November 20, 2008

Scientific Explanation?

I liked what D’Souza said about atheists trying to establish science as the the only source of truth and access to reality. They go far as to claim that everything outside of science is irrelevant and even absurd. It's this same philosophy that has totally infiltrated our school systems.

Science, indeed, gives us pretty good explanation as to how things work. Science though, give explanations at one level while ignoring explanations on another level.

For example, there is a pot of water on the stove. If someone to pose a question "Why is this water boiling?"

The scientific answer would go something like this: The water is boiling because the temperature is excess of a hundred degrees, when that happens it has an effect on the molecules, and those molecules begin to react in a certain way and that's why the water is boiling. And that is a perfectly good scientific explanation.

But here is another explanation as to why the water is boiling, Because Dan wants to have a cup of tea. That is an explanation on a different level then a scientific explanation and yet it is completely valid and moreover, the scientific explanation itself, would be incomprehensible if you didn't put into the context as to why the pot got on the stove in the first place, because Dan is trying to make himself some tea. That's why the set of events have been set into motion that cannot be described scientifically.

So what we illustrate by this example is the scientific explanation is true as far as it goes but it doesn't go all that far. It doesn't give a full account of the phenomenon at hand. When we are looking at the big questions that we face in life. Why do we have a universe? How did we get life out of non-life? Why do we have consciousness, morality?

What's the scientific explanation as to why we have a universe?

"We don't know the answer to that one."

What is the evolutionary or scientific explanation for how we got life, not how we got life form 'A' from life form 'B', but how we got life in the first place?

"We are working on that one we really don't know."

What about consciousness, if you think of human consciousness, you have all typed of living creatures, bacteria, amoebas and so on they are living, but they are not conscious, what is the evolutionary benefit to consciousness? Consciousness takes a lot out of us, a lot of the energy of the living animal is devoted to the brain and consciousness, why do we need it? What adaptive advantage does it confer?

"We have absolutely no idea."

So the point is, in some of these domains science is trying to figure it out and in other domains the question itself lies outside the boundaries of science. In both case the new atheist, in some sense, is trying to claim for science far more then science can actually deliver.

D’Souza goes on to say "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."

Atheists keep saying "you believe based on absolutely no evidence that there is an after life"

D’Souza responds "you believe based on absolutely no evidence that there is no after life."

No one has any scientific knowledge about whether there is an afterlife. Once we are at death the scientific explanation is at an end. There is no empirical test that we can perform that can tell us whether there is an afterlife , or not.

We both don't 'know' on the bases of faith. There is no scientific high horse that atheists can sit on.

Is there scientific proof of God?

No, because science is limited to the provinces of natural explanations. But there are things in science that can legitimately point beyond science to provinces of metaphysics.

For example, almost all of science is based upon the question that every effect has a cause. Science asks what is that cause. We have a material object, the Universe, and the universe has a beginning but the question is does it require a cause, if it has a cause is it a natural cause or a supernatural cause?

It turns out the natural cause is not a very good explanation because the universe itself includes all of nature so if your saying that nature had a natural cause you are almost saying that nature caused itself out of non-nature. There was once no nature and then nature produced nature itself? Seems far fetched.

One can draw legitimate and reasonable inferences out of Science that it is pointing to something bigger, A Creator. But I don't think there is any scientific proof in the sense."

56 comments:

  1. But here is another explanation as to why the water is boiling, Because Dan wants to have a cup of tea. That is an explanation on a different level

    No, it's not. It's the using of semantics to change the meaning of the question asked.

    There's no different level - there's only the wittiness or dishonesty of the answerer (depending on intent).

    ---

    Science is preferrable because, when done right, it leads to explanations that can be very useful; understanding boiling water helps us understand how pressure & temperature and molecular/atomic composition interact to yield state change. Why good quality chocolate loses temperature in your mouth as it dissolves; why helium never solidifies; why nitrogen causes "the bends", etc ad infinitum.

    Theism, on the other hand, provides answers that can't be used at all. "God did it" stops all inquiry, and throws out any need for us to understand the world around us. If an all-powerful being causes earthquakes to happen, then we'd better be sure to just pray extra hard that he doesn't choose to destroy our towns.

    And look, isn't it funny that Japan and San Francisco seem to be angering God moreso that the liberal Godless northeastern United States? I'll bet that means God likes educated people...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I noticed Dan didn't give the creationist/intelligent design answer to those questions. Don't worry Dan. I'll field this for you:

    1) What's the explanation as to why we have a universe?

    "Magic man dun it."

    2) What is the explanation for how we got life, not how we got life form 'A' from life form 'B', but how we got life in the first place?

    "Magic man dun it."

    3) What about conscientiousness, if you think of human conscientiousness, you have all typed of living creatures, bacteria, amoebas and so on they are living, but they are not conscious, what is the benefit to conscientiousness? Conscientiousness takes a lot out of us, a lot of the energy of the living animal is devoted to the brain and conscientiousness, why do we need it? What advantage does it confer?

    "Don't care. Magic Man dun it."


    WOW! You're right, Dan. Science sucks! It's SOOO much easier to just attribute everything to Magic Man. Then all of our text books could fit on fortune cookie!

    By the way, I'd like a cup of tea. Why isn't the water on my stove boiling? What gives?

    ReplyDelete
  3. WEM said: ""God did it" stops all inquiry"

    You beat me by..THAT...much.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Progress at last!

    Dan, it's nice to hear you finally accepting that science is correct with regards to its explanation of the evolution of our many species on Earth today, and of its explanation of the formation of our solar system and the universe in general, lo those many billion years ago.

    [T]he scientific explanation is true as far as it goes

    Outstanding.

    [I]n some of these domains science is trying to figure it out and in other domains the question itself lies outside the boundaries of science.

    Very close, but not quite. In each of these "domains", science seeks an answer. Certainly, where the questions remain unanswered, we would say they challenge the current "boundaries" of science, but it would be premature and foolish for us to say that those questions could never be answered by science.

    If what you claim is true, then we'd long since have given up on harnessing electricity to our [often nefarious] aims. Remember? It was beyond the boundaries of science. Hell, even Christian leadership denounced Franklin's invention of the Lightning Rod because it clearly interfered with god's intentions.

    Thinking people the world over have continuously expanded the so-called "boundaries" of science, and in doing so, have uncovered new and even more fascinating puzzles. It wasn't all that long ago that matter was thought to be comprised of four base "elements" -- earth, wind, fire, water -- but that notion was solved when alchemy became chemistry, and the Periodic Table was tallied. Then, molecules became the smallest available units until atoms were finally recognized. From atoms, atomic particles were eventually recognized, and then their anti-particles, and sub-atomic particles, etc.

    Each layer of this onion -- no, I agree with Donkey: cakes -- as each layer of this cake is devoured, yet another, more puzzling cake is exposed, further fueling the appetite for knowledge.

    In the context of the cake analogy, I'm evidently destined for obesity and diabetes, whereas you have stopped eating, and gone so far as to deny the existence of any more cake.

    Now, to be fair, this post seems to be a relaxation or even retreat from this position -- you seem now to be claiming that the cake exists, and every layer is fairly accurately described, but that our appetite will never be satisfied; the lowest layer will forever remain covered.

    I really don't mind at all if that's what you're saying now. I'm just eating cake.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's ok UCT - I think I like your fortune cookie comment better than my "God Loves Liberals" idea :)

    By the way, why'd you (Dan) change the image associated with this entry? At first, I thought it was a screen cap of the game Spore, and I was going to give you brownie points for self-deprecation...

    ReplyDelete
  6. But Dan: why do you want to have a cup of tea? That question can be answered, or at least we can attempt to answer it, scientifically too. Dan wants a cup of tea because he is thirsty. Why is he thirsty? Because there is not enough water in his system, or because there is too much salt, and his body is sending him signals that he should drink something. Why? Because animals need a certain amount of water to survive, and animals that evolved the ability to detect when they needed more water were more successful than ones that didn't.

    Or perhaps Dan wants to drink a cup of tea to be social with friends. Why does Dan want to be social with friends? Partly because of his genetic heritage as a social animal, and partly because of his desire to engage in a social ritual. Why does Dan want to engage in this social ritual? Because he learned growing up that it was a good thing to do; because he likes these friends that he wants to drink tea with; because it just seems to him a good idea. Why does it seem a good idea? Because of the memory of drinking tea with friends brings pleasure in the form of pleasing neural impulses.

    Okay- obviously, at some point answering the question about why Dan wants a cup of tea becomes intractable: we simply don't know enough to answer it scientifically all the way down to the Theory of Everything, which we don't have anyway. But in principle, if not in fact, the question can be framed scientifically, and answered scientifically.

    Not necessarily so the question: why do we have a Universe? If there is no Creator, such a question makes no sense. If there is a Creator, then we must ask, why do we have a Creator? In any case, the postulation of a Creator answers no questions: it simply puts them up one level.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, one more thing, Dan... Save yourself some typing; it's "consciousness", not "conscientiousness".

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  8. Whoa, all these answers, within eight minutes! It can't be a coincidence...

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am sure Ray Comfort would never use the teachings of a Catholic to try to make a point. Those guys are going to hell!

    ReplyDelete
  10. A Catholic and and OEC...

    Double-whammy.

    I'd say that makes D'Souza pretty luke-warm -- ripe for spitting.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  11. No coffee break for me: otherwise I'll be up to 3 AM, and I've got a bass to repair tomorrow...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Speaking of Catholics: today I noticed ads in the Schnellbahn by the Catholic Church, saying:

    Zu Weihnachten wurde Jesus Christus geboren.

    Ein Fest der Freude für die Menschen.

    That is: Jesus Christ was born on Christmas. A festival of joy for people.

    Even the Catholics must know by now that Christmas is just recycled Saturnalia, that is Winter Solstice, and that Jesus, if He ever existed, was more likely born in Spring, when shepherds watch their flocks by night, if the Bible is to be believed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Admitting that is tantamount to conceding that your holy authority comes from the adoption of pagan rituals.

    It'd put an awful lot of priests outta bizness!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan wrote So what we illustrate by this example is the scientific explanation is true as far as it goes but it doesn't go all that far. It doesn't give a full account of the phenomenon at hand.

    Ultimately, you betray that you value having an answer to a difficult question more than you do having the right answer. Sorry Dan, but that's intellectual cowardice.

    There is nothing wrong with saying the words "I don't know". It's not very comforting, I'll agree, but it's also honest.

    And humble.

    It doesn't preclude your ability to find a different or better answer in the future.

    It actually generates respect from those who are similarly looking for answers, but haven't found ones they're satisfied with.

    ---

    Stop trying to claim you have the answers - you don't. The very existence of hundreds of other religions, full of people who are making the same claims and yet have answers that are different than yours should be a clue.

    A very significant clue.

    God wants you to use your brain, Dan. Not adhere to dogma coming from a bunch of humans still trying to understand a book that's almost 2000 years old.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Actually, Frog, I think Ray would use the teachings of a Catholic. He's always using stuff from those who, while they aren't "Christians", he says believe in "god". Einstein is a prime example. Ray will use (twist)anything to try to make his outrageous points. My apologies for replying here.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Stan,

    "Oh, one more thing, Dan... Save yourself some typing;"

    Darn you spell check!!!

    Thank you. If I am going to be wrong, does it even count that I am consistently so?

    Wem,

    "Stop trying to claim you have the answers - you don't."

    I agree atheists don't have the answers.

    D’Souza goes on to say "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."

    Atheists keep saying "you believe based on absoluetly no evidence that there is an after life"

    D’Souza responds "you believe based on absoluetly no evidence that there is no after life."

    No one has any scientific knowledge about whether there is an afterlife. Once we are at death the scientific explanation is at an end. There is no empirical test that we can perform that can tell us whether there is an afterlife , or not.

    We both don't 'know' on the bases of faith. There is no scientific high horse that atheists can sit on.

    Is there scientific proof of God?

    No, because science is limited to the provinces of natural explanations. But there are things in science that can legitimately point beyond science to provinces of metaphysics.

    For example almost all of science is based upon the question that every effect has a cause. Science asks what is that cause. We have a material object, the Universe, and the universe has a beginning but the question is does it require a cause, if it has a cause is it a natural cause or a supernatural cause?

    It turns out the natural cause is not a very good explanation because the universe itself includes all of nature so if your saying that nature had a natural cause you are almost saying that nature caused itself out of non-nature. There was once no nature and then nature produced nature itself? Seems far fetched.

    One can draw ligament and reasonable inferences out of Science that it is pointing to something bigger, A Creator. But I don't think there is any scientific proof in the sense."

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan:

    I guess I am a little confused about your argument and what you are trying to demonstrate. Everybody will (at least I will) concede there are some questions that science is not trying to answer and frankly are outside the bounds of science.

    Why do we have a universe?

    Do you mean what is the purpose of the universe? What makes you presume that the universe has a "purpose"?

    How did we get life out of non-life?

    There are many hypothesis as to how life can arise out of non-living matter and scientists will admit that they do not know. So what? Does that mean that your unproven assertion that God did it wins by default?

    Why do we have conscientiousness, morality?

    Again, are you talking about purpose? What makes you presume that there is a purpose?

    If you are talking about how did consciousness (I and presuming that is what you meant) arise? Well, since we have a well supported theory of evolution demonstrating that selective advantages will naturally propagate in a population, it seems entirely reasonable that consciousness would be advantageous to survival.

    Morality is advantageous is humans who are tribal/social creatures. A human, for example, who does not murder those around him is more likely to have his genes spread, especially since before modern times those around you were much more likely to be family and share your genes.

    What's the scientific explanation as to why we have a universe?

    What do you mean by "why"? Purpose? See above. As to how the universe arose - there are scientific theories as to how our current universe arose. Perhaps you don't like that explanation - but that doesn't automatically mean God did it.

    You seem to think that every atheist asserts that everything can be answered scientifically. This simply is not true.

    I will give you example. When I was earning my undergraduate degree in economics I was taking a public economics class. One group was giving a presentation as to how economists, acting as expert witnesses at a trial, place a monetary value on human life. One of the students objected stating that no monetary value can be placed on a human life, which is irreplaceable. The professor interrupted the student and told him that his assertion was normative statements and outside the scope of the subject. This is absolutely true - that argument would be a philosophical question, which economics is not designed to answer.

    You are the one that seems to have a problem with science not being able to answer questions which it is not designed to answer. As I have explained, science is not designed to answer all questions.

    However, the existence of God could at least theoretically be answered scientifically (as Richard Dawkins argued in the God Delusion, i.e. from the quote that you cited the other day). Just because science cannot give any definitive answer as to whether God exists or not does not make it more (or less) likely that God exists. However, there is no evidence that a deity exists (let alone the Christian God) and there is plenty of evidence that life, the planets, the Sun, the stars, etc. arose naturally without needing to invoke a deity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan:

    You're copying and pasting your own material; and your mistakes; "ligament"? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  19.      Now, now, "because Dan wants a cup of tea" is a meaningful answer to the question "why is the water boiling?" It all depends on the perspective of the question. The scientific addresses the general conditions that cause water to boil. The purpose-based answer addressed a motivation for causing those conditions to occur.
         There is, however, a problem with the answer "magic man did it." We can't verify that magic man is there. There is also the fact that, even if magic man is there, he may not know or care that we are.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan,
    This is a rather nice post you’ve put together here. It reminds of the following:

    There’s a flower a garden; every morning the head raises and the petals lift towards the sun. On the one hand science can say that this process is controlled by what is called photosynthesis. On the other hand, perhaps the flower simply likes to do this.

    We can imagine that some day science will reduce human behavior down to total cause and effect just as we’ve done with the flower. But this will in no way reduce our sense of self, desire, like, quality, so on.

    In other words, person “X” acted as he did because of process “Y”; but now we’ve reduced the whole of humanity to nothing more then meat puppets and we’re completely ignoring the fact that we “LIKE” to do things. Morality is now completely bankrupt and we’re all void of personal responsibility. Of course I’m riding down a slippery slope here, but no matter, I like the post.

    Perhaps, Dan, atheists are nothing more the Meat Puppets.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pvblivs wrote Now, now, "because Dan wants a cup of tea" is a meaningful answer to the question "why is the water boiling?" It all depends on the perspective of the question

    Certainly, it's a valid answer.

    My beef is with the analogy. Dan says the difference in the answers is akin to the idea that "science doesn't go deep enough" - and that's a fundamentally flawed comparison.

    Changing the context of a question can yield two equally valid but different answers. This doesn't equate to theism being able to provide the same.

    It's a fact that (so far) every time theism has tried to lay claim to knowledge that science has been able to investigate, the answer was found to be wrong.

    I submit that religion's domain of expertise has nothing to do with tangible fact. Or maybe I should say, to date, religion hasn't been able to provide useful information about the tangible world.

    Why it continues to try to do so is a mystery to me...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan plus cross plus,

    As I explained in a comment at Raytractors, that's not an alternative explanation as to why the water is boiling, it's a totally different question.

    It turns out the natural cause is not a very good explanation because the universe itself includes all of nature so if your saying that nature had a natural cause you are almost saying that nature caused itself out of non-nature. There was once no nature and then nature produced nature itself? Seems far fetched.

    With as much respect as I can muster, a good scientist does not presume to know everything, and should not balk at admitting as much. Considering the pathetically short time period for which science has tried to explain things, that's not a shortcoming or embarrassment. It's to be expected! On the contrary, many religious types arrogantly presume to explain things that are so far understandably beyond human knowledge by reference to God. And you think naturalism is far fetched?! Was that a joke?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Andrew, you say:

    Perhaps, Dan, atheists are nothing more the Meat Puppets.

    This is perhaps a bit off-topic, and perhaps not: yes, I'll go along with that. I am proud to be a Meat Puppet.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Zilch,

    Thanks for the link. That was worth it just to see the Cash Cab guy act.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I might have thought that you'd like it, UCT. If you're interested, here's a link to the short story the film was based on, which is a bit more nuanced. I like it because it is a treatment of the question "can mere flesh and blood think?", but not, as usual, from the side of believers who feel we need an immaterial soul, but from the side of beings who feel we need a material machine.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dan,
    Nice try.
    "Is there scientific proof of God?

    No, because science is limited to the provinces of natural explanations. But there are things in science that can legitimately point beyond science to provinces of metaphysics."

    OH? and pray tell, what are they?

    "For example almost all of science is based upon the question that every effect has a cause. Science asks what is that cause. We have a material object, the Universe, and the universe has a beginning but the question is does it require a cause, if it has a cause is it a natural cause or a supernatural cause?"

    You and the scientists are at the same juncture here.

    You do not know, and there is no evidence, as you said, to point to a supernatural cause.

    Again, nice try.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan,
    You are operating in the realm of sophism.
    Rousas Rushdooney-like.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Zilch,

    You just blew my mind with that cinematic genius.

    So do you feel as if we are all just meat? I feel we are placed here for far more substantial things. This can't be it. Just meat talking to meat and then worm meat? Really? There is way more to life then just that don't you think?

    We were placed here is a very rational conclusion.

    BTW Noonan is a true thespian.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "So do you feel as if we are all just meat? I feel we are placed here for far more substantial things."

    "Substantial"? You believe we are the little creations of some supernatural magician who will torture us for eternity if we don't do what he wants. I wouldn't call that "substantial." I would call that slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You believe we are the little creations of some supernatural magician who will torture us for eternity if we don't do what he wants. I wouldn't call that "substantial." I would call that slavery.

    I think you misunderstand, Bart -- Dan believes we are put here for a purpose: to provide praise, worship, and admiration for a being who never needed it in the first place, and who gets along just fine without it.

    Dan believes that this ~93 billion light-year across expanse of space-time we call "the Universe" was created as recently as 6,000 years ago, that it was all created for us, and that we were all created to kiss god's ass. The plan is also to erase the whole thing in a few years, when his kid (who is him), who he had killed (so he didn't have to kill all of us), will return, and kill the rest of us (except the ones who groveled the right way).

    It's if you don't grovel in the right fashion that you find yourself condemned to an eternity of suffering, and while this isn't what god wants, it's what he makes happen through his limitless power and knowledge. You see, the wages of sin is death, and who is god to adjust the wages of sin? How dare you question god's infinite power and knowledge!

    So for Dan's sake, please don't misrepresent his position: god is the perfectly good, all-powerful, all-knowing being who created you with the idea that you will probably be tortured for eternity -- in his mercy.

    How much more substantial can our existence get?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dan,

    I feel we are placed here for far more substantial things. This can't be it. Just meat talking to meat and then worm meat? Really?

    Your own personal stupefaction does not mean you are correct. To be fair, no one's personal stupefaction means they're correct. You might say stupefaction is generally a bad way to draw conclusions. I just really like the word 'stupefaction'.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think you misunderstand, Bart -- Dan believes we are put here for a purpose: to provide praise, worship, and admiration for a being who never needed it in the first place, and who gets along just fine without it.

    Dan believes that this ~93 billion light-year across expanse of space-time we call "the Universe" was created as recently as 6,000 years ago, that it was all created for us, and that we were all created to kiss god's ass. The plan is also to erase the whole thing in a few years, when his kid (who is him), who he had killed (so he didn't have to kill all of us), will return, and kill the rest of us (except the ones who groveled the right way).

    It's if you don't grovel in the right fashion that you find yourself condemned to an eternity of suffering, and while this isn't what god wants, it's what he makes happen through his limitless power and knowledge. You see, the wages of sin is death, and who is god to adjust the wages of sin? How dare you question god's infinite power and knowledge!

    So for Dan's sake, please don't misrepresent his position: god is the perfectly good, all-powerful, all-knowing being who created you with the idea that you will probably be tortured for eternity -- in his mercy.


    I rarely (and I mean rarely) use internet slang but - LOL!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Is there scientific proof of God?

    No, because science is limited to the provinces of natural explanations. But there are things in science that can legitimately point beyond science to provinces of metaphysics.


    Dan, most atheists are willing to leave you alone as long as you admit that. But it's another thing to say that science proves Creation as the Bible says, or science doesn't support evolution.

    Consciousness takes a lot out of us, a lot of the energy of the living animal is devoted to the brain and consciousness, why do we need it? What adaptive advantage does it confer?

    While science is not meant to answer the "why", this is an easy one, even if there were no "why", we HAVE a better brain, and we certainly have used it TO (not against) our survivalist advantage.

    D’Souza responds "you believe based on absoluetly no evidence that there is no after life."

    Tu quoque fallacy, instead of answering with some good positive evidence or just admitting "fine, I give up", they throw back the question "well, you're not sure either!". If that's the best you can do, give yourself a break.


    No one has any scientific knowledge about whether there is an afterlife. Once we are at death the scientific explanation is at an end. There is no empirical test that we can perform that can tell us whether there is an afterlife , or not.
    Absolutely agreed, therefore, atheists are not unreasonable to say they do not believe (or rely on) the possibility of an afterlife, or play Pascal.

    "said about atheists trying to establish science as the the only source of truth and access to reality. "
    I hope he didn't mean ALL atheists or ALL scientists, since it is true for neither groups of people. Just because people prefer to speak English and prefer to have 2 children and prefer to be married does not mean it's the ONLY SOURCE of happiness and living morally. If creationists or Christians can think of a BETTER way to find truth or access reality, BRING IT ON (but see if that can apply to as many places as science can).

    ReplyDelete
  34. If God and Jesus are the same "person," then in Bible when Jesus was talking to God was he really just talking to himself? I am aware of a few people in certain "institutions" who do that.

    ReplyDelete
  35. So do you feel as if we are all just meat?

    Yep. As the one machine said in Terry Bisson's short story:

    "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?"

    The meat is the whole deal, as far as I can see. But what a deal!

    Of course, this story cleverly postulates another dualism, for which, like that of body/soul, there is also no evidence: machine/life. We are made out of meat, but we are also machines: meat machines. Thought is substrate-neutral: it can, at least theoretically, run in meat, or in silicon, or (given lots of time) in paper tape with holes punched in it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dan,

    You said,
    "But there are things in science that can legitimately point beyond science to provinces of metaphysics."

    Please don't allow me to perish of curiosity. What are you referring to?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Slim,

    Science doesn't prove Creation or anything for that matter and science doesn't support evolution but secular scientists sure do.

    While science is not meant to answer the "why",

    Thank you for admitting that point.

    "we HAVE a better brain, and we certainly have used it TO (not against) our survivalist advantage."

    This is the reason for evolution of Consciousness? Seems a very flimsy answer for something so complex and dynamic, don't you think?

    "Tu quoque fallacy,"

    If you are claiming that D’Souza is crying a two wrongs make a right fallacy then you are indeed admitting that the atheists claim is indeed wrong?

    Atheists claim we believe based on absoluetly no evidence that there is an after life. So this is wrong then, right?

    "atheists are not unreasonable to say they do not believe (or rely on) the possibility of an afterlife, or play Pascal."

    Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). There is ample evidence of the existence of God, all of which you are rejecting, empirically I might add. A total frustration meltdown is in order here.

    "I hope he didn't mean ALL atheists or ALL scientists"

    I think he was saying the new atheists movement which, by the way, includes you if you're confused as to whom.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dan wrote Science doesn't prove Creation or anything for that matter and science doesn't support evolution

    Are you hoping that, by repeating this dogma and ignoring evidence to the contrary, it will eventually come true?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Wem,

    "Are you hoping that, by repeating this dogma and ignoring evidence to the contrary, it will eventually come true?"

    In a certain way sure. It sure works for evolutionists, I figure why not give it a try. They sure are successful at it. The secret is to start with the young kids and drill it into their head throughout their education and never stop until they get a Masters which tells everyone they are indoctrinatable(©).

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dan,
    Go, ahead, ignore my comments.
    Just don't be beating your kids. K?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Froggie,

    "Go, ahead, ignore my comments.
    Just don't be beating your kids. K?"


    I am not ignoring your comments at all. the last thing you said was:

    "Please don't allow me to perish of curiosity. What are you referring to?"

    I thought it was rhetorical. Don't act like your coming into this conversation for the first time. Science points to a Creator and a Beginning. The problem is the bias of the secular thinker, not science.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thank you for admitting that point [that science ignores the question, "why"].

    This recognition (on your part) is unnecessary -- I don't believe anyone heralding science has suggested otherwise. Instead, we tend to constantly remind you of this fact, lest you mistake religion for science... We'll try harder.

    Seems a very flimsy answer for something so complex and dynamic, don't you think?

    Flimsier than "goddidit"? I think not. At least the data support evolution, Big Bang cosmology, etc. We aren't afraid to admit a certain amount of flimsiness in our hypotheses, and we are certainly unafraid of scrapping a theory or hypothesis in the face of contrary evidence. What's your excuse? Indeed, our hypotheses and theories are designed with the possibility in mind that they may be false, and with predictions built in to assist in testing them. What was it that your "theory" did instead, again? I forget...

    If you are claiming that D’Souza is crying a two wrongs make a right fallacy then you are indeed admitting that the atheists claim is indeed wrong?

    Actually, the tu quoque fallacy doesn't require that its user be correct in the assertion that both parties are incorrect. Indeed, since D'Souza used it himself, he is the one tacitly admitting that his own position is incorrect -- by your "logic".

    If by your statement above you will admit that your religion's stance
    concerning origins (of the universe, of the species) is incorrect, then I am prepared to admit the same concerning the scientific stance regarding the same. Note, however, that it is already accepted that scientific theories are expected to be incorrect, and to eventually be replaced by new, better ones.

    So if you really want to play that game, you're more than welcome.

    Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x).

    Agreed. I therefore expect you to immediately revoke your claims regarding the existence of any deity and your general (when it suits you) denial of science. Many atheists accept the logical possibility of a god, but like you so wisely noted above, "mere logical possibility... is not the same as adequate justification."

    There is ample evidence of the existence of God, all of which you are rejecting, empirically I might add.

    First of all, if there is "ample" evidence of the existence of your god, or any god, to which the application of Occam's razor would not cut away, then please offer it. Note that to date any "evidence" you've offered has failed mightily, so I expect something new (read: no links to past "evidence" you've cited). This shouldn't be a problem since you've claimed such evidence to be "ample"...

    Secondly, just how do we "empirically" reject this "evidence"? Perhaps you meant some other adverb, because empirical doesn't make sense the way you've tried to use it. I find it humorous, and not a little ironic, that you've chosen to (mis)use this term here, as you must know that none of the evidence -- unless you're hiding something mighty juicy -- that is even remotely likely to be offered is in any way empirical. So to reject "evidence" which by its very nature cannot be measured, in a manner described as being due to measuring it, is not only highly ironic, but just plain silly.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Science points to a Creator and a Beginning.

    Easy there, Custer -- science does no such thing. Rather, it points to a temporal starting point, but this doesn't preclude the existence of temporal relationships prior to that starting point. The reason for this is simply the fact that we are unable to reconcile the "laws" of physics with which we are so familiar with the various requirements of "the singularity" -- just like we cannot discuss with any certainty the goings-on inside a black hole. Additionally, our knowledge of quantum mechanics has quite thoroughly decoupled the notion of cause-effect, such that it is very possibly bi-directional with respect to time.

    So no, neither "Creator" nor "beginning", although there is a definite point beyond which we cannot (at present) go, which we may, for lack of a better term, call the beginning. Certainly, however, there is no notion of a "Creator", unless that notion is nothing more than a series of equations which act without thought, purpose, or discrimination on everything able to be affected by them.

    The problem is the bias of the secular thinker, not science.

    Well isn't that rich. This from the guy who has no problem announcing the fact that yes, he has a supreme bias toward a "plain reading" of the bible, regardless of whatever data might deny whatever statements or interpretations such a reading might produce.

    As you've been told countless times, if any true evidence pointed to the existence of a god, or even of an idiot designer, the scientific community would jump at the chance to study it. Sure, skepticism would remain, but that's true (ideally, anyway) in all situations, and it's why you can easily search for various controversial scientific topics and find opinions on both sides. When the evidence vindicates one side, the other accepts the conclusions. This is why, among a million other things, we recognize that the earth is roughly spherical, and orbits the sun.

    So why don't you correct that statement, to note that problems stem from bias in general -- whether a secular thinker, or a religious one -- and that in spite of bias, as you subtly point out, science is not the problem...

    ...yet it is the science you would deny first.

    What was the problem again?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  44. Stan,

    Lets be honest here:

    Note that to date any "evidence" you've offered has [been rejected] mightily, so I expect something new (read: no links to past "evidence" you've cited).

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dan:

         I have yet to see you present any evidence that any god exists. An assertion of "look at the universe; there must be a god" is not evidence. We do not have a mechanism to determine whether a universe is created or not.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Pvblivs,

    Here is my response:

    "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops." (D’Souza)

    ReplyDelete
  47. God's expression is restrained by the natural laws he created for the universe.

    Ergo, once God can be described in scientific terms, he will be detectable. Until that point, appeals to the ineffable (re. faith) will be be fruitless.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Whateverman,

    Now you are scaring me.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I've concluded that I'm a pretty rare duck.

    I think I represent a minority of those who wish to express their beliefs. Unlike the majority, my instinct is to withhold that until I know for sure that my opinions have some basis in reality. This, apparently, is not the modus operandi of the rest of the group.

    Therefore, my opinions are now fact.

    I hope you enjoyed talking with me. It's likely that, from now on, you'll find yourself talking to a wall...

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dan wrote: "D’Souza responds "you believe based on absoluetly no evidence that there is no after life."
    "

    Slim replied: "Tu quoque fallacy, instead of answering with some good positive evidence or just admitting "fine, I give up", they throw back the question "well, you're not sure either!". If that's the best you can do, give yourself a break."

    There's more to it than that. Occam's Razor slashes D´Souza's response to shreads because he is assuming an afterlife without evidence for it.
    Secondly, by stating "absolutely no evidence that there is no after life" D´Souzsa is committing the logical fallacy by claiming Negative Proof.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dr. Mabuse,

    "D´Souzsa is committing the logical fallacy by claiming Negative Proof."

    Nice point, touché.

    I am wondering how effective a fallacy really is lately though. Truth often stops an argument just like a fallacy. I am beginning to question the validity of fallacy itself. To say that all fallacies are untrue is just wrong.

    Just the other day I said:

    "Yes God said that God is superior. I wear that circular argument like a halo."

    It's a fallacy and yet it is still truth.

    ReplyDelete
  52. To be more clear: To say that all fallacies render the argument untrue is just wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dan wrote: "Nice point, touché. "

    Thank you. I'm learning... just a beginner.

    Dan: "I am wondering how effective a fallacy really is lately though. Truth often stops an argument just like a fallacy."

    I disagree. An argument stops when both parties agree that a claim is true. Wether or not the claim acually represents objective truth.
    The invocation of fallacy only shows an argument (as in claim) to be flawed or faulty. Which means "back to the drawing table".

    Dan: "To be more clear: To say that all fallacies render the argument untrue is just wrong."

    By saying to someone "you're making such-and-such fallacy" doesn't necessarily make it so.
    Especially because not everyone has a good grasp of the different fallacies. If you call me a liar, I can't claim Ad Hominem on, because technically it's not an Ad Hom. It may be an insult, an opinion, or a matter of fact.
    Another logical argument that is debatable is "appeal to authority". It's actually not considered a fallacy if both parties agree upon the credential of the authority in question.
    If both you and I agree that Stephen Hawking is a leading expert on Black Holes, and I say "black holes evaporates slowly, because Stephen Hawking says so", then I just made an appeal to authority. It's not fallacious because Hawking's authority on the subject is undisputed.
    When Henry Morris claims, "Evolution is bunk, I know that because I have a Ph.D..." that's a fallacious appeal to authority because he is not a biologist. His Ph.D is in hydraulic engineering, which is completely unrelated to biology and evolution.

    The Bible is a book which Atheists or even Skeptics recongize as an authority. Which means that even if you believe in its authority, any claims based on it will be considered by atheists as an appeal to false authority.
    What more is there to say? Go back to the drawing-board and see if you can re-define or re-assemble your argument without without the appeal. Then you'll have a much greater chance of making an impression.

    To say that all fallacies render the argument untrue is just wrong.

    Correct. It just renders the argument mostly useless.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ohh, pretty dumb again but then it is inspired by D'sousza. When is the rain falling? Why did that stone roll down the hill.

    Sure you can give me a scientific answer but I want to know why!!

    I will not be happy until you have assigned agency and purpose to every single event no matter how trivial.

    Why do we have a universe?
    I'll answer that if you can tell me why we don't not have one. Why is a universe existing any more likely than one not existing?
    Why are your eyes the colour they are? Is there a theist reason involving grand plans? Surely there must be.

    We are in a universe with exactly the physics it has because that is the exact type of universe it takes for us to standing here asking why the universe is the way it is.

    D'sousa took a verbal dump here but I want to know why he did not how he did.

    Oh yeah, religion.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>