Edward Babinski: I’d sooner give science at least a couple more centuries of patient investigation of the brain-mind before coming out with premature proofs or disproofs.
Uncleremus: Because we do not understand consciousness yet, from a scientific perspective, does not make it a "non-material" thing.
We can keep looking for the answers, or we can say:
"Duh, I donno...must be God didit."
****************************************************
Notice that Babinski and uncleremus are doing the very thing they fault the Christians for. They fault the Christian for God-of-the-gaps reasoning, but they themselves resort to Godless-of-the-gaps reasoning.
"Duh, I dunno...must be Mother Nature done it, cuz there's just gotta be some naturalistic explanation out there, sooner or later.”
So they use their presumptive materialism and scientific ignorance (deferring presently unanswerable questions to the allegedly omniscient science of the future) to putty the gaps in their secular fideism.
Duh, I donno, must have been God that did it.
ReplyDeleteDuh, I donno, must have been Allah that did it.
Duh, I donno, must have been Zeus that did it.
Duh, I donno. We've explained away most 'magical' things such as lightning and disease via natural explatations. Perhaps we should continue down that route with consciousness.
Or, we can go back to saying, "Duh I donno. Must be Zeus/God/Allah that did it!"
Thank you, Steve, for pointing out yet again the double standards that atheists have. If a Christian were to respond to an atheist's argument with, "I don't know, but I believe one day we'll find an answer", the atheists would laugh them out of the building. But then when it's the atheist's turn to say, "I don't know, but I believe one day scientists will figure it out", this is supposed to be rational.
ReplyDeleteAs Greg Bahnsen put it: "That's the problem. Atheists live by faith."
"We've explained away most 'magical' things such as lightning and disease via natural explatations. Perhaps we should continue down that route with consciousness."
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't assume naturalistic explanations when the evidence points in the opposite direction. To do so would be bad science.
Trouble is, Uncleremus, your bias has determined the outcome before you ask the question. Now, I have a different bias, thus my answer will be different.
ReplyDeleteAs for 'magic', I strongly suggest you check the difference between magic and Christianity. And between Greek religion and revealed monotheisms. The rouble with your sort is you assume all religious believers are slope-browed primitives, stuck in antiquity; while all atheists are super-intelligent Vulcans, reaching forward to a Star-Trek like future.
My two cents on the mind. The mind and the body are like two wings of an old house, built together and extended/remodelled over time together. Structural alterations affect both wings, so extreme mental stress can cause illness and illness can cause depression. The connecting passage, the brain, will obviously affect both parts if it is damaged/altered.
Craig,
ReplyDeleteThank you, Steve, for pointing out yet again the double standards that atheists have. If a Christian were to respond to an atheist's argument with, "I don't know, but I believe one day we'll find an answer", the atheists would laugh them out of the building. But then when it's the atheist's turn to say, "I don't know, but I believe one day scientists will figure it out", this is supposed to be rational.
As Greg Bahnsen put it: "That's the problem. Atheists live by faith."
Do you agree or disagree that science is a tool whereby we establish reliable knowledge (although perhaps not absolute and universal)? If you agree, then it is rather clear that there is a fundamental disconnect between expressing trust that the method we rely on, which has proven itself so far, will continue to expand in scope and power (as it has shown itself capable of doing for generations now), and trusting in...trust itself.
When you say, "we'll find out an answer one day," you are not referring to a methodology by which you intend to show an answer will/can BE found, but rather, faith that somehow, someway, someday answers will just plop into our laps, or we will see God after death.
Teeny little difference, eh?
Also, a distinction ought to be made between the falsifiable and the unfalsifiable. I express no "faith" in the power of reason or science to give anyone answers [concrete ones] to the unfalsifiable. Luckily, the power of methodological naturalism extends far deeper than is required to form a coherent worldview [of naturalism].
Daniel,
ReplyDeletePlease explain at exactly what point hypothesis and theory turns into reliable knowledge - your qualifications included of course. (I am not referring to sciences like physiology, microbiology, physics, engineering, medicine, etc. Those sciences that can actually discover facts without too much inference and presupposition.)
And just what if the scientific methodology that you trust so much actually begins to lean towards ID? It is a growing field.
Broadly defined theology is a science. (Methodological activity, discipline, or study; An activity that appears to require study and method; Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.) that we rely on, which has proven itself so far, (and) will continue to expand in scope and power (as it has shown itself capable of doing for generations now)
This post is about brain-mind distinctions.
ReplyDeleteNeuroscience (including, but not limited to, biology, physics, and biochemistry) can be credited with revealing more about how the brain works, and the immediate effects on what we call "mind", than theology.
Therefore, science wins. Science is a more reliable method for arriving at knowledge about our brains/minds than theology.
And just what if the scientific methodology that you trust so much actually begins to lean towards ID?
I've blinked at this sentence about four times now, and I am still not able to compute. Will you rephrase? This is nonsensical. It's like me saying, "What if the theology that you trust so much actually begins to lean towards atheism?" My "trusted" version of science is the method by which knowledge is gained. ID fails the test of being this version, as it makes many untestable, vague claims. No one has yet posited whether design = front-loading, design = panspermia, design = continuous activity of aliens, etc. Without even a general framework by which we can start to figure out what mechanisms, time frames, etc., these claim concern themselves with, it's a joke to call it "science".
ID does not concern itself with the falsifiable anymore. That's how they like it.
Starting out, their claim about irreducible complexity was falsifiable, but was refuted long ago, in the days of the Modern Synthesis (see here, slides 28-50). Then, they tried to pull goofy math tricks, written in jello, but again failed miserably.
Now, these two failed arguments are all they ever had, regarding some sort of method to the madness...and until something new comes out, they just assert over and over how evil "Darwinism" is (althought evolution /= Darwinism), and pander to those who worship the Great Designer with promises that "general design" has been detected, somewhere, somehow, reassuring them that science provides a solid footing for their faith. And continue to pull the Janus routine of doing all the fundraising to get ID into high school curricula while insisting it's about the science.
Therefore it is not science.
Daniel, re. your accusation about the genetic fallacy, I looked this up, in case I was mistaken, and found I wasn't. Nizkor defines it as:
ReplyDelete"[...]a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing."
An example of the type of fallacy you accused me of is:
"The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of background, his so called 'reform' plan must be a facist program."
But this is not equivalent to what I said. I did not say, 'Theistic evolution must be untrue because Daniel Morgan has suggested that Christianity and evolution can be reconciled.'
Rather, I said that when Daniel Morgan, an avowed atheist who believes in evolution suggests that evolution and Christianity can be reconciled, he appears a tad disingenuous.
I trust this clarifies what I was trying to say.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteNeuroscience (including, but not limited to, biology, physics, and biochemistry) can be credited with revealing more about how the brain works, and the immediate effects on what we call "mind", than theology.
Therefore, science wins. Science is a more reliable method for arriving at knowledge about our brains/minds than theology.
Is science better for explaining how the brain works on a physiological level? Absolutely! Is it the best method for correlating those activities with the ‘mind’? I'm not so sure. I guess there is a difference between say observing that a needle in one's finger caused certain synapses to fire versus quantifying the actual experience of pain and the emotional response to it.
I've blinked at this sentence about four times now, and I am still not able to compute. Will you rephrase? This is nonsensical. It's like me saying, "What if the theology that you trust so much actually begins to lean towards atheism?" My "trusted" version of science is the method by which knowledge is gained. ID fails the test of being this version, as it makes many untestable, vague claims. No one has yet posited whether design = front-loading, design = panspermia, design = continuous activity of aliens, etc. Without even a general framework by which we can start to figure out what mechanisms, time frames, etc., these claim concern themselves with, it's a joke to call it "science".
Actually I think you understood the question. I would probably reject a theology if it began to lean towards atheism because of my beliefs and biases. The question is, are most scientists open-minded enough to go where the evidence may lead? Is it really a search for knowledge/truth or are the methodologies developed and employed expressly to bolster their naturalism. Seeing as though you will entertain only the power of methodological naturalism, your science is hardly open-minded and neutral? Kinda like my theology and worldview.
With regards ID, isn’t that how most sciences started? I mean for many sciences it took centuries to develop a general framework and a consistent methodology. In fact with most, their framework and methodology continues to change over time, often to respond to new ‘challenges’. Eh?
warrenl,
ReplyDeleteIs science better for explaining how the brain works on a physiological level? Absolutely! Is it the best method for correlating those activities with the ‘mind’?
There is no evidence to suggest the 'mind' is or must be distinct from the brain. The physiological level may well be the only level.
Is it really a search for knowledge/truth or are the methodologies developed and employed expressly to bolster their naturalism.
To me, I think the most significant difference between scientific methodology and other methodologies is that scientific explanations must be falsifiable. In science, there must exist some conceivable experiment or discovery that could prove a hypothesis/theory/law to be incorrect. The scientific method explicitly requires this of all theories.
Supernatural explanations cannot be disproven by experimentation or any other means (except for flaws of internal consistency). It is for this fact that all science is by definition confined to naturalistic explanations.
So, my answer to your question is no. Science is a search for accurate descriptions of the natural world--not a search for "truth" or an enterprise "to bolster naturalism."
Seeing as though you will entertain only the power of methodological naturalism, your science is hardly open-minded and neutral? Kinda like my theology and worldview.
Science is "open-minded" in the sense that it does not claim that the supernatural does not exist. But, explaining in a scientific way how supernatural things operate is impossible. It's beyond the capability of science, not excluded due to a philisophical bias.
I love the way Christians attack science on their computers without any sense of irony. Then they switch on the TV for the weather report, climb in the car and drive down to the chemist for some drugs the doctor prescribed them...
ReplyDeleteLOL - those nasty scientists think up horrid ideas against your religion. You shouldn't be alloed modern health care as you don't believe in the way science works stuff out - why benefit from it?