessary for sentience. But life actually is necessary for sentience, and the question becomes “what is life”? Under the Materialist restriction, life is just the body (mass), animated (energy). But again, animation in the sense of self-directed animation does not occur with just mass and energy combined, nor is it an expectation of natural laws governing mass and energy.
[Comment continued below due to excessive verbosity of replier]
[Comment continued from above]
”This does not prove in any way that this is all that there is; but I don't understand how you can be in a position of seeing both as having to be proven.”
I suspect that you might misunderstand my position on proof. It is the Atheist, Philosophical Materialist that demands proof, material proof. As Bertrand Russell said, “We must have proof in order to believe a thing”. He asserts this as a moral imperative, yet he offered no proof of the assertion he makes. My position is that Atheism is non-coherent in exactly that manner: they demand proof, yet they have no proof of the truth or validity of their own beliefs. So I demand proof of Atheist positions in complete accordance with their own demand for proof for everything.
” Do you have an example of a self-conscious intelligent entity that does not posess a physical body?
If no; what makes you think that such entity can exist?”
If such an entity did exist, it would do so undetected by material beings. Your requirements are that a non-material entity exist without a material interface; I suggest a different question: how is it that there is an apparent quantum connection between mind and a physical object that is outside the cranium? Does the mind exist outside the brain, as is being suspected?
And one step beyond: the mind is able to do more than apprehend incoming signals from neural sensors and integrate them into a “present state”. It also sorts memories of such inputs into categories and induces general laws of existence from that. Moreover, it can question validity and induce abstract laws concerning true and false, existence and non-existence, cause and effect, probability and purpose. These laws are abstracta that can be seen to exist in natural relationships, but are not expected to result from mass / energy interactions: these laws control the mass / energy interactions. Why would a brain, a clump of neurons exhibiting ionic discharge, be expected to have this capacity for such abstraction?
Both Richard Feynmann and A.J. Ayer had out-of-body experiences. I have not had one and don’t expect to, but I don’t deny the possibility. If it did happen, it could not be proved, materially, empirically. Regardless, it would be denied out-of-hand by Skeptics and Philosophical Materialists. So this makes me (the individual) the sole arbiter of reality and its limits, because only the individual can determine if non-material existence is a part of reality; Materialists and strict empiricists and Atheists are obligated by their doctrine to deny its existence.
Stan-
This is slightly OT, and I'm not sure if you've seen this--
http://skepticblog.org/2010/04/06/would-i-ever-pray-for-a-miracle/#more-7518
(Don't ask how I got to this…)
I was surprised at how many of the comments (as well as the main article) were like, "I prayed, nothing happened, I turned atheist."
I was not taught that my wish is God's command. Is that a normal teaching? I would agree with the atheist that there isn't a God like that...
sonic,
Many atheists would respond with Matthew 17:20 "...I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."
So it is possible to conclude that being turned Atheist by virtue of not getting what you expect from a prayer indicates a faith less than a mustard seed...
There is a "prosperity" sect that teaches that God wants to prosper you, just pray; also there is the Prayer of Jabez, a prosperity prayer from the bible, also in book form. In this way of thinking, God would never say No to a prayer. But that is not rational. What if I prayed for that mountain to move, and you prayed for it to stay put? What could be done with that, presuming that God is rational, and that reality is physically common to both of us? So the idea that God grants all prayer request is logically absurd.
These sects regard God as a vending machine, prayer in, goodies out. I think this results from a literalist approach to the bible, an approach that makes no sense on a logical basis, because the writings range from allegorical to lyrical to hearsay. For example, faith is not measured in mustard seeds: it's an obvious parable, a metaphor.
I think that Atheists claiming that prayer failure turned them to Atheism were already destined to be Atheist.
"I think that Atheists claiming that prayer failure turned them to Atheism were already destined to be Atheist."
This is what happened to me, and is exactly why I'm no longer atheist. Although I'm not back to theism either. :) If I return to atheism at some point it will be for good reasons.
Martin-
Nice quote (from Matthew)-
I guess one could point out that the word 'you' can refer to one, a few, many, or all, but I'm not a Bible scholar; I admit I really don't know too much. (Yesterday I said, "You owe me 5 bucks!," but I don't think I meant that to apply to anyone except the one guy.)
For me it is clear- if God exists, he is not a wish vending machine (at least not in a time frame of human existence).
I do have a relationship with God, and it changes over time. Of course so does my relationship with my wife...
Martin,
What would you consider a good reason?
"What would you consider a good reason?"
I'm not saying there are good reasons (or are not). I'm just saying that if I became one again it would be through proper reasoning as opposed to fallacious reasoning (fallacious like the first time I ended up there).
If philosophy were taught in school like everything else, I never would have made those mistakes in the first place.
Martin said,
"If philosophy were taught in school like everything else, I never would have made those mistakes in the first place."
Exactly. That is almost a First Principle, in my opinion. Education, even back in my school days, has failed to teach rational thought, its source and its consequence. A consequence of that lack of education is that a great many people truly believe that "critical thought" entails merely Materialism and Scientism, nothing more.
I don't remember Logic being taught, certainly not in grades 1-12, and not even in engineering, where electromagnetic physics was king. I doubt that the professors had taken Logic courses either.
Logical manipulation techniques are taught in digital electronics, but the deeper meanings are not encountered.
I bought my first Logic book (by Copi) at a Library excess book sale. I guess no one ever read it. I didn't read it for a decade. But it was part of an eye opening and mind opening experience when I finally did read it. I have bought all the basic Logic books that I can find, especially by renowned authors.
Logic still doesn't help me find my car keys though.
Hey Stan,
Interesting reply; I did not get much time to reply and will do one quickly just now because it's really fascinating but I am in a rush...
...As was discussed in the text, entropy (second law of thermodynamics) is violated...
I still don't get that. A human being is not a closed system so how can the 2nd law of thermodynamics be broken?
Cause and effect interactions between mass and mass, mass and energy, and energy and energy are not seen to produce results that are greater than themselves; molecules and fields are not seen to produce sentience for example.
Now I think I understand that part perfectly, but the way I understand it makes it sound just plain wrong. We observe simple atoms forming more complex ones, complex atoms arranging into simple molecules, simple molecules arranging in more complex chains, and so on...
Just take a supernova for example. You're aware of what happens when it explodes? It breaks the iron barrier and produces almost (if not all) the elements of the periodic table. In other words, you start with hydrogen/helium only, and end up with all the other atoms. Isn't that something simple becoming more complex naturally and spontaneously?
That's an important point because you went on to say that "There is nothing about molecules and electric fields that suggests that sentience is an expectation of their combination", correct, but there is also nothing that suggests that an hydrogen nuclei will one day combine with another nuclei to form helium... and even more surprising, nothing to suggest that it will continue combining and form all the atoms we know of... yet it does happen!
Therefore, I think this last sentence you wrote as a small conclusion is not supported at all:
So mass, operated on by energy, is not sufficient to cause life or sentience which is outside and beyond either mass or energy, or both together.
Moving on...
If the brain were all that there is to sentience, then “life” would not be necessary for sentience.
Why? Our brain is dependant on a living organism to function; no body to feed the brain with energy and the brain stops working, we all agree... yet you seem to contradict that simple fact right here.
Now I can think of an objection right away: it does not mean that the thinking process stops when the brain dies. Correct, but the point is that I do not see any reason to think that the mental abilities that I have are going to continue when my brain stops working.
So do I need to prove that to be an Atheist? That's what you seem to imply in the next section when you talk about proofs. I found it quite weird to read: ...they demand proof, yet they have no proof of the truth or validity of their own beliefs.... What beliefs as an Atheist do I have that I offer no proof for? You are refering to the materialist position here?
(Isn't weird, I have to ask what I believe in! Or perhaps I am not an Atheist? I certainly don't believe in any god or promises of afterlife, so...)
PART 2 (written later when I had more time...)
Hugo asked: "Do you have an example of a self-conscious intelligent entity that does not posess a physical body?
If no; what makes you think that such entity can exist?"
Stan replied: If such an entity did exist, it would do so undetected by material beings.
Why?
Stan continued: Your requirements are that a non-material entity exist without a material interface
No. I think you confused that with people, like me, who start by assuming, a pre-supposition if you want, that the we exist, the common reality we share is what we define as existence, and I think that I am real. I cannot prove that, I just assume it to be true. I don't need to prove that the material world exists, I am in the material world.
You sound like somewhat who wants to be proven that what we share as a common reality is really really. It can lead to interesting philosophical question, but it's never going the come close to deny the fact that we do live in something that we call reality. We make a distinction between what's real and what's fiction, what's a dream and what's not.
The physical world, the one that science studies, is the one that I assume to be real. I cannot prove that something exists or not outside of it, and that is why I come to ask you: why do you think that something could exist outside of the natural/physical/real world? I have no burden of proof, unless you want to argue against the existence of the real world?
Stan: I suggest a different question: how is it that there is an apparent quantum connection between mind and a physical object that is outside the cranium?
You are amazed by an ERM?
Does the mind exist outside the brain, as is being suspected?
Suspected? What is that suppose to mean? A lot of phenomenon are studied regarding the brain.
It's funny because at that point and, honestly, thought about near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences, and what did you talk about later ;)
People who have strong lucid dreaming for example do tend to feel out-of-body experience. But they are not awake when that happens... They think they are awake, but they are not. It's just a trick of the brain.
So does the mind exist outside the brain? Does not look like it to me... but again, we cannot prove it, we can simply explain the weird experiences that some people have, and compare between each other to try to understand what's going on.
Then you went on and describe how great a mind is... ya, I am amazed too, that a natural brain can have evolved to do all this, it's incredible!
-PART 3-
Why would a brain, a clump of neurons exhibiting ionic discharge, be expected to have this capacity for such abstraction?
How many molecules of H20 does it take for something to be considered wet?
In other words, how many neurons does it take to consider someone alive? Awake? Self-aware? Intelligent? Rational?
...So this makes me (the individual) the sole arbiter of reality and its limits...
We have senses, and a memory, that's enough to do all that we do. If you think that your senses are better than someone else, good for you. But we do live in a common reality, one you cannot deny. We are using the internet dammit, I hope we can agree that this is real... lol
...because only the individual can determine if non-material existence is a part of reality; Materialists and strict empiricists and Atheists are obligated by their doctrine to deny its existence.
I am a materialist because I think the material world exist, is real, and I like to learn about it.
I am an Atheist, I do not believe any gods are real; I do not believe we have a soul that will survive the death of our physical body, thus making the whole idea of a god meaningless.
You claim that my "doctrines" force me to deny the existence of a possible non-material existence, but I make no claim about such thing. More importantly, I do not know anything about such thing, so if you know something about it, let me know... but I don't see why I would believe claims like -this immaterial thing/being 'X' exists in or out of our reality/universe, but we cannot detect it by any means available to us material being-. That's not against my doctrine, that's just plain stupid, and I know you won't adhere to that yourself anyway.
Hugo,
You have covered a lot of ground. My response also covers a lot of ground.
I have organized this response using the following subject headers: 1) Self-organization via supernovae; 2) Entropy as Exclusively Closed System; 3) Water : wetness as neurons : sentience 4) Mental Limits; 5) Denial.
1. Self-organization via supernovae etc. Are heavy atoms/molecules “more than” hydrogen atoms?
"There is nothing about molecules and electric fields that suggests that sentience is an expectation of their combination", correct, but there is also nothing that suggests that an hydrogen nuclei will one day combine with another nuclei to form helium... and even more surprising, nothing to suggest that it will continue combining and form all the atoms we know of... yet it does happen!”
But nothing new has been created; only combinations of existing components have been achieved. It is likely the case that the components were created at various stages of the Big Bang, and possibly in similar conditions around the universe today, but that is a determinate feature of physical laws. Sentience and intentionality are not determinate. They are not in the “determinate effect” category.
Therefore, I think this last sentence you wrote as a small conclusion is not supported at all:
’So mass, operated on by energy, is not sufficient to cause life or sentience which is outside and beyond either mass or energy, or both together’.
Life and sentience are not achieved by supernovae or chemical modification of elements into compounds. (This subject is covered more fully in item 3, below.) The statement stands by virtue of the category difference, where the determinate material effects of a material cause are not the same category as non-determinate non-material effects of a proposed material cause.
” but the point is that I do not see any reason to think that the mental abilities that I have are going to continue when my brain stops working.”
Actually the point here is that the mind operates on and across the brain; the brain is not the mind, it hosts the mind. What happens to the mind after the death of the brain is not the issue. This cannot be proven empirically one way or the other. So for a Materialist, denial is in order; for a skeptic of Materialism, agnosticism would be in order. ( See item 5 for more on denial).
”What beliefs as an Atheist do I have that I offer no proof for? You are refering to the materialist position here?”
Yes. However, to push a point, if you believe that death ends every vestige of yourself, where is your evidence for that belief?
Referring to a non-material, yet intelligent being…
Stan said,
“If such an entity did exist, it would do so undetected by material beings.”
Hugo said,
”Why?”
Communication between material beings requires material media; the media is accessed by material outputs by agent A and is received as material inputs to the senses of agent B. A non-material being would have no material means of communication. Perhaps you presume a direct mind <> mind connection? That does not seem to follow from the question.
2. Entropy as exclusively closed system.
The closed system model extends into general statements concerning irreversible processes not being produced in nature. This was best stated by Max Planck:
“Whether reversible processes exist in nature or not, is not a priori evident on demonstrable. There is , however, no purely locgical objection to imagining that a means may some day be found of completely reversing some process hitherto considered irreversible: one, for example in which friction or heat-cnduction plays a part. But it can be demonstrated that if, in a single instance, one of the processes here declared to be irreversible should be found to be reversible, then all of these processes must be reversible in all cases. Consequently, either all or none of these processes are irreversible. There is no third possibility. If those processes are not irreversible, the entire edifice of the second law will crumble. None of the numerous relations deduced from it , however many may have been verified by experience, could then be considered as universally proved, and theoretical work would have to start from the beginning… It is this foundation on the physical fact of irreversibility which forms the strength of the second law. If therefore, it must ve admitted that a single experience contradiction that fact would render the law untenable, , on the othe rhand, any confermation of part supports the whole structure, and gives to deductions, even in seemingly remote regions, the full significance possessed by the law itself.”(1)
Atoms forming into molecules, crystals etc are finding lower energy levels at which to exist; they deterministically obey laws of physics, not self-intent. Intent is a capability accompanied by sentience, life and includes defying physical laws as in purposefully using certain laws to defy other laws.
Determinate physical processes are not the same as non-determinate intentionality.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
Crystal formation and molecular chains form under entropic law. Such molecules are not “more organized” than individual atoms. They are merely atoms connected together in lower energy combinations. The properties are those of self-description, i.e. water is “wet” (see 3, below) in the sense that it adheres to surfaces giving those surfaces a different quality of friction, refraction, and also the evaporation changes surface temperatures, all of which are in obedience to physical laws. This is eminently predictable under those physical laws.
Living things that exhibit intent and sentience can and do violate physical laws. Their behaviors are not predictable under any law of physics.
Living things convert energy into higher forms of existence. Living things, especially higher forms, can go up hill, by first wanting to go there, then by purposefully implementing energy conversion into an increase in altitude. They can take rocks up hill by wanting to do that, then implementing that, intentionally.
Entropy:
1. “There is a tendency in nature to proceed toward a state of greater molecular disorder.” (not restricted to closed systems). (2)
2. 100% conversion of heat into mechanical work is not possible by any form of engine.(3) [Specific]
3. There is a tendency in nature to proceed toward a state of greater molecular disorder. This one-sidedness of nature produces irreversible processes. (4) [General]
There are no reversible processes seen in nature. Using the admittedly flawed inductive process we can say that entropy is universal: there are no “back eddy anentropic natural processes”. We can also say that purposefully moving a rock back uphill is anentropic. As Russell pointed out, catching a train is against the determinate laws of nature.
(1)Max Planck, “The Second Law of Thermodynamics”; World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics, Ferris, Ed.; Little Brown & Co. pubs; 1989; pg 343.
(2) Modern University Physics, Richards, Sears, Wehr, Zemansky, Addison-Wesley Pub., 1960.
(3) http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/SECOND_THERM.html; Sears and Zemansky, p 342,
(4) http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/SECOND_THERM.html; Sears and Zemansky, p 347,
3. Water : wetness as neurons : sentience
” How many molecules of H20 does it take for something to be considered wet?
In other words, how many neurons does it take to consider someone alive? Awake? Self-aware? Intelligent? Rational?”
I.e. Water, therefore wetness; Neurons, therefore sentience.
Wetness is entirely predictable from its natural characteristics of surface tension, and adherence, with the sensation of “wet” being based on fluidity, surface tension, friction modification, and evaporative effect on temperature change.
What natural features of a neuron predictably and determinately result in the characteristics of being “alive? Awake? Self-aware? Intelligent? Rational?” not to mention intentionality?
If the characteristics of a neuron actually did result determinately in these features of sentience, then why would rationality, for example, not be a determinate result like other natural laws produce? Yet rationality arguably is not only not a determinate feature, it is not a feature at all for some folks, and rare in others. I know, and you probably do also, people who never connect consequences to their actions (beyond the basic “hot stuff burns me” level). Rationality can and does turn on and off, sometimes intentionally, sometimes emotionally.
The idea of volume complexity does not serve to answer, either. For example, piling more and more grains of silicon sand together does not predict the emergence of a silicon–based logic chip.
Another issue is that it is a feature of our universe that every cause has a prior cause for itself, a chain of causation which devolves back to First Principles. This is not discernable in the argument that neurons cause sentience. The argument seems to end at neurons: neuron> lots of neurons> sentience. In other words, material N> lots of material N> non-material emergence.
The (water : wetness) as (neuron : sentience) argument seems too simplified to capture the essence of sentience emerging from biochemical ionic discharges, which occur within and between neurons, neurons being being the ultimate and final cause of sentience. And there is no supportive empirical evidence for either the argument or the conclusion, of which I am aware.
4. Mental Limits
” Stan:
I suggest a different question: how is it that there is an apparent quantum connection between mind and a physical object that is outside the cranium?
Hugo:
You are amazed by an ERM?
Stan:
Does the mind exist outside the brain, as is being suspected?
Hugo:
Suspected? What is that suppose to mean?”
Well, I was talking about quantum physics issues… where potential matter responds experimentally in some fashion to mental activity (the act of observation) – either matter knows what is in the mind, or the mind extends outward to the matter – what were you talking about?
5. Denial
” We have senses, and a memory, that's enough to do all that we do. If you think that your senses are better than someone else, good for you. But we do live in a common reality, one you cannot deny.”
In no way have I ever denied the existence of physical reality. The denials (without evidence) come from the Philosophical Materialists, who deny that there is any reality beyond mass/energy which is maintained within space/time.
Denialism without evidence is exactly the position that I refuse; it belongs to a form of irrationality, one that claims to be evidence based, but which cannot prove its own exclusivism tenets with evidence. It is internally non-coherent and paradoxical.
I don’t claim to have empirical proof for an expanded reality. What I claim is that it is irrational to make claims of certainty about it, especially that it does not exist. And it is apparent that physical, 3 dimensional investigative tools and techniques cannot touch anything that is not within that 3 dimensional realm. I also claim that the self, the mind, consciousness, sentience etc are not physical lumps that can be pared away, weighed, photographed, dissected with lasers, etc. And if that is true, then those things are either non-existent or they are non-physical entities that exist in a non-material realm.
You might claim that I have the burden of proof for my assertion; You are correct, and my assertion includes the acknowledgement of the impossibility of proving, materially, a non-material reality.
However, your responsibility in the discussion includes the burden of rebuttal, which carries the same responsibilities: valid assertions based on empirical, verifiable fact, or reasons why not.
If, for example, you were to claim that (a)empirical proof is needed to believe a thing, and that (b) there is no first cause, then it is your obligation under (a) to provide empirical proof for (b).
Hey, thanks for the answers! again, it's a very interesting discussion.
Since I was in front of the computer when you posted the reply, why not say a quick comment right away...
That sentence got my attention:
I don’t claim to have empirical proof for an expanded reality. What I claim is that it is irrational to make claims of certainty about it, especially that it does not exist.
I don't think anybody claims absolute certainty; do you feel that it is the case with people who claim to be materialist/naturalist?
Personally I did state in my previous response that I cannot prove that the material world is all that exists, but since it does, I consider, by default, that what we observe are consequences of that real material world. Do you consider that opinion to be the same as denying a non-material possible reality?
Hugo,
There are two distinct types of materialism. (I prefer the term materialism to the term naturalism: a first cause might be natural, but not material).
First is the voluntary materialism that science accepts as a functional limit on its ability to investigate. Functional materialism does not make claims on that which it cannot investigate. This was addressed in detail by Karl Popper, in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", a book which is a must for anyone interested in this subject.
The second type of materialism is Philosophical Materialism, which claims, with certainty, that there is no reality beyond physical mass/energy existence. This is a fundamental of Atheism, which also is a rejection expressed with certainty, yet without proof or hope of proof, just like Philosophical Materialism.
Philosophical Materialism claims science as its basis, but in actuality science (functional materialism) does not in any way support the extrapolatory claims made by Philosophical Materialists.
So Philosophical Materialism is a parasite on science, which science, being concerned with more legitimate pursuits, has not shaken off.
The famous evangelistic Atheist "scientists", such as Dawkins, Meyers, Piggliucci, are not empirical scientists at all. They are story tellers in the pursuit of propping up a non-empirical hypothesis (evolution) with Just So Stories that they expect to be taken as truth. None of them has made a valid contribution to biological science, much less hard physical science using empiricism. They are not famous for their science contributions, but for their evangelistic Atheism; they are parasites on science.
And, yes, Atheism does express certainty; uncertainty is expressed by agnosticism.
Stan,
I guess my last comment really pined down the interesting point of our discussion here, because your answer surprised me. So I want to focus on that only.
First is the voluntary materialism that science accepts as a functional limit on its ability to investigate. Functional materialism does not make claims on that which it cannot investigate.
No problem there.
The second type of materialism is Philosophical Materialism, which claims, with certainty, that there is no reality beyond physical mass/energy existence. This is a fundamental of Atheism, which also is a rejection expressed with certainty, yet without proof or hope of proof, just like Philosophical Materialism.
First surprise, because using that definition, I don't see who would label themselves as Atheists. For example, I have not even read the God Delusion, but I remember clearly seeing Dawkins mention in interview that he would never consider himself a 10/10 Atheist, or a 0/10 Theist, whatever. So who are these people who are "crazy" enough to claim, with certainty, that there is no reality beyond physical mass/energy existence.
Is your blog analyzing an atheism that in fact does not really exist? that no one adheres to?
That was not the most surprising though; it came next, and I will quote the main point:[...]They are story tellers in the pursuit of propping up a non-empirical hypothesis (evolution) with Just So Stories that they expect to be taken as truth.[...]
You consider the theory of evolution to be just stories!?
I purposely avoid putting the names of the few people you mention because you're claiming that evolution is a theory that is not supported by empirical evidence, and that's just weird... I don't even know what you mean honestly because what would be the non-religious alternative?
Hugo,
I'm glad to see your still around, and I appreciate your comments and the chance to reply.
One thing to remember about Atheists, secularists, Skeptics, and Philosophical Materialists is that they do not believe in Truth (capital T), or in absolutes of any type. Everything to them is relative, subjective, and is ensconced in moral Consequentialism. So it is more important to observe behaviors than to believe in words spoken.
Dawkins was absolutely vicious toward the previous Atheist hero, Antony Flew, when Flew became a Deist. Dawkins wants parents who teach religion to their children to be treated as child abusers. Dawkins funded the bus sign program extolling the virtues of Atheists and Atheism. The list goes on and on. For Dawkins to claim anything but Atheism is maximally disingenuous.
Read Hitchens; Harris; Onfray; Meyers; Martin; Crick; Pinker; Dennett; Also read and query the various Atheist blogs – that will open your eyes I think.
Now for evolution. I consider evolution to be an hypothesis which is supported by zero direct observation, empirically and experimentally speaking. Paleologically speaking there are scads of fossils which are lined up and declared – without even the possibility of direct, replicable, experimental proof – that they are related, that they were selected for such and so traits that occurred accidentally via mutation or introgression, etc, which were found beneficial and kept in the genome. This method developed all organs, limbs, and so on, from only mere “replicating hydrocarbon chains”. This is supported not by empirical science and replicated experiments, but by stories (inferences and extrapolations), which evolutionist Steven Jay Gould referred to as “Just So Stories”, referring to stories made up by Rudyard Kipling to explain things: “why the elephant has wrinkles” (he eats cookies in bed and gets crumbs in his pajamas).
Gould himself engaged in Just So Story telling, his most famous being the explanation for not finding transitional chains between stable populations, a theory called Puctuated Equilibrium, a perfect example of an unprovable story created to explain data that is not there. Dawkins claims that “fortuitous replicators occurred”, for no validatable reason at all, based on nothing whatsoever other than speculation. Dennett has books on how intentionality developed via evolution, with zero empirical validation. Story telling (again, inference and extrapolation) is so embedded in evolutionary "theory" that it has become the expectation, the norm by which it is advanced. When challenged about this, protagonists of evolution claim that their science is different and requires "different standards". But those different standards are actually an elimination of large, meaningful chunks of the scientific method, and logic itself, which is the basis for empirical science.
The problem and the benefit for evolutionary story tellers is that they have to make up stuff to fill the gaps, and they get to claim it as fact, or a mountain of inferences that equates to fact (Dawkins makes this exact claim). But no mountain of inference equates to replicable, falsifiable fact, which is why real scientists do not refer to results as facts: they are contingent findings, subject to change with further study. And if they are not falsifiable, they are not disprovable and are then identities, metaphysical in nature, not material qantities.
[continued below]
[continued from above]
Your challenge of what is the alternative is a common one. But an unsubstantiated hypothesis need not be accepted just because there is no material alternative. The requirement for materiality of the alternative is, in itself, a non-empirical requirement, in the sense that empirical science doesn’t limit reality, it limits its investigations to material cause and effect. There is nothing within the voluntary materialism of empiricism that declares that origins must be material. Only Philosophical Materialists claim that.
In fact, the origin of the universe could not have been material, if it is conceded that mass/energy and space/time did not exist before the Big Bang, yet the Big Bang had a cause. But this is cosmology and philosophical logic, not evolution.
My claim here is that evolution is not an immutable "fact", and that it is not a reason to become or remain Atheist, especially if one demands empirical evidence for that which one believes. Evolution does not hold up to that (Philosophical Materialist) standard of proof, yet it, evolution, is commonly used as evidence for, and reason to believe in, Philosophical Materialism and Atheism.
Hey again Stan,
I am glad to have narrowed down the subject because I see that you still had a lot to write on evolution, and it is a core item that we seem to disagree on. It's not directly directed to Atheism obviously, but it is strongly influential for most people, including myself.
But before, you said: One thing to remember about Atheists, secularists, Skeptics, and Philosophical Materialists is that they do not believe in Truth (capital T), or in absolutes of any type. Everything to them is relative, subjective, and is ensconced in moral Consequentialism. So it is more important to observe behaviors than to believe in words spoken.
I agree with the statement that there is no absolute Truth. When we start from basic philosophical principles, there is nothing that we can fully prove. How do you know that you exist? Because you think? How do you know that you think? How do you know that what you think is thinking is actually thinking and not the product some other thinking or non-thinking machine?
Anyway, we could argue on that, I like to argue for both sides honestly, lol, but it's not relevant in my own opinion, because we all agree that we exist. I think therefore I am can be accepted, even though it is technically a circular argument.
What I don't agree with in this paragraph is that you linked the two ideas that I put in bold. I see no connection at all. I do consider threats to be less severe than the actual object of the threats... but what does this have to do with Truth?
Dawkins was absolutely vicious toward the previous Atheist hero, Antony Flew, when Flew became a Deist.
I remember reading a newspaper article explaining how Flew was used for propaganda, isn't that what Dawkins was upset about? If he was vicious toward Flew directly, well it's his problem, I don't endorse that, so what?
Dawkins wants parents who teach religion to their children to be treated as child abusers.
Some ideas are dangerous to teach yes; don't you agree? Anything is good to be taught?
Again, I don't know what he was referring to anyway...
Dawkins funded the bus sign program extolling the virtues of Atheists and Atheism. The list goes on and on. For Dawkins to claim anything but Atheism is maximally disingenuous.
Oh ya, the bus that said there is probably no god... that's your best example of Atheism/Materialism that denies everything else?
And again, what does the action of a man has to do with the validity or not of the position that you try to debunk?
Do I really need to remind you that the actions made by a person because of his/her ideas do not make the ideas more true or more false.
[continue because I write too much as well ;)]
Read Hitchens; Harris; Onfray; Meyers; Martin; Crick; Pinker; Dennett; Also read and query the various Atheist blogs – that will open your eyes I think.
Let's say that I read all of the books written by all these people, and I come to the conclusion that they are all vicious people who only want to insult other people to make money out of selling books. Let's say I hate their writing style, the length of their books, the font, everything. Do you really think that this would suddenly make me realize that their non-belief in a god is wrong?
Now for evolution.
Ok, I won't quote everything you said about it. There are two very simple points I want to address.
First, modern biology makes no sense if the theory of evolution is false. Why do you reject modern biology?
Two, I want to address the "challenge of what is the alternative". You went way out of the scope of the question there. There is no requirement for materiality, there is no need to explain the origin of life, and surely no need to go back to the Big Bang, come on!
What I am asking an alternative for is common descent. The Theory of Evolution explains that the reason why we share common traits with other living organism is because we share common ancestors. This explains many many different things, and that's the things you need to account for, if evolution is false. Now what are those things?
The only example I will give is the cell. If we do not share a common ancestor, why do we all use the same 4 molecules to encode the same information for the same 20 amino acids that make the same proteins, using the exact same mechanism inside the exact same eukaryote-type cells? Why only these 20 amino acids, for all lifeforms, when there are many more we know of? Why do we all use ATP to carry energy when many other molecules could do the job?
And that's just the similarities at the cell level, when we go through the tree of life, everything fits so that there is never a surprise, no matter the comparison technique used. Not perfect, but never completely out of the track. Non falsifiable you say? Find me a mammal with cold blood, or a cat in pre-cambrian rock, or a marsupial in Canada, and we'll start questioning the main idea...
You impress me with your use of philosophical terms and precise refutations of materialist ideas; but I am not impressed by your interpretation of the facts gathered by the scientific method!
Regards.
Hugo,
Your first point was that no one believes that there is no deity, no reality beyond the material universe.
Until you have investigated the arguers further, it is not really an argument you are making, it is an opinion, one with which I disagree.
Your second point seems to be that stacking inferential conclusions leads to a firm conclusion satisfying the scientific method.
All this is couched in the environment of no possible absolute truth.
I have given my reasons for disagreeing. So I'll just try to summarize in a (much shorter) set of questions.
1. How do you justify your firm statement that No-one believes X when you have not investigated the proponents of subject X?
2. With regard to evolution, I have made the challenge in the sidebar for anyone to provide evidence for evolution that is conclusive under the scientific method (empirical: experimental validation of the hypothesis; replication; lack of falsification): Can you do so?
3. How many inferences in a "mountain of inferences" does it take to turn inference into a "scientific fact", one which substitutes for the product of the actual scientific method?
4. a)What part of modern biology would not exist without having first been postulated by evolutionary theory? b) What part of modern biology would cease to exist if origins theory is redefined as lateral introgression (web of life) rather than tree-of-life?
5. If evolution theory is defined as "random change in the genome" which is "selected" for better fit to the environment, How is this theory used to predict, and hypothesize in modern biology?
I really need to address this again:
"that's the things you need to account for, if evolution is false. Now what are those things?"
Ptolemaic earth-centric epicycles were false; for several thousand years no-one could prove that until Copernicus replaced that with calculations of sun-centric epicyles, much better but still flawed. "Not having a better theory" doesn't make the current theory valid; empirical testing and verification is what makes it valid.
The idea that the currently popular theory must be accepted if there is no competing (material) theory is not logically valid. Rather it is a dogmatic demand from the current establishment which is invested in the current theory, either professionally, emotionally or ideologically.
I maintain that an untested and untestable hypothesis is not a scientific "fact". Karl Popper's position (1) is that such a proposition is metaphysics, not material science.
Choosing to believe in inferences as a substitute for verification (as in physically producing evolution), is a choice, not an immutable demand of logic.
Again, if evolution is supported by anything other than inference taken from otherwise isolated factoids, I'd certainly like to see that evidence.
And finally, the evolution hypothesis is not logically valid reason to reject a non-material, rational first cause, or non-material reality... this is the real thrust of my argument.
(1)Popper; "The Logic of Scientific Discovery"; 1935.
"I maintain that an untested and untestable hypothesis is not a scientific 'fact'."
Testing a hypothesis means making predictions using that hypothesis. Common descent (not RM+NS) has in fact been tested again and again in this manner, and found to be completely correct. Like a jigsaw puzzle, they can predict which pieces are going to be found and where.
Common descent predicts:
* that marsupials, which live in southern Africa and South America, should have ancestral fossils in the ground of Antarctica - this has been found
* that baleen and toothed whales should have an ancestor fossil in common about 275 MYA - this fossil has been found
* that humans should share more genetic markers with chimps than with gorillas - confirmed by transposons and ERVs
* that cetaceans, hippos, and ruminants should share genetic transposons as they are closely related according to common descent, but that other mammals should lack these transposons - confirmed
* that the disfunctional vitamin C gene in humans and primates should be disfunctional for the same reason, as opposed to the disfunctional vitamin C gene in guinea pigs - both confirmed
* that family trees built of fossils and separately from genetic markers should match up with each other - confirmed
* tons more of the above
And all of the above has falsification possibilities as well:
* dogs should not carry the same ERVs that humans and chimps do
* the broken vitamin C gene should not be the same in primates and guinea pigs
* etc
I've given this to you before, but you refused to read it because you said it was "too long." If you are truly committed to being rational, I would highly recommend taking the time to read the entire thing.
It is true that I said that I didn't finish reading it because it was very long. I read it for several hours, and every reference was the same: evolution is true because: [fill in the inference].
I suppose that I really should read EVERY inference that they make in their behemoth "mountain"; And I will try to do that. It's rather like listening to every First Grader band in the world, trying to find a Mozart. Very grating.
When I got to the "creation of the inner ear" in crocodilian-type ancestors, it was so absurd that I stopped right there. I thought that I told you that.
The actual test for validity is mentioned on their front page, by Richard Feynman, who was not talking about evolution, he was talking about Quantum Mechanics (Feynman was a devoted "hard" scientist - I'm not sure what he thought about evolution): for empirical validation, experimental validation is required, meaning that evolution proponents must produce replicable experiments where a new, useful feature is accidentally developed, then selected for better adaptablity to the current environment, if they intend to portray themselves as empirically valid. I consider the co-option of Feynman's statement to be intellectually dishonest, and it sets a tone for the remainder of the assertions.
And a reminder that I respond to specific studies, but not to general statements without reference to any study.
I should have mentioned that Ptolemy's epicycles were developed as predictors of observed events. But they forced a wrong presupposed conclusion, even while predicting with a modicum of accuracy. What Ptolemy lacked was empirical validation, which is now available for that subject.
Questions:
1. How do you justify your firm statement that No-one believes X when you have not investigated the proponents of subject X?
As stated above, I never said something like that. My point is that you are misreprenting my view of X. And yes it is a lot of personal opinion, but it has to be because X is a very personal belief, not something that can be tested... unlike evolution.
2. With regard to evolution, I have made the challenge in the sidebar for anyone to provide evidence for evolution that is conclusive under the scientific method (empirical: experimental validation of the hypothesis; replication; lack of falsification): Can you do so?
Pick random articles in Nature magazine until you have 100 that mention extinct species. Try to get a range of years as large as possible. Then write down the estimated year of the death of the animal representing the species. Then look for as much information as you can for all these different animals, and try to find characteristics that do not fit with common descent.
3. How many inferences in a "mountain of inferences" does it take to turn inference into a "scientific fact", one which substitutes for the product of the actual scientific method?
You're playing with words, trying to undermine the Theory of Evolution by claiming that the facts that make it were not product of the actual scientific method. According to your logic, I don't see how you can accept that tectonic plates move. Don't even think about the idea that we see plates move, like during earthquakes when we see mountains grow, because we do see evolution too, just much slower, ust like tectonic plates... So, does a "mountain of inferences" works for tectonic plate or no? If no, then what's the difference with evolution? If yes, well, what's the difference with evolution?
4. a)What part of modern biology would not exist without having first been postulated by evolutionary theory? b) What part of modern biology would cease to exist if origins theory is redefined as lateral introgression (web of life) rather than tree-of-life?
Evolutionary theory came from the fields you deny, not the other way around.
No part of modern biology would "cease to exist if origins theory is redefined as lateral introgression (web of life) rather than tree-of-life"; the Theory of Evolution would simply state that species evolve but not from 1 or a few common ancestors, that's it. It would still be the same biology, and the theories would discuss that kind of evolutionary pattern.
5. If evolution theory is defined as "random change in the genome" which is "selected" for better fit to the environment, How is this theory used to predict, and hypothesize in modern biology?
Good job done by Martin on that.
Sorry if I sound more harsh, I am not ;) I just feel more like discussing than writing an essay...
Martin, thanks for that list, that's exactly the kind of examples I was looking for.
Stan,
Your first point was that no one believes that there is no deity, no reality beyond the material universe.
Until you have investigated the arguers further, it is not really an argument you are making, it is an opinion, one with which I disagree.
No, that was not my point, not at all. You are correct, there are people who believe that there is no deity, no reality beyond the material universe. I would consider myself to be one of those people. The point is that even though I believe this statement, I still think that's it's not a provable statement, and I do not deny the possibility that it's wrong. It's just a philosophical statement, it's not the source of any other beliefs. It's a consequence of all the other beliefs that I have.
Evolution is a great example, because since I believe that we share common ancestors with other animals, I believe that we are a specie that evolved like all the others, and all the physical abilities we got were acquired through this process.
It's not because I don't believe in a possible reality beside ours, or an intelligent cause to the Big Bang that I believe in evolution. And that's what you are trying to do when linking Materialism, Atheism and The Theory of Evolution all together, backward.
The best proof I have for what I just expressed is the fact that when we learn about science, from our childhood up until now, when did we get to pre-suppose anything about gods or supernatural forces? Never. Because we observe and then we try to understand what's going on. That's it.
Evolution is one of those things we observe. The collection of these observations and conclusions emerging from the observations are packaged together and called a theory. I don't care what all in individual facts are, I want to know the conclusions, and much more importantly, the degree of certainty. Because whether you believe in absolute truth are not, I don't care, scientific observations are never 100% correct. Never. The only place where we can get perfection is through math... because they are abstract... kind of remind me of something which is perfect and that I consider abstract... hum, I digress.
Hugo 2 21 10a
Thanks for sticking around, this is an interesting conversation…
You said,
” The best proof I have for what I just expressed is the fact that when we learn about science, from our childhood up until now, when did we get to pre-suppose anything about gods or supernatural forces? Never. Because we observe and then we try to understand what's going on. That's it.”
This is an example of voluntary materialism, which is accepted by empirical science as necessary due to limitations in ability to investigate. It is not an example of Philosophical Materialism.
You said,
” Evolution is one of those things we observe.”
Perhaps you can show me a published study that actually observed evolution (not one that extrapolates evolution from isolated factoids)? There are none that I am aware of. The most famous study, that of Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos by Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant which was done over a time span of decades, concluded that no speciation was observed, that genomic changes were cyclic, and that even hybrids died out rapidly [1][2]. I would like to see whatever published studies you consider to be evidence for observation of evolution.
As for the questions,
(1) I was responding to your previous statement:
”Is your blog analyzing an atheism that in fact does not really exist? that no one adheres to?”
Which was a reference to beliefs in a reality absolutely limited to physical entities and with absolutely no intelligent, non-material input (eg. Deity). Apparently now you do agree that those beliefs exist.
(2) Your response is not in compliance with empirical, experimental science. What you describe here is a journalistic approach to paper trail forensics. There is no direct involvement of falsifiable hypothesis, experiment, analysis, objective experimental replication without falsification, which is the empirical method.
(3) Tectonic plate movement is measurable and is measured. It is not a fundamental reason for a worldview belief system. Even if it were, it would at least have physical evidence under empirical rules to back up that part of the belief system.
(4) You said,
” Evolutionary theory came from the fields you deny, not the other way around.”
I do not understand your reference. Which fields do I deny? And how does that affect the question? I do deny certain methods, specifically inference stacking that is unsupportable with experimentation... is that what you mean?
(5) I strongly suspect – without evidence – that the predictions came after the findings. However, there might be published papers that disprove that, if you wish to defend your position with actual empirical studies. I would very much like to see specific empirical scientific studies; I'm not interested in generalizations without specific empirical back-up.
There is a term, “as would be expected”, that is very suspect. This term is used to justify, post facto, a finding. What is needed is a paper trail of published, peer reviewed experimental studies that are objectively replicated, and are falsifiable using similar methods.
[1] Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population; Grant and Grant; Univ of Chicago Press, 1989, pg 282, 283.
[2] Somewhat ironically, the Grants concluded that although all their evidence was against speciation, they still "felt" that it could be possible. This indicates a professionalism (accurate data/conclusion despite firmly held presuppositions), a trait to be admired.
Stan, I deliberately distinguished between the mechanism of evolution, and common descent. I show you evidence of common descent, and you demand laboratory evidence of random mutation + natural selection. You keep conflating the two. I'm only talking about common descent, here. Many, perhaps most, creationists that are not of the Young Earth variety accept common descent; they just believe a different mechanism is responsible for it. Common descent (NOT the mechanism of RM+NS) is an historical hypothesis, and so must be treated like history; it can't be duplicated in the laboratory by it's very nature.
But the hypothesis can still easily be falsified by making observations of nature. Since I know that the vitamin C gene in primates was broken by an 8 base-pair deletion, humans should have this exact same gene broken in the exact same way, since my hypothesis is that humans are related to primates by common descent. If humans have a working vitamin C gene, or one that is broken in a completely different way, this would instantly falsify human/primate common ancestry.
Popper: "One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability..."
Common ancestry (NOT the mechanism of RM+NS) is falsifiable. Common ancestry (NOT the mechanism of RM+NS) is a scientific theory.
OK. If I accept that common ancestry is a separate theory, why does it not lead inexorably back to RM+NS?
Even more basically, why do common genetic traits indicate common ancestry rather than common... (dare I say it?)... design?
Common ancestry presumes that the commonalities are genetic errors that are inherited by common progeny, is that not so? What makes them errors, other than our opinion of them? Are missing base pairs errors, or are they somehow intentional? If intent is eliminated a priori, then the error theory supports and is supported by RM + NS, is it not?
So far, I can't see these two theories as mutually exclusive. And I also can't see that commonality in genetic construction has any empirically proven meaning outside the RM + NS inferential construction.
So expand on your explanation, please. Including how it is falsifiable, which I also don't readily see.
Hey Stan,
I will probably take time to reply to your comments tonight, but I just ran into that quote and I thought I could share it over here...
From the National Academy of Sciences:
The concept of biological evolution is one of the most important ideas ever generated by the application of scientific methods to the natural world. The evolution of all the organisms that live on Earth today from ancestors that lived in the past is at the core of genetics, biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology, ecology, and other biological disciplines. It helps to explain the emergence of new infectious diseases, the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the agricultural relationships among wild and domestic plants and animals, the composition of Earth's atmosphere, the molecular machinery of the cell, the similarities between human beings and other primates, and countless other features of the biological and physical world. As the great geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973, ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.’
- http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024
Hugo,
Yes, I've read that before; the Dobzhansky quote is used often. The statements are similar to the Nicene Creed and the Five Pillars of Islam: they are statements of belief without any proof being given in support. Especially the Dobzhansky claim, which is the creed of a convicted evolutionist.
Truth statements require premises that are validatable; there is a chain of premise validation, and as scientists, the scientific method would be the validation method. But there is none of that.
Biology is not dependent upon evolution for any discovery (show me one if you have one). The standards of evolutionary theory still are a) accidental genomic change; b) selection of that change over the unchanged for better fit to the current environment. There are no modern biological pursuits that absolutely depend on that to be true in order for them to exist and thrive in their pursuit of understanding, say, human biological functions. No modern biology labs will close their doors if evolution is refuted (even if the refutation included design, which would throw Dobzhansky into a personal tailspin).
The NAS statement is not an empirical study, proving an hypothesis, it is a statement of dogma, which is its position of belief, and worldview.
Common traits such as eyes, legs, etc could indeed be argued to be part of common design. But with the advance of molecular biology, they find these shared genetic markers. I mean, primates including humans can't manufature their own vitamin C, whereas most other animals can; there might be intent behind this, or it might be a copying error.
Whether it's an error or not is irrelevant; there is a deactivated vitamin C gene that is deactivated in exactly the same way in all the animals that are predicted by fossils to be related, but not in animals that aren't. And it doesn't end there. The cytochrome C gene has been sequenced in many animals, and biologists use computer programs to build a tree using the commonality in this gene; out spits the same tree that is built using fossils. Independent phylogenies match up.
Personally, I think the strongest argument for design is the fine tuning of the universe, and it seems to be at odds with biological evolution; if God has to reach in and design the particulars of organisms by hand, then this seems to be saying that the universe isn't fine tuned for life, as the development of it requires his direct intervention.
Check out paleontologist Simon Conway Morris's lecture notes. He's a paleontologist (and full evolutionist) who says there is just too much convergent evolution (the compound eye has developed independently four times!) for this to be explained by natural selection alone.
A snippet: "Evolutionary convergence strongly suggests that evolution has inherent directionalities, and by implication end-points. One such is intelligence and consciousness. Against all the odds the universe can now understand itself, yet any attempt to explain this entirely in naturalistic terms seems doomed to failure."
they are statements of belief without any proof being given in support
Yep, it was just a quote, not intended to be a proof or anything, but you still cannot deny the conclusions. Those are not opinions.
Full answer another day, too busy ;)
Martin, thanks very much for the link, it sounds very interesting. Like Hugo, I have a work day ahead, but maybe this evening I can get to it.
Hugo said,
"...but you still cannot deny the conclusions. Those are not opinions."
In the sense that epicycles were explanations, it is true that evolution is an "explanation"; in the sense that Kipling's Just So Stories were explanations, yes. But as for deniability, any scientific finding has a certain deniability attached to it, as not being a certainty; and without experimental validation, it is still really just opinion based on a perceived probability.
"without experimental validation, it is still really just opinion based on a perceived probability."
But you can't reproduce an historical event in the lab. I watched a documentary on the Tunguska event last night, and two teams of scientists were in Siberia collecting data that will support one of two theories: the asteroid theory or the volcano theory.
They can't reproduce Tunguska in a lab, but nonetheless their work on this event is perfectly valid science. And enough evidence for one theory over the other could conceivably settle what happened in Tunguska in 1908.
Martin,
I tried your link to Simon Conway Morris, but it is a dead link. So I googled him, but came up with too much stuff...
Do you have a current link?
Thanks
Martin,
Regarding the Tunguska investigation, the proper response from the investigation should be prefaced similarly to this:
The singular event could not be directly investigated, of course, so we untertook to investigate the effects for which the event was the cause. By investigating the effects of the event we hope to infer the nature of the cause: the event itself.
Note that all the examined residue might not have been actual effects of the cause; therefore we have had to presume a cause and sort for evidence that supports that presumption.
In this case we have two competing presumptions for the cause, and we will be looking for evidence to support either presumed cause, and construct a syllogism based on a) a presumed cause, b) evidence of effects that support the conclusion that a specific presumed cause has an increased probability over the competing cause, which has less, or no, evidence.
The certainty of causation remains probability based, with the possibility, however remote, that a third competing cause hypothesis might be discovered and even supported in the future by sorting for evidence of a different type.
Martin, I do not deny science its due; I do insist on acknowledging the limits of its capabilities, and the limited certainty of its products.
Forensic science always infers a cause from found evidence. Then it infers a probability of accuracy of its inference.
Hmmm. Internet Archive is kinda slow, so try it again and give it time. Alternatively, you could just check out his wikipedia entry as a jumping off point for more books and links and such.
"Martin, I do not deny science its due"
But you would be making a category error if you demanded laboratory reproduction of Tunguska.
While the jury is still out on Tunguska, in principle it is possible to have overwhelming evidence of one theory over another. Let's suppose they find a thin mineral layer in the soil, dating to early 20th Century, with minerals that exist in asteroids but are rare on earth. And let's suppose they find a crater. And pieces of an asteroid in the crater. And let's suppose they can't find any shocked quartz, which would be evidence of the volcano theory.
Now, science is inductive so there is always a possibility the asteroid theory will be overturned, but it is overwhelmingly likely (in the hypothetical scenario) that the asteroid event is the correct one. Any reasonable person would agree that "that is probably what happened."
If someone does not accept the asteroid theory, or remains 50/50 agnostic solely because science is inductive, and says they will only believe the asteroid theory when they can reproduce the event itself in the lab, then I don't see how this could possibly be defended as a rational position to take.
Martin said,
"But you would be making a category error if you demanded laboratory reproduction of Tunguska."
Yes, but the issue remains that certainty of the answer is nowhere near that of experimental replication.
My position is not anti-science, it is against the improper attribution of certainty to the products of science, which are then used as "foundations" for worldviews, and which are promoted as certain. Phrases like "overwhelmingly likely", when not also accompanied by the necessary modesty of real scientific findings and actual probabilities, color the values of the findings with an emotional overtone that is not part of science.
This blog is not focused centrally on science; it is focused on the worldviews of Atheism and Philosophical Materialism, which abuse science for their own purposes. This occurs when absolute certainty is conferred on scientific findings, which are never absolutely certain, nor beyond any doubt whatsoever.
If a forensic finding says, "All data to date supports hypothesis C, but not hypothesis A or B or D", that is fine, reasonable and scientific.
If a forensic finding says, "It absolutely happened in the following manner", then that is not fine, reasonable or scientific.
Moving on....
"Any reasonable person would agree that...
Reasonable people can disagree. But more to the point, this statement is prejucicial in the sense of "poisoning the well": anyone who disagrees is not reasonable by your definition... regardless of any facts. This phrase is used extensively by Richard Dawkins.
"...remains 50/50 agnostic solely because science is inductive...", " then I don't see how this could possibly be defended as a rational position to take."
And I do not take this position. I do take the position of pointing out the lack of absolute certainty of forensic science, even compared to experimental science which is not absolutely certain either, but relatively more probable in accuracy than forensics.
Yes, forensics is physically hampered up front by inability to recreate in a laboratory; this also hampers its closeness to certainty. It is a detriment that forensics must live with. And I'd hazard a guess that most forencisists accept that quite well.
That's all fine, but it just seems to me then that evolution and common descent are perfectly valid theories that seem like collateral damage on your blog, sometimes. If Dawkins et al use evolution to support a materialistic worldview, then that's not evolution's problem. Evolution is an innocent bystander.
I honestly believe your view of evolutionary biology has been strongly discolored by listening to Dawkins too much instead of the large portion of biologists who are in fact theists.
Have you heard of Robert Bakker? He's probably the most famous paleontologist in the world; the "Carl Sagan" of paleontology. He was the adviser for Jurassic Park. Well, he's a Christian and Pastor and is obviously fully opposed to Richard Dawkins' use of evolution for his own worldview. You can read a post by him here.
All I recommend is not allowing Dawkins to distort your view of evolutionary biology and paleontology.
Martin,
I have no need to consider evolution or paleontology at all, except as they influence the sociopolitical degradation of our nation. Neither of those pursuits has any effect on me or the direction of society except through the Atheism and secular Humanism they obviously engender.
Evolution-ism is strictly and religiously materialist, and is intellectually dishonest in declaring that it does not require a strictly, religiously materialist abiogenesis. It obviously does require materialist abiogenesis, thereby making evolution a double inference. The same goes for common ancestry, which still devolves to abiogenesis followed by evolution (regardless of method). Christians claiming God-directed evolution are retrofitting a human inferential hypothesis with divine overtones: making it a triple inference. And that is even less intellectually satisfying than evolution itself.
Evolution has been famously declared intellectually satisfying only because it is completely Atheist. It satisfies Atheists quite nicely. In order to do that, it is entirely necessary to make up stories about the “emergence” of consciousness” from ionic discharges; to declare that “self” and “intellect” are phantasms; and to deny the existence of “intentionality” altogether, except to say that we are fooled by the appearance of intent. In fact, according to most of these evolutionary support stories, we are fooled by everything surrounding our perceived “mind”. If a mind were a real, material thing, evolution could not explain it. To avoid this obvious FAILURE of the evolutionary hypothesis, the mind is declared to be just the physical brain, with ionic discharges fooling us with illusions of self, illusions of consciousness, illusions of directed thought, delusions of intent.
This is plainly balderdash: it is pure fiction which is created in order to support an unsupportable inferential hypothesis… and one which is used in government schools to teach as necessary science in order for biology (and materialist philosophy) to exist as satisfying materialist requirements.
Atheist Philosophical Materialism is dangerous, and it is supported on flimsy stories which are being declared Truth. Primary amongst these is evolution. Evolution is not Truth; it is not even fact, nor is it factoid. It is pure inference. When evolution is demonstrated, using normal, non-inferential experimental, falsifiable science, I will consider that (see the challenge in the side-bar).
Consider this. If evolution were Truth, then there is no directionality inherent in any of the universe except mindless entropy, including the development of the illusions of consciousness and delusions of intent. As Nietzsche inferred, under evolution the only valid intent is the Will to Power, a fight to the death for survival and continued evolution via forced control of everyone else. In other words: Humanism, the secular belief system of the elite (the chosen, if you will).
Humanism is evil. (Evil does exist, contra Nietzsche). It must be fought and denied its foundations, which are, at this point, very deniable. If its foundations are shown to be valid, then humans become purposeless and valueless, and logically subject to Humanism and the whims of the elites. This sociopolitical experiment has been tried, and its bloody history is there to be read.
"Christians claiming God-directed evolution are retrofitting a human inferential hypothesis with divine overtones: making it a triple inference."
I don't see how this is the case at all. Consider the arguments for and against God:
For:
1. Cosmological
2. Cosmic telelogical
3. Organic teleological
4. Moral
5. Ontological
Against:
1. Evil
2. Reasonable non-belief
3. Omnipotence paradox
4. Omniscience and free will
For one case to be decided over the others, every argument would have to be shown to be in error on one side, and the arguments on the other would have to be correct. Otherwise it's just argument from ignorance.
Personally, I tend to think almost all the arguments FOR succeed fairly well, and the arguments against tend to fail. But I digress.
What does evolution do? It does away with "For" argument #3. To assert evolution as an argument for atheism is to fall into the fallacy of argument from ignorance. One argument for God may have been weakened by it, but no atheist arguments have been strengthened by it.
Atheists who use it as such are not reasoning logically.
Martin,
I would add this to your Against list:
5. Philosphical Materialism.
This (erroneous) belief nullifies all of the For categories as far as I can see... depending on the definitions of each of the categories. And evolution with abiogenesis is a necessary part of Philosophical Materialism.
Do you see this differently?
Also, within the nature of scientific discovery, any actual manipulations of nature by a deity will not be directly discoverable as attributable to a deity: they will remain mysteries, effects with no known cause. To attribute these effects to a deity requires an inference (the third inference), because the cause is outside of materialist science's capabilities.
Science presumes and depends on a causal chain, where all causes are discoverable using physical detection techniques. Causes which are not physically confirmable are either inferred, or alternatively (more honestly) declared remaining mysteries.
I would not include it as a single argument against God; I would say that if an atheist feels that all arguments for God fail, and arguments against succeed, then that is the basis of his larger worldview of materialism.
And you are correct that materialism requires evolution and abiogenesis, but evolution and abiogenesis do not require materialism.
At one point Newton thought the Hand of God was the mechanism for keeping the planets in orbit, because he couldn't see how gravity could reach across outer space. Now the material mechanism of gravity is accepted without debate.
Using God as a mechanism is, I feel, heading down the dangerous path of "god-of-the-gaps."
Martin,
Thinking a little more about your comment...
Philosophical Materialism is an argument from ignorance fallacy, arguing that if something is not physically detectable (we are ignorant of it), then it does not exist.
Reading your comment again with that substitution in mind, (argument from ignorance = philosophical Materialism), and then discarding it from the Against list because it is an obvious fallacy, then your list is complete for our purposes, and I agree with your statement.
However, my comment was made under a presumption of materialism, which does support the necessity of a third inference in the case of a cause being the interference of a deity.
I think it boils down to yet another inference: inferring the probability of all natural causation with no external influence, period, v.s. natural causation with external interference from time to time.
In favor of external interference is the origin of the universe: a singularity creating mass/energy, space/time; cogent, fixed and non-chaotic but deterministic laws of nature; and the rise of anentropic, non-deterministic behaviors in an entity with the capability of sentience and intentionality.
(For arguments #1 and #3 on your list).
These arguments are based on observations of material existence, and show the inherent paradox within materialism. The conclusion, however, is an inference. And the probablity of its validity is another inference.
This argues directly against any form of purist materialism, and as far as I can see, all arguments intended to refute it are not formed with any direct material evidence, or evidence that is not accompanied with heaps of necessary inference.
It still comes down to inference vs. inference and a choice of inferred probabilities.
Still thinking about this...
It is reasonable to be skeptical of accepting the existence of things that are unproven or unprovable.
In the case of your For list items #1, #3, there is a paradox within materialism, discussed just above. Materialists choose to infer a physical cause (unprovable), or to deny the paradox; New laws of nature might be found to accommodate the paradoxical observations naturally (a faith statement: finding laws that contradict existing known laws).
Non-materialists choose to infer an external, non-physical interfering cause (also unprovable).
While the existential paradox is not completely fatal to materialism, it definitely removes materialism from any concept of certainty or even near certainty. This lack of certainty is, in fact, fatal to Atheism.
[Blather mode: OFF]
Martin,
(Apparently we were posting comments around the same time...)
You said,
"And you are correct that materialism requires evolution and abiogenesis, but evolution and abiogenesis do not require materialism."
I agree.
However, evolution and abiogenesis can be seen as both necessary and sufficient for Atheism, IFF enough "explanatory" stories are in place to cover the un-natural realities. That's why Dennett and Pinker etc. scramble to cover sentience and intentionality etc. with either denials or Just So Stories.
Post a Comment