You want clever? You want this interview with David Berlinski. As an added bonus, it's on Darwinism. As yet another added bonus, it is sprinkled w/ French phrases and references to art and Madame Bovary.
Clever? Would I be called clever if I "interviewed" myself and did nothing but stroke my ego the whole time? He literally has no thesis and brings nothing to the table, he simply aims to discredit a bunch of scientists by assigning them animal characteristics. He completely misrepresents the nature of science, and he doesn't even bother to set up his straw man to whack; he just says that there already is one and that he might as well have already whacked it because it's so pathetic. One should go blind from this amount of intellectual masturbation.
Until you've done much reading of Dawkins or Dennett, let's not go comparing this interview to their stuff. Seriously.
He misrepresents the nature of science? No, rather he points out how D & D and their buddies do that themselves by mixing in their wild flights of naturalistic fancy. Berlinski points this out mercilessly, which is why I dig him and why evolutionist fundies hate him.
And do please watch your language - there are kids out there, man.
I wasn't comparing this "interview" to anything by Dawkins or Dennett. I don't have to. I've read Dawkins, and I don't agree with all of his assertions. But Berlinski isn't making any assertions or trying to discredit anyone for any kind of flaw he is willing to put to light. He doesn't even have an argument. He just calls people names for several pages and talks in circles. "Pop" or pseudoscience has spawned alot of silly ideas, this is true. But Berlinski describes the scientific method itself as "trivial." That misrepresents the nature of science.
Sorry, from now on I'll say "sight-impaired." One should go "sight-impaired" from this amount of intellectual masturbation, which is the only kind of masturbation that I consider to be dirty, shameful, or otherwise "bad."
Umm, I wasn't concerned about "blind" vs. sight-impaired as far as the language is concerned.
As for Berlinski, he makes quite a few assertions that are quite trenchant, among them:
"Why should Dawkins, of all people, find the universe wonderful if he also believes it is largely a self-sustaining material object, something bigger than a head of cabbage but not appreciably different in kind?"
"But if you ask me just who is the more credulous, the more suggestible, the dopier, the more perfectly prepared to convey absurdity to an almost inconceivable pitch of personal enthusiasm – a well-trained Jesuit or a Ph.D. in quantum physics, I’ll go with the physicist every time."
"Look at Christopher Hitchens – very bright, very able. Just recently he felt compelled to release his views on evolution to a public not known eagerly to be waiting for them. What does he have to say? Pretty much that he doesn’t know anything about art but he knows what he likes. The truth of the matter, however, is that he pretty much likes what he knows, and what he knows is what he has heard smart scientists say."
Etcetera.
The phenomenon that is quite clear to me and which does not appear to be quite so clear to you is the baggage that has been embraced by most people (including yourself) at large and in a fanatical way by many (including possibly you but definitely including many scientists and science-ists out there). This baggage is known as "methodological naturalism", and the phenomenon is well-documented if you look where the documentation may be found (ie, not in Dennett's or Dawkins' works) and are able to open your mind enough to see it. Based on many of my experiences w/ such people as those who have accepted the baggage wholeheartedly, I'm not too sure I hold out alot of hope.
And sorry it took so long to post your comment...I'm still figgering this blog thing out.
People, even scientists, unfortunately get dogmatic. Scientists who make science something more than it is make me uncomfortable, because in my mind they simply use science to fill the same void other people fill with religion. But it seems like we're talking about two different things. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "methodological naturalism" or why you refer to it as "baggage." Perhaps you'd care to explain why it is somehow problematic to attempt to understand the world in scientific terms without spiritual or supernatural explanation?
Berlinsky acts as if there is something wrong with being able to appreciate the universe despite it being not appreciably different than a head of cabbage. It would seem that Berlinsky, despite claiming to be agnostic, needs the universe, or the earth, or man, to be "special." I think it somehow nobler to be able to be thrilled by Newark, NJ, rather than having to invent a paradise beyond this world where one will eventually escape the harsh reality of the here and now.
--People, even scientists, unfortunately get dogmatic. Scientists who make science something more than it is make me uncomfortable, because in my mind they simply use science to fill the same void other people fill with religion. >>Boy do I agree w/ you on that! Definitely.
--I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "methodological naturalism" or why you refer to it as "baggage." >>Actually, Berlinski referred to methodological naturalism in his interview. I call it baggage b/c it is not a part of seeking the truth, especially in the forensic part of science. Sure, we can't go around calling everything a miracle or an "act of God," but OTOH we must absolutely recognise that sometimes stuff happens for which we don't know the explanation. A good example of that is the beginning of the universe - nobody knows, but it COULDN'T POSSIBLY be the case that it was instrumented by a Creator Being. A stronger example is the complexity of life today, and I'm still talking the difference between lab and forensic science. A lab scientist can observe microevolution taking place in his lab, but he cannot observe (b/c no human lives long enough) *undirected* natural selection accomplish macroevolution - the transfer of one genus to another over time via numerous successive, slight modifications. He can observe a woefully incomplete and inconsistently-applied-to-evolutionary-theory fossil record, but other parts of the theory have already broken down badly. Examples of that are the as yet unsatisfactorily responded-to idea of irreducible complexity in biological systems and the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, during which tons of new species came into existence *out of nowhere*. According to the theory, they had to evolve. From where? Faced w/ this info, the unencumbered-by-methodological-naturalism ID scientists have sought alternate explanations, not refusing to go where no evolutionist has gone before.
--Berlinsky acts as if there is something wrong with being able to appreciate the universe despite it being not appreciably different than a head of cabbage. >>Well, sure. First, it makes no sense not to. Second, every single person on the face of the planet acts out the truth, that the world IS appreciably different, on a second-by-second basis. You have previously criticised me for acting "self-righteous," but if this world is just a big head of cabbage, why did you even bother? Why do you bother commenting now? Why not just kill yourself? [Disclaimer] The previous sentence was meant in NO way as a suggestion, but rather as a rhetorical question. Rhology strongly advises anyone not to kill him/herself. [/Disclaimer]
--It would seem that Berlinsky, despite claiming to be agnostic, needs the universe, or the earth, or man, to be "special." >>Your "despite" expresses my feelings exactly. He is inconsistent, but less so than many.
--I think it somehow nobler to be able to be thrilled by Newark, NJ, rather than having to invent a paradise beyond this world where one will eventually escape the harsh reality of the here and now. >>For someone who believes the world is, in its absolute value, comparable to a head of cabbage, it seems to me that you have an overactive sense of morality.
**A good example of that is the beginning of the universe - nobody knows, but it COULDN'T POSSIBLY be the case that it was instrumented by a Creator Being.**
I think a "pure science" stance is that nobody really knows how the universe got started, but something akin to the big bang is our best theory based on the evidence we've found. A Creator is not "ruled out" but rather simply "left out" because no test I can do proves that a supernatural being was responsible.
**A lab scientist can observe microevolution...[but not]macroevolution.**
Indeed, no one has witnessed speciation. As far as I am concerned, once you have proven microevolution, you may as well have proven macroevolution, because as two isolated populations of the same species microevolve under different selective pressures so as to become more and more different in genotypic frequency, the chance of macroevolution and ultimately speciation approaches 1 over time.
**Examples of that are the as yet unsatisfactorily responded-to idea of irreducible complexity in biological systems**
Personally I find arguments of "life is complicated, so it cannot have come about spontaneously" to be rather poor.
**and the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, during which tons of new species came into existence *out of nowhere*. According to the theory, they had to evolve. From where?**
I had always thought the explanation for increased speciation was increased isolation of populations due to changes in geology and climate that opened more environmental niches. Faced w/ this info, the unencumbered-by-methodological-naturalism ID scientists have sought alternate explanations, not refusing to go where no evolutionist has gone before.
**Second, every single person on the face of the planet acts out the truth, that the world IS appreciably different, on a second-by-second basis.**
You're presupposing that the way people act is representative of the truth, rather than what people want the truth to be. Most people don't want to imagine an uncaring universe where they are not special and their existance is essentially meaningless in the grand scheme. So many will try to give their own life meaning through their actions, and will try to invent a meaning for life in general in their minds. Isn't it so much more romantic to think that we are the beloved reflections of a divine being who can leave this imperfect world for eternal paradise if only we follow the rules?
**but if this world is just a big head of cabbage, why did you even bother? Why do you bother commenting now? Why not just kill yourself?**
Haha. I've gotten this many times. "Well if there is no hell and life is meaningless, why not just kill yourself?" When I say "life in general has no meaning," I don't mean, "life sucks," nor do I mean that MY life has no meaning. My life has the meaning I have made for it, just like everyone else. Life in general has no meaning because nothing I do or anyone else does either way will leave a lasting impact on the universe or change its overall course. Believe in Christianity and it's no different. You're never going to change God's mind, according to most Christians. Again, you can change your life, and perhaps the lives of those around you, or maybe even the lives of many for centuries to come, but nothing you do will keep the sun from rising, halt the expansion of the universe, change the speed of light, or change God's mind about when to schedule judgement day. What is the "purpose" of life then? If this world is so imperfect, and the world to come is a paradise beyond all comprehension, why not just kill yourself and get to the good part faster? Oh, if you commit suicide, you don't get admission to the paradise club? Seems like an awfully convenient way to keep your whole religion from making itself extinct.
Oh, and I think that's the first time a Christion has thought me of having an "overactive" sense of morality. Normally all I get is talk about how I "have no moral compass." Cheers.
--A Creator is not "ruled out" but rather simply "left out" because no test I can do proves that a supernatural being was responsible. >>True. That's why methodological naturalism should be left out in the cold rather than added on as baggage to science, since science can't test it. Incidentally, evolution can't be tested in the lab either; speciation, or macroevolution, that is. If it can't be tested, why claim it's science? Baggage, my friend.
--As far as I am concerned, once you have proven microevolution, you may as well have proven macroevolution, because as two isolated populations of the same species microevolve under different selective pressures so as to become more and more different in genotypic frequency >>Unproven assumptions like that have no place among scientifically-established facts. Why is the 'religious nut' suddenly defending the purity of science? (Not that you're calling me a 'religious nut,' but your intellectual forebears have and do.)
--Personally I find arguments of "life is complicated, so it cannot have come about spontaneously" to be rather poor. >>In what way? I'll summarise the Behe irreducible complexity argument really quick so we can be sure we are talking about the same thing. ;-) Evolution posits the development of life's complexity thru numerous, slight, successive modifications from the very first simple life forms. If a structure can be found that is proven to be irreducibly complex, then that means that such successive slight modifications could not have produced the structure. Darwin realised this and admitted that his theory would "absolutely break down" if such were discovered. And it has been. Just curious - have you read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" book and/or Kenneth Miller's (IMHO) insufficient reply to the mousetrap?
--I had always thought the explanation for increased speciation was increased isolation of populations due to changes in geology and climate that opened more environmental niches. >>But they have to develop over time thru numerous successive slight modifications. These populations that appeared during the Cambrian Explosion show no fossil evidence of having done so. Where are and what were these animals' ancestors?
--You're presupposing that the way people act is representative of the truth, rather than what people want the truth to be. >>Unlike you apparently do, I don't work under a drastic dichotomy of truth. There's truth and there's untruth, not "religious truth" or "what's true for you" versus "concrete truth". At least that's the underlying implication to what you said. What I meant was that people act like truth is absolute every day. You take a breath b/c you have reason to believe it's not poisonous and b/c you have come to recognise that your body requires air. You turn the key in the ignition b/c you're reasonably satisfied that the car will not explode, transport you to Mars, or transmogrify into a plate of sushi. You type on your keyboard to communicate w/ people. It goes on and on. You can believe whatever you want about whether the oncoming semi will flatten you if you get in its way w/ 2 seconds to spare - you're dead whether you believe it will kill you or not. So your objection missed my point.
--Most people don't want to imagine an uncaring universe where they are not special and their existance is essentially meaningless in the grand scheme. >>You seem to prefer that.
--So many will try to give their own life meaning through their actions, and will try to invent a meaning for life in general in their minds. >>It has always amazed me that people believe that it means something to "insert meaning" into their own lives even when there is no meaning out there. It's like they are magicians or something.
--When I say "life in general has no meaning," I don't mean, "life sucks," >>I wasn't implying that you do think life sucks, but I am stating (explicitly) that life has no meaning for you.
--nor do I mean that MY life has no meaning. My life has the meaning I have made for it, just like everyone else. --Life in general has no meaning because nothing I do or anyone else does either way will leave a lasting impact on the universe or change its overall course. >>If you would, please read over those last two statements and tell me that YOU'RE the one being objective and logical. How do you justify such statements?
--Believe in Christianity and it's no different. >>There is an objective and subjective element to Xtianity. Objective - believe in Jesus and you believe in the God Who actually did create the concrete universe and the spiritual realm, both. So you're logically objectively in the right. Subjective - since God created each human heart to long after Him, all of a sudden the lost heart has found its meaning and is completed. It's partly strictly experiential and partly spiritual. So again the statement is incorrect.
--You're never going to change God's mind, according to most Christians. >>And according to the Bible.
--nothing you do will keep the sun from rising, halt the expansion of the universe, change the speed of light, or change God's mind about when to schedule judgement day. >>So what?
--What is the "purpose" of life then? >>To glorify the Creator, Who is worthy of constant and eternal glorification.
--If this world is so imperfect, and the world to come is a paradise beyond all comprehension, why not just kill yourself and get to the good part faster? >>I know you probably said this tongue-in-cheek, but just in case you didn't, I'll answer seriously. It's b/c glorifying God has a major element of obedience to God's commands. He said not to kill myself, that He alone is responsible for the day of my death.
--Oh, if you commit suicide, you don't get admission to the paradise club? Seems like an awfully convenient way to keep your whole religion from making itself extinct. >>Sorry, but the implication you're making is just ludicrous.
--Oh, and I think that's the first time a Christion has thought me of having an "overactive" sense of morality. Normally all I get is talk about how I "have no moral compass." >>Touche. :-D However, you may indeed have a point. I am very possibly unlike most Xtians you have encountered in your discussions. My argument is not that you have no moral compass, but simply that your moral compass is totally subjective (much like the "meaning" you "insert into your own life") and therefore completely meaningless, since you can imagine no way to relate to anyone else. A totally subjective ANYthing that relates to fundamental issues like logic, reason, morality, and life's meaning is insufficient and unsatisfying. Sadly, it seems to be satisfying (at least for now) to you.
I confess I now do not understand your definition of methodological naturalism, as the way I understand it the very reason the issue of a creator is left out of pure science is due to pure science being naturalist (dealing only with the natural) and methodological. Yet you act as though methodological naturalism does something different or is otherwise not inherent. Please explain what you mean.
Regarding micro versus macro evolution, you say unproven assumptions have no place among established facts. Then what is a theory? Science is not made impure by allowing educated guesses, it is just that our guesses must constantly be evalutated. Do you mean to argue that two isolated populations of the same species under different selective pressures will not speciate if given enough time? I contend that macroevolution can be proven, it would just take an experiment spanning hundreds of human lifetimes.
The reason I find irreducible complexity arguments to be lacking is because I tend not to agree with their assessment of what qualifies as being irreducibly complex. The most common example I encounter is that of the bombardier beetle; people argue that it`s chemical defense mechanism is irreducibly complex; any one part of the mechanism evolving before the rest would be fatal to the beetle, or something like that. But that`s just misunderstanding how evolution works.
The Cambrian explosion: of course fossil evidence is incomplete. As little evidence as we have to be able to say something like species A split into species B and C at time X, we have exactly zero evidence that they were all spontaneously created whole cloth by a divine intellect.
Wait, you said that you *don`t work under a drastic dichotomy of truth,* and yet you said *there is truth and there`s untruth.* That is a dichotomy. (Forgive asterisks instead of quotes, using a nutty japanese computer.)
You said *Second, every single person on the face of the planet acts out the truth, that the world IS appreciably different [than a head of cabbage], on a second-by-second basis.* This seemed to imply that because most people act as though life has some kind of greater purpose, this is evidence that life indeed has a greater purpose. If that is what you meant, I disagree. I think people insert meaning into their lives. I don`t think this is necessarily bad, and I think people should give their lives their own meaning, their own joy and purpose. But to me, to say that one`s life has some higher purpose is purely a delusion of grandeur, because even if your name is spoken by every living person for the next thousand years, that means nothing to the universe as a whole over all time.
It is not that I *prefer* an uncaring universe, it is that I feel I have not been presented with sufficient evidence that the universe does care, and so I must conclude for the time being that the universe simply exists and doesn`t consciously care either way.
*** --nor do I mean that MY life has no meaning. My life has the meaning I have made for it, just like everyone else. --Life in general has no meaning because nothing I do or anyone else does either way will leave a lasting impact on the universe or change its overall course. >>If you would, please read over those last two statements and tell me that YOU'RE the one being objective and logical. How do you justify such statements? ***
I don`t see the problem. My life has the meaning to me that I have given it. My life means nothing to those who have no knowlege of me, until they acquire knowledge of me and choose to attribute meaning to it. Similarly, my life, the life of the earth and the whole human race is but a grain of sand in the infinity of the universe, and thus meaningless to the universe as a whole. It is a matter of layered perspectives, not inconsistencies within a single definition. Obviously we should value human life, as humans, and indeed life on earth as a whole, because it is ours, and it is all we have. But we are still powerless before the laws of physics, the vastness of space, or the will of god, and so in the grand scheme our lives affect little, and mean little.
I contend that Christianity is no different. A being of infinite power and knowledge and time needs nothing, especially not the praise of those such as humans. There would be no reason for God to create us, there would be no reason for god to love us, yet according to Xianity, He does. This is the appeal of Xianity. And yet, there is no reason I can see to glorify God, assuming he exists. The universe is great and impressive to be sure, but do you praise the fastest runner in the world for crossing the street in under a minute? No. Similarly, a being of infinite power could create an infinite number of flawless universes in literally no time. In the event that we do not glorify God, nothing changes. God is not somehow weakened by our lack of praise, he does not need our praise. Assuming God exists, we are nothing next to him, and we cannot affect him. Neither our pleas to him nor our denial nor our glorification of him change him in any way. Thus existence temporal or eternal is meaningless because it results in zero change of the standard against which it is measured.
**--Oh, if you commit suicide, you don't get admission to the paradise club? Seems like an awfully convenient way to keep your whole religion from making itself extinct. >>Sorry, but the implication you're making is just ludicrous. **
I`m interested to hear why you think it so ludicrous.
Hey Max, Methodological naturalism is pretty much what you said, but it is unwarranted in the realm of science, partially by definition and partially b/c of the abuse of it reflected in the actions of so many evolutionists, such as Dennett and Dawkins. A rule of thumb for where the problem lies is in not being able to figure out where human knowledge ends, and simultaneously being addicted both to the idea that science WILL EVENTUALLY get it all right (which is wild and arrogant speculation) and the idea that the material world is all there is (which is illogical and rationally unsustainable).
A theory is a scientifically-established hypothesis that has not yet been proven faulty, for a general definition. Yet lab science, in empirically testable and **REPEATABLE** experiments, has never observed macro-evolution. It is thus an assumption, and a bad one. You can think of a way by which macro-evolution MIGHT be proven, but an Intelligent Design scientist can think of sthg similar just as easily.
Perhaps your contention that the Irr Complexity of the bombardier beetle is faulty is correct. How about the mammalian eye, or the bacterial flagellum?
I'm glad you agree that the fossil evidence is incomplete as regards the Cambrian Explosion. Were you *really* interested in going where the evidence leads you, you might conclude that, since there is no way that the current evolutionary model could account for such rapid growth in the diversity of new organisms that show up in the Cambrian Explosion strata, the model should be changed. Do you concede that?
--This seemed to imply that because most people act as though life has some kind of greater purpose >>My point, which it appears you missed, was that people act as though truth is indeed truth b/c they do things like try to AVOID getting hit by a bus that they know, based on factual evidence, is coming their way. Why do they do that? Everyone believes that their lives are worth sthg, even those who say they don't believe it; else they wouldn't bother whining about it or communicating their (by their own definition) worthless ideas to others. You yourself, in debating this and our other issues, are proving me right.
--I don`t think this is necessarily bad, and I think people should give their lives their own meaning, their own joy and purpose. >>Why do you think this? And what reason can you give to ME to make ME believe the same thing as you?
--to say that one`s life has some higher purpose is purely a delusion of grandeur, >>To the Christian, it is not his own grandeur that he seeks, but the glory of Jesus Christ.
--even if your name is spoken by every living person for the next thousand years, that means nothing to the universe as a whole over all time. >>Yet Jesus' Name will be praised and glorified over the course of eternity, so your objection is met and vanquished by the sheer scale of eternity. And I totally understand why you said that. It's just that God is, over the course of things, so much greater than we can conceive of.
--my life, the life of the earth and the whole human race is but a grain of sand in the infinity of the universe, and thus meaningless to the universe as a whole. >>But you said you inject your own meaning into your life. If the sum total of all subjectively-injected meaning by all of humanity still equals nil, then how can a single part of that meaning (ie, your own) still mean anything?
--Obviously we should value human life, as humans, and indeed life on earth as a whole, because it is ours >>Who says?
--But we are still powerless before the laws of physics, the vastness of space, or the will of god, and so in the grand scheme our lives affect little, and mean little. >>Each life means a great deal in the biblical worldview and has its own objective value, ascribed to it by God.
--I contend that Christianity is no different >>I do not mean to be rude, I'm just stating a fact here. You contend thusly b/c you have an insufficient understanding of Christianity.
--A being of infinite power and knowledge and time needs nothing, >>Agreed. Who said anything about God "needing" us?
--There would be no reason for God to create us >>B/c He loves us, His creation. And for us to love Him and glorify Him.
--This is the appeal of Xianity >>That is only part of it. The biggest part is the fact that I am guilty of sin deserving of eternal separation from God and yet He rescued me from that.
--God is not somehow weakened by our lack of praise, he does not need our praise. >>No, you're right. But nobody's saying either of those.
--Similarly, a being of infinite power could create an infinite number of flawless universes in literally no time >>You're right. Don't you think we might be better off expressing our admiration and awe of such a God rather than criticising Him for going ahead and creating at least one really cool universe? Also, your analysis that God "could create an infinite number of flawless universes," while true, also carries w/ it an unmistakable note of disparagement, and that creates a dissonant disconnect in your thinking here. You have expressed a few ideas about God relating to His theoretical grandeur and immutability and all that and then you diss Him for not creating a zillion universes and for only creating one. You have said that you insert your own value into your life and yet resist recognising all the wondrous beauty and artistry that God has already inserted for you into THIS world. It's sad to see how, surrounded by a beautiful creation that points to the Ultimate Meaning, you think you have to insert your own.
--I`m interested to hear why you think it (committing suicide so as to go to Heaven quicker) so ludicrous. >>It's ludicrous, Max. But OK, we'll play w/ it briefly. The Bible makes plain that *God* is the One Who governs the time of our deaths. It's not our privilege, responsibility, or prerogative. Thus, I am forbidden from taking my life. The Bible makes plain that God gives each person a path to follow and a plan for our lives. Such a plan ends when *God* says, not when I say. I am not to murder another, nor am I to murder myself.
Clever? Would I be called clever if I "interviewed" myself and did nothing but stroke my ego the whole time? He literally has no thesis and brings nothing to the table, he simply aims to discredit a bunch of scientists by assigning them animal characteristics. He completely misrepresents the nature of science, and he doesn't even bother to set up his straw man to whack; he just says that there already is one and that he might as well have already whacked it because it's so pathetic. One should go blind from this amount of intellectual masturbation.
ReplyDelete--Max
Until you've done much reading of Dawkins or Dennett, let's not go comparing this interview to their stuff. Seriously.
ReplyDeleteHe misrepresents the nature of science? No, rather he points out how D & D and their buddies do that themselves by mixing in their wild flights of naturalistic fancy. Berlinski points this out mercilessly, which is why I dig him and why evolutionist fundies hate him.
And do please watch your language - there are kids out there, man.
I wasn't comparing this "interview" to anything by Dawkins or Dennett. I don't have to. I've read Dawkins, and I don't agree with all of his assertions. But Berlinski isn't making any assertions or trying to discredit anyone for any kind of flaw he is willing to put to light. He doesn't even have an argument. He just calls people names for several pages and talks in circles. "Pop" or pseudoscience has spawned alot of silly ideas, this is true. But Berlinski describes the scientific method itself as "trivial." That misrepresents the nature of science.
ReplyDeleteSorry, from now on I'll say "sight-impaired." One should go "sight-impaired" from this amount of intellectual masturbation, which is the only kind of masturbation that I consider to be dirty, shameful, or otherwise "bad."
--Max
Umm, I wasn't concerned about "blind" vs. sight-impaired as far as the language is concerned.
ReplyDeleteAs for Berlinski, he makes quite a few assertions that are quite trenchant, among them:
"Why should Dawkins, of all people, find the universe wonderful if he also believes it is largely a self-sustaining material object, something bigger than a head of cabbage but not appreciably different in kind?"
"But if you ask me just who is the more credulous, the more suggestible, the dopier, the more perfectly prepared to convey absurdity to an almost inconceivable pitch of personal enthusiasm – a well-trained Jesuit or a Ph.D. in quantum physics, I’ll go with the physicist every time."
"Look at Christopher Hitchens – very bright, very able. Just recently he felt compelled to release his views on evolution to a public not known eagerly to be waiting for them. What does he have to say? Pretty much that he doesn’t know anything about art but he knows what he likes. The truth of the matter, however, is that he pretty much likes what he knows, and what he knows is what he has heard smart scientists say."
Etcetera.
The phenomenon that is quite clear to me and which does not appear to be quite so clear to you is the baggage that has been embraced by most people (including yourself) at large and in a fanatical way by many (including possibly you but definitely including many scientists and science-ists out there). This baggage is known as "methodological naturalism", and the phenomenon is well-documented if you look where the documentation may be found (ie, not in Dennett's or Dawkins' works) and are able to open your mind enough to see it. Based on many of my experiences w/ such people as those who have accepted the baggage wholeheartedly, I'm not too sure I hold out alot of hope.
And sorry it took so long to post your comment...I'm still figgering this blog thing out.
People, even scientists, unfortunately get dogmatic. Scientists who make science something more than it is make me uncomfortable, because in my mind they simply use science to fill the same void other people fill with religion. But it seems like we're talking about two different things. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "methodological naturalism" or why you refer to it as "baggage." Perhaps you'd care to explain why it is somehow problematic to attempt to understand the world in scientific terms without spiritual or supernatural explanation?
ReplyDeleteBerlinsky acts as if there is something wrong with being able to appreciate the universe despite it being not appreciably different than a head of cabbage. It would seem that Berlinsky, despite claiming to be agnostic, needs the universe, or the earth, or man, to be "special." I think it somehow nobler to be able to be thrilled by Newark, NJ, rather than having to invent a paradise beyond this world where one will eventually escape the harsh reality of the here and now.
--Max
--People, even scientists, unfortunately get dogmatic. Scientists who make science something more than it is make me uncomfortable, because in my mind they simply use science to fill the same void other people fill with religion.
ReplyDelete>>Boy do I agree w/ you on that! Definitely.
--I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "methodological naturalism" or why you refer to it as "baggage."
>>Actually, Berlinski referred to methodological naturalism in his interview. I call it baggage b/c it is not a part of seeking the truth, especially in the forensic part of science. Sure, we can't go around calling everything a miracle or an "act of God," but OTOH we must absolutely recognise that sometimes stuff happens for which we don't know the explanation. A good example of that is the beginning of the universe - nobody knows, but it COULDN'T POSSIBLY be the case that it was instrumented by a Creator Being.
A stronger example is the complexity of life today, and I'm still talking the difference between lab and forensic science. A lab scientist can observe microevolution taking place in his lab, but he cannot observe (b/c no human lives long enough) *undirected* natural selection accomplish macroevolution - the transfer of one genus to another over time via numerous successive, slight modifications. He can observe a woefully incomplete and inconsistently-applied-to-evolutionary-theory fossil record, but other parts of the theory have already broken down badly. Examples of that are the as yet unsatisfactorily responded-to idea of irreducible complexity in biological systems and the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, during which tons of new species came into existence *out of nowhere*. According to the theory, they had to evolve. From where?
Faced w/ this info, the unencumbered-by-methodological-naturalism ID scientists have sought alternate explanations, not refusing to go where no evolutionist has gone before.
--Berlinsky acts as if there is something wrong with being able to appreciate the universe despite it being not appreciably different than a head of cabbage.
>>Well, sure. First, it makes no sense not to. Second, every single person on the face of the planet acts out the truth, that the world IS appreciably different, on a second-by-second basis. You have previously criticised me for acting "self-righteous," but if this world is just a big head of cabbage, why did you even bother? Why do you bother commenting now? Why not just kill yourself?
[Disclaimer] The previous sentence was meant in NO way as a suggestion, but rather as a rhetorical question. Rhology strongly advises anyone not to kill him/herself. [/Disclaimer]
--It would seem that Berlinsky, despite claiming to be agnostic, needs the universe, or the earth, or man, to be "special."
>>Your "despite" expresses my feelings exactly. He is inconsistent, but less so than many.
--I think it somehow nobler to be able to be thrilled by Newark, NJ, rather than having to invent a paradise beyond this world where one will eventually escape the harsh reality of the here and now.
>>For someone who believes the world is, in its absolute value, comparable to a head of cabbage, it seems to me that you have an overactive sense of morality.
Respectfully,
ALAN
**A good example of that is the beginning of the universe - nobody knows, but it COULDN'T POSSIBLY be the case that it was instrumented by a Creator Being.**
ReplyDeleteI think a "pure science" stance is that nobody really knows how the universe got started, but something akin to the big bang is our best theory based on the evidence we've found. A Creator is not "ruled out" but rather simply "left out" because no test I can do proves that a supernatural being was responsible.
**A lab scientist can observe microevolution...[but not]macroevolution.**
Indeed, no one has witnessed speciation. As far as I am concerned, once you have proven microevolution, you may as well have proven macroevolution, because as two isolated populations of the same species microevolve under different selective pressures so as to become more and more different in genotypic frequency, the chance of macroevolution and ultimately speciation approaches 1 over time.
**Examples of that are the as yet unsatisfactorily responded-to idea of irreducible complexity in biological systems**
Personally I find arguments of "life is complicated, so it cannot have come about spontaneously" to be rather poor.
**and the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, during which tons of new species came into existence *out of nowhere*. According to the theory, they had to evolve. From where?**
I had always thought the explanation for increased speciation was increased isolation of populations due to changes in geology and climate that opened more environmental niches.
Faced w/ this info, the unencumbered-by-methodological-naturalism ID scientists have sought alternate explanations, not refusing to go where no evolutionist has gone before.
**Second, every single person on the face of the planet acts out the truth, that the world IS appreciably different, on a second-by-second basis.**
You're presupposing that the way people act is representative of the truth, rather than what people want the truth to be. Most people don't want to imagine an uncaring universe where they are not special and their existance is essentially meaningless in the grand scheme. So many will try to give their own life meaning through their actions, and will try to invent a meaning for life in general in their minds. Isn't it so much more romantic to think that we are the beloved reflections of a divine being who can leave this imperfect world for eternal paradise if only we follow the rules?
**but if this world is just a big head of cabbage, why did you even bother? Why do you bother commenting now? Why not just kill yourself?**
Haha. I've gotten this many times. "Well if there is no hell and life is meaningless, why not just kill yourself?" When I say "life in general has no meaning," I don't mean, "life sucks," nor do I mean that MY life has no meaning. My life has the meaning I have made for it, just like everyone else. Life in general has no meaning because nothing I do or anyone else does either way will leave a lasting impact on the universe or change its overall course. Believe in Christianity and it's no different. You're never going to change God's mind, according to most Christians. Again, you can change your life, and perhaps the lives of those around you, or maybe even the lives of many for centuries to come, but nothing you do will keep the sun from rising, halt the expansion of the universe, change the speed of light, or change God's mind about when to schedule judgement day. What is the "purpose" of life then? If this world is so imperfect, and the world to come is a paradise beyond all comprehension, why not just kill yourself and get to the good part faster? Oh, if you commit suicide, you don't get admission to the paradise club? Seems like an awfully convenient way to keep your whole religion from making itself extinct.
Oh, and I think that's the first time a Christion has thought me of having an "overactive" sense of morality. Normally all I get is talk about how I "have no moral compass." Cheers.
--Max
--A Creator is not "ruled out" but rather simply "left out" because no test I can do proves that a supernatural being was responsible.
ReplyDelete>>True. That's why methodological naturalism should be left out in the cold rather than added on as baggage to science, since science can't test it.
Incidentally, evolution can't be tested in the lab either; speciation, or macroevolution, that is. If it can't be tested, why claim it's science? Baggage, my friend.
--As far as I am concerned, once you have proven microevolution, you may as well have proven macroevolution, because as two isolated populations of the same species microevolve under different selective pressures so as to become more and more different in genotypic frequency
>>Unproven assumptions like that have no place among scientifically-established facts. Why is the 'religious nut' suddenly defending the purity of science? (Not that you're calling me a 'religious nut,' but your intellectual forebears have and do.)
--Personally I find arguments of "life is complicated, so it cannot have come about spontaneously" to be rather poor.
>>In what way?
I'll summarise the Behe irreducible complexity argument really quick so we can be sure we are talking about the same thing. ;-)
Evolution posits the development of life's complexity thru numerous, slight, successive modifications from the very first simple life forms. If a structure can be found that is proven to be irreducibly complex, then that means that such successive slight modifications could not have produced the structure. Darwin realised this and admitted that his theory would "absolutely break down" if such were discovered. And it has been.
Just curious - have you read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" book and/or Kenneth Miller's (IMHO) insufficient reply to the mousetrap?
--I had always thought the explanation for increased speciation was increased isolation of populations due to changes in geology and climate that opened more environmental niches.
>>But they have to develop over time thru numerous successive slight modifications. These populations that appeared during the Cambrian Explosion show no fossil evidence of having done so. Where are and what were these animals' ancestors?
--You're presupposing that the way people act is representative of the truth, rather than what people want the truth to be.
>>Unlike you apparently do, I don't work under a drastic dichotomy of truth. There's truth and there's untruth, not "religious truth" or "what's true for you" versus "concrete truth". At least that's the underlying implication to what you said.
What I meant was that people act like truth is absolute every day. You take a breath b/c you have reason to believe it's not poisonous and b/c you have come to recognise that your body requires air. You turn the key in the ignition b/c you're reasonably satisfied that the car will not explode, transport you to Mars, or transmogrify into a plate of sushi. You type on your keyboard to communicate w/ people. It goes on and on. You can believe whatever you want about whether the oncoming semi will flatten you if you get in its way w/ 2 seconds to spare - you're dead whether you believe it will kill you or not. So your objection missed my point.
--Most people don't want to imagine an uncaring universe where they are not special and their existance is essentially meaningless in the grand scheme.
>>You seem to prefer that.
--So many will try to give their own life meaning through their actions, and will try to invent a meaning for life in general in their minds.
>>It has always amazed me that people believe that it means something to "insert meaning" into their own lives even when there is no meaning out there. It's like they are magicians or something.
--When I say "life in general has no meaning," I don't mean, "life sucks,"
>>I wasn't implying that you do think life sucks, but I am stating (explicitly) that life has no meaning for you.
--nor do I mean that MY life has no meaning. My life has the meaning I have made for it, just like everyone else.
--Life in general has no meaning because nothing I do or anyone else does either way will leave a lasting impact on the universe or change its overall course.
>>If you would, please read over those last two statements and tell me that YOU'RE the one being objective and logical. How do you justify such statements?
--Believe in Christianity and it's no different.
>>There is an objective and subjective element to Xtianity. Objective - believe in Jesus and you believe in the God Who actually did create the concrete universe and the spiritual realm, both. So you're logically objectively in the right. Subjective - since God created each human heart to long after Him, all of a sudden the lost heart has found its meaning and is completed. It's partly strictly experiential and partly spiritual. So again the statement is incorrect.
--You're never going to change God's mind, according to most Christians.
>>And according to the Bible.
--nothing you do will keep the sun from rising, halt the expansion of the universe, change the speed of light, or change God's mind about when to schedule judgement day.
>>So what?
--What is the "purpose" of life then?
>>To glorify the Creator, Who is worthy of constant and eternal glorification.
--If this world is so imperfect, and the world to come is a paradise beyond all comprehension, why not just kill yourself and get to the good part faster?
>>I know you probably said this tongue-in-cheek, but just in case you didn't, I'll answer seriously. It's b/c glorifying God has a major element of obedience to God's commands. He said not to kill myself, that He alone is responsible for the day of my death.
--Oh, if you commit suicide, you don't get admission to the paradise club? Seems like an awfully convenient way to keep your whole religion from making itself extinct.
>>Sorry, but the implication you're making is just ludicrous.
--Oh, and I think that's the first time a Christion has thought me of having an "overactive" sense of morality. Normally all I get is talk about how I "have no moral compass."
>>Touche. :-D
However, you may indeed have a point. I am very possibly unlike most Xtians you have encountered in your discussions. My argument is not that you have no moral compass, but simply that your moral compass is totally subjective (much like the "meaning" you "insert into your own life") and therefore completely meaningless, since you can imagine no way to relate to anyone else. A totally subjective ANYthing that relates to fundamental issues like logic, reason, morality, and life's meaning is insufficient and unsatisfying. Sadly, it seems to be satisfying (at least for now) to you.
-ALAN
I confess I now do not understand your definition of methodological naturalism, as the way I understand it the very reason the issue of a creator is left out of pure science is due to pure science being naturalist (dealing only with the natural) and methodological. Yet you act as though methodological naturalism does something different or is otherwise not inherent. Please explain what you mean.
ReplyDeleteRegarding micro versus macro evolution, you say unproven assumptions have no place among established facts. Then what is a theory? Science is not made impure by allowing educated guesses, it is just that our guesses must constantly be evalutated. Do you mean to argue that two isolated populations of the same species under different selective pressures will not speciate if given enough time? I contend that macroevolution can be proven, it would just take an experiment spanning hundreds of human lifetimes.
The reason I find irreducible complexity arguments to be lacking is because I tend not to agree with their assessment of what qualifies as being irreducibly complex. The most common example I encounter is that of the bombardier beetle; people argue that it`s chemical defense mechanism is irreducibly complex; any one part of the mechanism evolving before the rest would be fatal to the beetle, or something like that. But that`s just misunderstanding how evolution works.
The Cambrian explosion: of course fossil evidence is incomplete. As little evidence as we have to be able to say something like species A split into species B and C at time X, we have exactly zero evidence that they were all spontaneously created whole cloth by a divine intellect.
Wait, you said that you *don`t work under a drastic dichotomy of truth,* and yet you said *there is truth and there`s untruth.* That is a dichotomy. (Forgive asterisks instead of quotes, using a nutty japanese computer.)
You said *Second, every single person on the face of the planet acts out the truth, that the world IS appreciably different [than a head of cabbage], on a second-by-second basis.* This seemed to imply that because most people act as though life has some kind of greater purpose, this is evidence that life indeed has a greater purpose. If that is what you meant, I disagree. I think people insert meaning into their lives. I don`t think this is necessarily bad, and I think people should give their lives their own meaning, their own joy and purpose. But to me, to say that one`s life has some higher purpose is purely a delusion of grandeur, because even if your name is spoken by every living person for the next thousand years, that means nothing to the universe as a whole over all time.
It is not that I *prefer* an uncaring universe, it is that I feel I have not been presented with sufficient evidence that the universe does care, and so I must conclude for the time being that the universe simply exists and doesn`t consciously care either way.
***
--nor do I mean that MY life has no meaning. My life has the meaning I have made for it, just like everyone else.
--Life in general has no meaning because nothing I do or anyone else does either way will leave a lasting impact on the universe or change its overall course.
>>If you would, please read over those last two statements and tell me that YOU'RE the one being objective and logical. How do you justify such statements?
***
I don`t see the problem. My life has the meaning to me that I have given it. My life means nothing to those who have no knowlege of me, until they acquire knowledge of me and choose to attribute meaning to it. Similarly, my life, the life of the earth and the whole human race is but a grain of sand in the infinity of the universe, and thus meaningless to the universe as a whole. It is a matter of layered perspectives, not inconsistencies within a single definition. Obviously we should value human life, as humans, and indeed life on earth as a whole, because it is ours, and it is all we have. But we are still powerless before the laws of physics, the vastness of space, or the will of god, and so in the grand scheme our lives affect little, and mean little.
I contend that Christianity is no different. A being of infinite power and knowledge and time needs nothing, especially not the praise of those such as humans. There would be no reason for God to create us, there would be no reason for god to love us, yet according to Xianity, He does. This is the appeal of Xianity. And yet, there is no reason I can see to glorify God, assuming he exists. The universe is great and impressive to be sure, but do you praise the fastest runner in the world for crossing the street in under a minute? No. Similarly, a being of infinite power could create an infinite number of flawless universes in literally no time. In the event that we do not glorify God, nothing changes. God is not somehow weakened by our lack of praise, he does not need our praise. Assuming God exists, we are nothing next to him, and we cannot affect him. Neither our pleas to him nor our denial nor our glorification of him change him in any way. Thus existence temporal or eternal is meaningless because it results in zero change of the standard against which it is measured.
**--Oh, if you commit suicide, you don't get admission to the paradise club? Seems like an awfully convenient way to keep your whole religion from making itself extinct.
>>Sorry, but the implication you're making is just ludicrous.
**
I`m interested to hear why you think it so ludicrous.
Max
Hey Max,
ReplyDeleteMethodological naturalism is pretty much what you said, but it is unwarranted in the realm of science, partially by definition and partially b/c of the abuse of it reflected in the actions of so many evolutionists, such as Dennett and Dawkins.
A rule of thumb for where the problem lies is in not being able to figure out where human knowledge ends, and simultaneously being addicted both to the idea that science WILL EVENTUALLY get it all right (which is wild and arrogant speculation) and the idea that the material world is all there is (which is illogical and rationally unsustainable).
A theory is a scientifically-established hypothesis that has not yet been proven faulty, for a general definition. Yet lab science, in empirically testable and **REPEATABLE** experiments, has never observed macro-evolution. It is thus an assumption, and a bad one. You can think of a way by which macro-evolution MIGHT be proven, but an Intelligent Design scientist can think of sthg similar just as easily.
Perhaps your contention that the Irr Complexity of the bombardier beetle is faulty is correct. How about the mammalian eye, or the bacterial flagellum?
I'm glad you agree that the fossil evidence is incomplete as regards the Cambrian Explosion. Were you *really* interested in going where the evidence leads you, you might conclude that, since there is no way that the current evolutionary model could account for such rapid growth in the diversity of new organisms that show up in the Cambrian Explosion strata, the model should be changed. Do you concede that?
--This seemed to imply that because most people act as though life has some kind of greater purpose
>>My point, which it appears you missed, was that people act as though truth is indeed truth b/c they do things like try to AVOID getting hit by a bus that they know, based on factual evidence, is coming their way. Why do they do that? Everyone believes that their lives are worth sthg, even those who say they don't believe it; else they wouldn't bother whining about it or communicating their (by their own definition) worthless ideas to others. You yourself, in debating this and our other issues, are proving me right.
--I don`t think this is necessarily bad, and I think people should give their lives their own meaning, their own joy and purpose.
>>Why do you think this? And what reason can you give to ME to make ME believe the same thing as you?
--to say that one`s life has some higher purpose is purely a delusion of grandeur,
>>To the Christian, it is not his own grandeur that he seeks, but the glory of Jesus Christ.
--even if your name is spoken by every living person for the next thousand years, that means nothing to the universe as a whole over all time.
>>Yet Jesus' Name will be praised and glorified over the course of eternity, so your objection is met and vanquished by the sheer scale of eternity. And I totally understand why you said that. It's just that God is, over the course of things, so much greater than we can conceive of.
--my life, the life of the earth and the whole human race is but a grain of sand in the infinity of the universe, and thus meaningless to the universe as a whole.
>>But you said you inject your own meaning into your life. If the sum total of all subjectively-injected meaning by all of humanity still equals nil, then how can a single part of that meaning (ie, your own) still mean anything?
--Obviously we should value human life, as humans, and indeed life on earth as a whole, because it is ours
>>Who says?
--But we are still powerless before the laws of physics, the vastness of space, or the will of god, and so in the grand scheme our lives affect little, and mean little.
>>Each life means a great deal in the biblical worldview and has its own objective value, ascribed to it by God.
--I contend that Christianity is no different
>>I do not mean to be rude, I'm just stating a fact here. You contend thusly b/c you have an insufficient understanding of Christianity.
--A being of infinite power and knowledge and time needs nothing,
>>Agreed. Who said anything about God "needing" us?
--There would be no reason for God to create us
>>B/c He loves us, His creation. And for us to love Him and glorify Him.
--This is the appeal of Xianity
>>That is only part of it. The biggest part is the fact that I am guilty of sin deserving of eternal separation from God and yet He rescued me from that.
--God is not somehow weakened by our lack of praise, he does not need our praise.
>>No, you're right. But nobody's saying either of those.
--Similarly, a being of infinite power could create an infinite number of flawless universes in literally no time
>>You're right. Don't you think we might be better off expressing our admiration and awe of such a God rather than criticising Him for going ahead and creating at least one really cool universe?
Also, your analysis that God "could create an infinite number of flawless universes," while true, also carries w/ it an unmistakable note of disparagement, and that creates a dissonant disconnect in your thinking here. You have expressed a few ideas about God relating to His theoretical grandeur and immutability and all that and then you diss Him for not creating a zillion universes and for only creating one. You have said that you insert your own value into your life and yet resist recognising all the wondrous beauty and artistry that God has already inserted for you into THIS world. It's sad to see how, surrounded by a beautiful creation that points to the Ultimate Meaning, you think you have to insert your own.
--I`m interested to hear why you think it (committing suicide so as to go to Heaven quicker) so ludicrous.
>>It's ludicrous, Max.
But OK, we'll play w/ it briefly.
The Bible makes plain that *God* is the One Who governs the time of our deaths. It's not our privilege, responsibility, or prerogative. Thus, I am forbidden from taking my life.
The Bible makes plain that God gives each person a path to follow and a plan for our lives. Such a plan ends when *God* says, not when I say. I am not to murder another, nor am I to murder myself.