Monday, June 02, 2008

Darwin's lap dog

Over at Alan’s fine blog, I’ve been debating on and off with a Darwinian. Here, for what it’s worth, is my side of the exchange:

steve said...
rintintin said...

“Maybe the supernatural effector wouldn't even need to be a deity, since we don't actually know anything about the possibilities that exist in the supernatural world.”

You’ve obviously not done any reading in theistic modal metaphysics.

“It's interesting what you are willing to attribute to supernaturalism given that we don't know if a supernatural realm even exists. the natural realm can be observed by simply looking out the window.”

Really? Can one observe abstract objects by simply looking out the window? Can one observe consciousness by simply looking out the window?

“Would it not be an idea to show that the supernatural exists before claiming what it can and can't do?”

Would it not be an idea for Rintintin to acquaint himself with some of the standard apologetic literature which does that very thing.

“If the supernatural can come and act in our world, how does it bridge the gap between natural and supernatural - can I observe this taking place? Whereabouts does it happen?”

One can observe supernatural effects, just as one can observe mental effects, although neither the mind nor the supernatural is directly observable.

“Your variant of supernaturalism includes talking snakes and plants, neither of which possess the cognitive ability or anatomy to talk - is there any reason I should take this viewpoint any more seriously than I do Scientology's ludicrous tales?”

You might try to properly exegete the Biblical verses your alluding to. Otherwise, is there any reason I should take your jejune interpretations any more seriously than I do Scientology’s ludicrous tales?

“Uhoh. How can one utilise things like logic as a tool if the world potentially will not behave in a logical fashion 10 minutes from now dependent on the whim of a God, especially as you have no means of knowing when it will change or how often it has changed in the past (there is no guarantee he will give warning when observed laws will be subject to change).”

If you want to play that card, then you have no means of knowing that you’re not a brain in a vat.

“Under your worldview, you can't realistically make the assumption that things will not be radically different 5 minutes from now, since they apparently have been countless times since the Earth's conception.”

What specific, global examples do you have in mind?

“The same process you use when you try and fix your sink. You don't resort to supernatural guesswork to try and fix the sink, since any and all logically coherent supernatural 'explanations' could describe why the sink is blocked without actually helping solve the problem.”

Christian theology distinguishes between creation, miracle, and providence. You suffer from the typical, self-reinforcing ignorance of the unbeliever. Try to learn something about Christian theology before you go tilting at windmills.

“So where do we stop with naturalism and start with supernaturalism? Demonic possession used to be attributed as the cause of mental illness, and is in line with biblical thought (Jesus cures many people of such afflictions).”

More of your self-reinforcing ignorance. The synoptic Gospels distinguish between natural illness and demonic illness.

“Can I shout 'viewpoint discrimination' if psychiatric journals won't allow me to publish my demonic theory of mental illness?”

Yes, that’s an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination. All your doing is to offer intellectual snobbery in lieu of serious argument.

To take one counterexample:

“I’ve had similar experiences with mental health professionals, including MAs, PhDs, and MDs. I’ve come to know quite a few members of that community since writing my book on multiple personality. Once it became know that I’d done extensive and open-minded research in parapsychology, many started confiding to me apparent psychic episodes involving their patients. They also made it very clear that these conversations needed to remind confidential…They were simply unwilling to risk possible ridicule and ostracism by revealing their experiences to their colleagues,” S. Braude, The Gold Leaf Lady (U of Chicago Press, 2007), xviii.

Here’s another:

http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/19/1900147.pdf

“As for the secondary properties of natural objects, you don't object to things like protons being used in MRI scans, so again where do you draw a distinction between what counts as acceptable use and what doesn't?”

Alan didn’t say he objected to the human use of these secondary properties. He simply pointed out the potential limitations of that application. And when Alan draws a distinction between a rooster and a Rolex, that’s a good place to start.

“Do you know of any observation that would prove God wrong? ie falsify him? i know of things that would falsify common descent, but i can't think of any for God.”

Do you know of any observation that would falsify an abstract object like a possible world?

“Supernaturalism is used largely as 'God of the gaps' or some kind of default setting eg 'there is no known natural explanation, therefore it must be a supernatural force', yet no evidence has been provided to support that claim.”

You continue to illustrate your self-reinforcing ignorance of Christian theology. The Bible doesn’t deny second causes.

“God is not part of science, but what he is purported to have done is - a global flood is a testable proposition.”

It would behoove you to exegete a text before you try to debunk it.
Thu May 01, 08:15:00 PM CDT

steve said...
Rintintin said...

“You are aware that speciation has been observed repeatedly both in a lab and in nature, without any observed instance of a designer at hand if that's what you're meaning by 'origin of species'?”

Two points of clarification:

i) Mark Ridley, in his standard textbook on Evolution, lists five different definitions of species (biological, ecological, phenetic, phylogenetic, typological).

So it’s easy to equivocate over examples of speciation.

ii) The Bible doesn’t operate with the fundamental unit of a species, but with the fundamental unit of a natural kind. So speciation, per se, wouldn’t contradict Scripture.
Fri May 02, 07:59:00 AM CDT

http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/04/blog-post.html

steve said...
Rintintin said...

“1. That's just an assertion. I simply state 'supernaturalism is false' - where does that get us?”

I assume Alan is alluding to the vicissitudes of evolutionary psychology. Plantinga has argued at length that evolutionary psychology undermines rationality. And Dawkins, in The God Delusion, made equally sceptical claims. Hence, naturalism commits intellectual suicide.

“2. If potentially we can't trust our faculties then how are we to assume the theist is capable of accurately of apprehending theistic truths (whether from the bible, or in the ability to formulate a first principle that he or she regards as self-evident on the basis of possibly faulty senses)?”

Once again, I assume that Alan’s scepticism was directed at evolutionary psychology.

But what do you think the senses are for? As a naturalist, you can’t invoke a teleological explanation. So, for you, the senses have no function, do they?

“3. Even if we accept that we have to revert to supernaturalism, we're still no closer to affirming it as the Christian God.”

It’s a stepwise argument. Arrive at the Christian God by process of elimination.

“Is there any way either of us could distinguish it from a natural cause?”

Depends on what sort of examples your looking for. What about a miraculous answer to prayer?

“1. but I can just choose a logically consistent version of theism at random, make things up and claim they are accounted for by the miracles my God can perform.”

And where’s your supporting evidence?

“I'm also not analysing it from naturalistic presupps - I'm anazlyzing from the point of observation. We observe that snakes do not talk. We observe that they don't have the anatomy to talk.”

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Gen 3 refers to a talking snake, men and women living back in the Bronze Age didn’t observe talking snakes either. So it’s not as if you’re experience is any different from theirs on that score.

“Serpents generally refer to snakes in symbolic literature.”

Not true. They can also refer to numinous beings like snake-gods.

More to the point, you’re trading on the meaning of the English word. But the Hebrew word has its own set of connotations.

I’d add that M. Scot Peck reports a case of possession in which the subject assumed a serpentine appearance. Cf. Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrists Personal accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption.

“So you advocate that the miraculous/supernatural can and does occur in our world, thus breaking some physical laws potentially without forewarning.”

Christian theology has a doctrine of providence. It would really behoove you to master these elementary distinctions.

“I have no reason to accept that this will not be the case 10 minutes from now, you do.”

Actually, you have no good reason to presume that since—as Hume pointed out long ago, it’s fallacious to infer the future from the past. Absent a doctrine of providence, you have no principled basis for your confidence in inductive logic.

“Furthermore, in previous examples I've given you such as the Tiktaalik find, which relied on the accuracy of the premises (including radioactive dating) to come up with a fossil in the expected location, with the expected morphoogy, how can you explain this?”

I believe that Jonathan Wells has discussed that, if you Google the search terms.

You’re also missing the point of Alan’s allusion to Gee’s Deep Time. Have you ever read Gee?

“1. You still haven't provided evidence for your claim even if there is no known natural explanation - god of the Gaps.”

And your alternative is naturalism of the gaps.

“A simple outline of the scientific method is: 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.”

How do you know that what an evolutionary brain observes is correspondent with the real world?

“1. our observation - chimps and humans both have a non-functional Vit C gene and evidence of a chromosomal fusion that is identical to 2 chimp chromosomes.”

In the Design of Life, Dembski and Wells discuss this sort of genetic evidence for common descent.
Tue May 06, 07:17:00 PM CDT

steve said...
Rintintin said...

“It seems an odd argument this one (from my perspective anyway) since evolution is related to the environment we are in.”

Since my argument is predicated, ex hypothesi, on evolutionary psychology, it’s hardly odd from your perspective. Rather, it takes your perspective as the starting point.

Likewise, when I cited Dawkins, I was hardly speaking from my own perspective. You have a bad habit of glossing over inconvenient evidence.

“So if we are a product of evolution, and we are still alive (I take the fact that we all exist as being axiomatic), then presumably its because our senses are capable of telling us with a decent degree of surety about what is going on with our environment.”

i) Given the widespread phenomenon of mass extinction posited by evolution, the kill curve is hardly conducive to your confidence in the reliability of our senses.

ii) You’re also missing the point. I said that evolutionary psychology undermines rationality. That doesn’t necessarily mean it undermines survival. Organisms like cockroaches survive very nicely without a high IQ or true beliefs.

iii) Finally, since methodological naturalism banishes teleological explanation, it disallows your appeal to properly functioning senses (“geared to perceive our environment properly”). Under naturalistic evolution, the senses aren’t geared to do anything. You’re smuggling directionality into an aimless process.

Like unbelievers generally, you take a lot of common sense things for granted that are excluded by your secular outlook if you applied it more consistently.

“Let’s say for the sake of argument God exists. Are everyone's respective senses now infallible? I think we'd have to say no. I am short sighted for example. People mishear, misread and misinterpret things all the time. Some people have particular senses completely absent such as deaf and blind people, so are more limited in what they can perceive.”

Once again, my objection wasn’t limited to the fact that naturalism undermines the reliability of the senses. It also undermines the reliability of reason. For example:

http://www.proginosko.com/docs/knowledge_and_theism.html

“Let’s take it further - some people are mentally incapable of accurately perceiving the world accurately. Before we make any decisions we have to work out that we are not like this. So we assume the reliability of our senses has allowed us to make the correct observation about the state of the world (ie that we are not insane/mentally impaired and therefore we can be confident our belief in god is not the result of some sensory fault).”

i) How would you “work out” that you’re not insane? If you were insane, would you be in any position to evaluate your sanity?

ii) What makes you think that belief in God is contingent on the reliability of the senses?

“So we're both having to assume our senses work and have made accurate observations prior to making any choices regarding the supernatural.”

Which theistic proofs depend on the reliability of the senses? Or accurate observation? Not the a priori proofs. And even the a posteriori proofs operate at a higher order of abstraction. You could retool the theistic proofs to apply to the Matrix.

“On this point, Rho is quite fond of telling us how fallible our senses are (generally when a fact or observation is presented that contradicts his belief, the fact is automatically presumed to be wrong by default)”

Well, Alan can speak for himself, but I think he’s speaking about theories rather than observations.

“And he is (obviously) a theist - so even people who believe in God don't seem to think they are up to much. Any particular reason God has given us senses that aren't up to scratch?”

Setting aside your caricature of the opposing position, there’s a fundamental difference between a sensory organ that can malfunction because it was designed to perform a function in the first place, and an organ that has no intended purpose. Reliability is a teleological concept. Eliminate the principle of design, and you don’t have an organ that’s more or less reliable; rather, you can’t even invoke that category. There is no standard.

Once again, you haven’t begun to think through the radically sceptical implications of your naturalistic worldview.

“This would require knowledge of every possible deity, even ones not yet 'discovered'.”

You’re resorting to a double standard which you would never apply to medical science or forensics, &c.

Must a diagnostician eliminate every conceivable illness to treat the patient? Must a homicide detective eliminate every conceivable suspect? Maybe Extraterrestrials murdered Nicole Simpson. Maybe one-armed Gypsies murdered Nicole Simpson.

All you’ve done is to rig the burden of proof.

“I would argue that would depend on what was prayed for. Some people say that, for example, a relative recovering from cancer is a miracle. I would argue that its not. it's certainly unlikely (depending on the cancer) - i would be more convinced of a miracle if everyone who had cancer recovered. I would not be able to offer an explanation other than the supernatural for why millions of people suddenly recovered from cancer all at once.”

You’re demanding a level of proof for the supernatural that you’d never demand for anything else. This is special pleading.

That’s irrational. The question is the best explanation, given the evidence. And the fact that someone else isn’t miraculously healed hardly counts as evidence that the individual who was healed wasn’t miraculously healed. How do you arrive at such a non sequitur?

Prayer doesn’t have uniform effects. God is not a machine. God is a person. As such, he exercises personal discretion.

Suppose, in a botched robbery, the robbers take everyone hostage. Suppose I’m a rich man. My daughter is one of the hostages. I pull strings. Go outside official channels.

I manage to get my daughter released. Would the special intervention be more convincing if all the hostages were released? No, that’s irrelevant. If anything, the fact that only one hostage was released is suspicious. The fix was in—in that particular case.

“That’s fairly easy - just write down that my deity spoke to me and what he told me. There's no obvious way to disprove this.”

I didn’t ask you if you could make an unfalsifiable claim. I asked you for your supporting evidence.

“Casinos and bookkeepers make vast amounts of money from people who believed that things were going to be radically different for them the next time.”

You don’t seem to know either side of the argument. You don’t know Christian theology or secular philosophy. For example:

http://www.proginosko.com/docs/induction.html

“I couldnt really find anything relating directly to Well's opinion on Tiktaalik.”

For starters:

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/04/tiktaalik_as_missing_link_a_ne.html

“Either way, I'd still like to know why Rho claims expertise allowing him to dismiss any methodology he disagrees with, or why he treats essentially identical scenarios differently.”

Alan can speak for himself. However, Darwinians write a lot of books for mass consumption. If you think the layman isn‘t competent to form an educated opinion, then he should disregard the arguments for evolution presented by popularizers like Gould, Dawkins, Mayr, &c. And, by your logic, we should stop teaching evolution in the public school since most students are incompetent to evaluate the evidence. Are you a closet creationist?

“Last time this came up, Rho attempted to pass it off as some kind of conspiracy where the establishment had pressured Gee to say evolution is true. Even though he apparently says it in his book in the first place, and he is actually a member of 'the establishment' since he's an editor for Nature journal.”

Since you seem to have a problem grasping the basic principles of argumentation, allow me to walk you through the basics. In a standard debate, it is considered a coup if you can quote someone on the other side making a concession. For example, if you told me that Noam Chomsky opposes the Iraq war, that wouldn’t come as a surprise. But if you found out that Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz is now of the opinion that the Iraq war was a mistake, that would be more impressive precisely because it comes from an unexpected source.

No one is claiming that Gee denies evolution. To the contrary, the fact that he’s an avowed Darwinian is what makes his sceptical admissions so telling. That’s the point. Get it?

“Actually, its not. if there's a gap, there's a gap.”

If you don’t have a problem with gaps, why do you dismiss ID as God-of-the-gaps?

Anyway, that still reflects an ignorant grasp of Christian theology. It’s not as though OT Jews thought that God sent rain directly, and if they discovered that rain came from clouds, they ceased to believe in God. It’s not as though OT Jews thought that God sent disease directly, and if they discovered that disease came from rats or fleas, they lost their faith God.

In fact, OT Jews drew no such dichotomy. On the one hand, they believed that God was ultimately responsible for various plagues and illnesses. On the other hand, they had also had quarantine laws to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. So they understood that human beings could be infectious agents (carriers). They didn’t think that God was directly and solely responsible for illness.

Germ theory wouldn’t fill a gap previously occupied by God. God isn’t ousted by the introduction of second causes.

The God-of-the-gaps is a historical fiction popularized by 19C unbelievers like Draper and Alexander White. This literary tradition is then handed down like unquestioned dogma.

“I don't have the book, but I couldnt seem to find any detailed discussion of this by them on Google either. Do you have a link you could point me towards?”

There’s no substitute for reading their book. You don’t have to, of course. My point is that you’re raising objections to ID theory which they’ve already addressed.

“This is a good example to highlight some more of ID's problems though.”

I’m not here to rubberstamp every turn and twist of ID theory. It’s a loose coalition.

“They have no consistent opinion on common ancestry.”

Why should they?

“So he seems to be saying that it is an acceptable conclusion, until you invoke the supernatural.”

There is nothing in what he said to justify you twisted interpretation. Rather, he’s saying that evolution is driven at least as much by metascientific considerations (“materialism”) as it is by scientific evidence.

“To do this would mean we can now let a whole host of supernatural ideas into play for any scientific discipline, from God to astrology to invisible pixies - you name it, it's fair game.”

That’s only fair game if there’s equal evidence for all supernatural claims.

“Therefore, If I want to be an ID proponent, which scenario am I supposed to accept here, since they can't all be right? there's a lot of data relating to the issue of common ancestry - why can't they come to a consensus either way?”

If you’re asking a sincere question, then the answer is to read their books. If you want to know why they can’t come to a consensus, read Behe in favor of common ancestry, then read Dembski and Wells in opposition to common ancestry.

“ID is very vague - it can mean a descent from biblical 'kinds'.”

ID doesn’t address biblical “kinds.” It doesn’t address biblical anything.

“(it is never clear exactly where the distinct boundary between kinds is)”

You could say the same thing about the biological concept of species.

“Again, which one am supposed to choose here? What tests could they propose that would give me an idea of which is correct?”

The fact that you have to ask these questions suggest to me that you haven’t read their books. Isn’t it disingenuous to ask questions when you ignore the answers by ignoring the relevant literature?

“It seems so far that they are content to wait for real scientists to do the work.”

It seems so far that are you content to wait for hostile popularizers to do your reading for you.

“Those people were probably no less intelligent or reliable than you or me.”

Since the article doesn’t say who the volunteers were, I couldn’t say one way or the other.

“Their senses failed them pretty spectacularly I'm sure you'd agree?”

No, I wouldn’t agree. How is the implantation of false memories through hypnosis related to the reliability of the senses? They didn’t misperceive something they heard or saw. It’s purely psychological.

“I'd also use an example from your own posts - almost all the world's scientists accept evolution as being a fact of nature.”

Consensus is not a scientific argument:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

“So, if I assume your worldview for the sake of making the point, thats a lot of people who's senses have apparently failed them completely, leading to many (but not all) to reject the literal 'truth' of the Genesis story/bible.”

I didn’t see the creation of the universe. And I don’t know of any scientist who did. You attribute remarkable longevity to the average physicist or Darwinian. Do you think that Ed Witten is 15 billions years old? He’s wonderfully well preserved for his age. Does he drink a lot of prune juice?

“Why we only find certain species in certain regions, even though there are multiple environs that would support them (eg you dont find polar bears in both the arctic and antarctic)?”

Why do you think that’s inconsistent with creationism? Does Gen 1 encourage us to find polar bears in both the arctic and Antarctic?

“Why, despite some weird and wonderful creatures existing, winged vertebrates always have 4 limbs, with the front limbs forming the wings? why no six-limbed winged vertebrates? In fact why no six-limbed vertebrates period? Why such strict adherence to that plan to the point biologists etc can predict what fossils and so on will look like before they find them?”

Why do you think that’s inconsistent with creationism? Would six-limbs be an improvement?

“Why are some animals more similar to others (eg chimps are more similar to us than cats are, but cats are more similar to both than lizards)?”

Why are some vehicles more similar to others (e.g. SUVs are more similar to pickup trucks than sports cars are, but sports cars are more similar to both than bicycles)?

“And why do these similarities and differences arrange into hierarchies just like any geneaology does (eg a family tree)?”

And why does a deck of cards arrange itself into hierarchical suits?

“Evolutionary theory can explain all this very comfortably. how does creationism explain it ('God just wants it that way' doesn't really tell me anything about why he wants that way, or how he went about it)?”

“Detroit just wants it that way” doesn't really tell me anything about why Detroit wants that way, or how Detroit went about it.

Dropping the metaphors, there are several problems with your appeal to the hierarchical organization of life:

i) As Futuyma defines it, “there has been an increase in the maximal level of hierarchical organization during the history of life, whereby entities have emerged that consist of functionally integrated associations of lower-level individuals.”

The problem with this definition is that concepts like hierarchy, organization, system, functionality, maximality, and integration, are teleological categories. Part/whole, means/ends principles.

Yet methodological naturalism disallows teleological explanations in the natural sciences. Hence, if the natural order is hierarchical, that would be evidence, not for naturalistic evolution, but intelligent design or divine creation.

ii) The hierarchy is an artifact of what evolutionary classification scheme you employ. As one Darwinian explains, in a standard textbook, “It is less obvious whether a phenetic classification has to be hierarchical. Nature presents us with an infinity of phenetic patterns. Some indeed are nested hierarchies, but others are overlapping hierarchies or non-hierarchical networks. If we aim at a phenetic classification, we have no strong reason to classify hierarchically,” M. Ridley, Evolution (3rd ed.), 487.

iii) In fact, as Ridley goes on to admit, the hierarchical arrangement is actually an evolutionary assumption rather than an independent line of evidence for evolution: “Biological classifications are hierarchical because evolution has produced a tree-like, diverging, hierarchical pattern of similarities among living things,” ibid. 487.

iv) Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time, documents the degree to which these classification systems are highly subjective.

v) Kurt Wise has offered an alternative interpretation of the hierarchical organization of life from a creationist viewpoint. Cf. Faith, Form, & Time; “The Origin of Life’s Major Groups,” The Creation Hypothesis.

“Besides, many evolutionary events are repeatable, since convergent evolution exists (and has been observed in the short term eg in bacteria, or chiclid fish)”

Are you distinguishing between microevolution and macroevolution?

“As for falsification - the makeup of our heritable material and its being universal to all living organisms was discovered via a prediction based on assumption of common ancestry.”

Is that a prediction or retrodiction? Where did Darwin predict universal DNA? Give us the citation from his works.

“Hence why we can find things like Tiktaalik exactly where we predict.”

Give us the earliest citation in which the discovery of Tiktaalik was predicted. How specific was this prediction? I’m curious to see you furnish the details.

BTW, how do you distinguish between an evolutionary intermediate and an ecological intermediate?

“Another problem for ID is that things like the 'cdesign proponentsists' fiasco and Philip Johnson's quotes make it so easy to expose their motives as well. For some reason they just cannot stop making it obvious what they're up to.”

What makes you think that all ID theorists have the same motives? Johnson likes to quote some juicy admissions by Lewontin. Should we extrapolate from Lewontin to all Darwinians?

“It may well turn out that science can't explain everything we want to - especially if it turns out there is a supernatural realm. But it's hard to argue that it has a habit of delivering the goods in terms of verified predictions, whether that be fossils, medicines, genetic code or whatever.”

The secular establishment doesn’t have a monopoly on science.

“Most people will accept most science without a second thought, but once it starts telling them what they don't want to hear, suddenly science can't cut it anymore - they never assume its because what theyve decided to believe might be deficient.”

Science is not an ideologically neutral field. It’s been politicized. Just look at how Richard Dawkins uses science as to defoliate religion from the public square.

Likewise, methodological naturalism assumes that the only correct, “scientific” explanation is a naturalistic explanation. So it begs the question.

“Under the terms you've restricted evolutionary study with, you have to also drop a whole load of other science with no bearing on religion to keep consistent”

If it had “no bearing on religion,” there would be no need to “drop it” for consistency’s sake. You’re not making any sense.

If, for example, creation ex nihilo is true, then that may have some radical implications for science. If methodological naturalism refuses to take that into account, then science will be seriously off the mark.

In what sense do I accept science?

i) I accept science when science deals with natural cycles. It’s good at that sort of thing. I don’t assume that science has any particular competence at reconstructing the origin of the natural cycles. But given the natural cycles, once they’re in place, the study and manipulation of these periodic processes is very useful.

ii) I don’t accept that science tells me anything about what the world is really like. Science is dependent on observation. And scientific theories are often several steps removed from direct observation.

But there’s a gap between appearance and reality. Science does nothing to close that gap, or even to narrow that gap. All science can do is to chart correlations between appearances.

“Furthermore, since your worldview involves the assumption of its truth as a starting point, with any contradictory observation of any sort being wrong by default, it's impossible to reach any other conclusion than the one you started with whether it is correct or not. How does that lead to the truth?”

No, not whether it’s correct or not.

I’d add that secularism doesn’t even have room for truth. It went from naturalized epistemology to evolutionary epistemology to eliminative materialism. If there are no beliefs, then there are no true beliefs.

“The problem with the defeaters you've offered up is that you'd have to admit that you've answered a fair few of my questions on biology before with 'God just did it that way' - well thats great, but that doesn't really explain to me why or how he did it.”

That’s often the case with personal agency. We don’t know why or how Stonehenge was built. Should we therefore assume it’s a natural object unless and until we can say why and how human beings built it?

For a secularist, you have this oddly anthropomorphic notion that the universe should be transparent to your understanding.

“It’s hard to argue that atheists who are a tiny minority (about 1.5-2%) have any real political power. Why would anyone pander to such a tiny voting bloc?”

They exert political power out of proportion to their numbers because they resort to the state and federal courts to subvert popular sovereignty. Are you so ignorant of the political landscape that you’ve never observed that tactic at work?
Fri May 16, 10:07:00 AM CDT

steve said...
Rintintin said...

“Haven't read much Dawkins I'm afraid, so you'll have to expand a little on this.”

In the God Delusion, Dawkins talks about how our brains construct reality.

“I hate to be the one to break it to you, but even if God exists, things die…This is a really odd argument to use to try and refute evolution/naturalism since the exact same thing applies if God exists.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you can’t follow your own argument. Since you can’t keep track of your own argument, let me remind you. You originally argued that our survival was evidence that our senses are reliable, for if our senses were unreliable, we would not have survived.

That was the point at which I introduced the obvious counterexample of mass extinction—a common phenomenon according to evolutionary biology.

I didn’t use that example to refute evolution. To the contrary, my example was predicated, ex hypothesi, on the evolutionary narrative. I used that example to refute *your* argument. It wouldn’t hurt you to remember your own argument. Is that too much to ask?

“NS is non-random though, and is linked to the environment - you seem to be arguing against something that is not evolution ie a situation where the environment has no bearing on biological structures.”

It doesn’t matter whether you say it’s random or non-random or evolutionary or non-evolutionary, methodological naturalism still prevents you from invoking teleological categories like the reliability of the senses. If you’re going to appeal to the reliability of the senses, then you’ll have to ditch naturalistic evolution.

And I’d add that Darwinians do argue for the reliability of the senses on evolutionary grounds, as an adaptive survival advantage. But in so doing, they transgress their methodological strictures.

“Ironic that you ask for consistency given argument (i) above, as well as several of your arguments below where you jump back and forth between opposing views for no obvious reason.”

I guess no one every acquainted you with the distinction between an internal critique and an external critique. An internal critique is where I argue with an opponent on his own grounds. Argument (i) above is a case in point. That doesn’t commit me to your assumptions. I simply trace out the implications of your position for the sake of argument.

That’s different from an external critique, where I argue on my own grounds. This is a pretty elementary distinction.

“So theism is as likely to be true as being in the Matrix? Are you arguing for or against theism here?”

Once again, you miss the point. The fact that appearances are deceptive in the Matrix doesn’t mean that there is no reality in the Matrix. The Matrix presupposes an underlying reality. A distinction between the computer-generated illusion and the objective reality of the computers generating the virtual illusion.

Likewise, even if, ex hypothesi, our sensory input was systematically delusive, that wouldn’t invalidate the theistic proofs. There would still be a reality behind the delusive appearances.

And, again, I didn’t say that the actual relation between appearance and reality is analogous to the Matrix. I merely used that as a limiting case. I was answering you on your own grounds.

You really need to acquire some elementary sophistication in the art of argumentation.

“But theories are arrived at by observation in the first place.”

They take their point of departure from observation. But they depart from observation. They are often several steps removed from direct observation. Take theoretical physics.

“Again it is ironic you complain about a caricature of the opposing viewpoint, yet later go on to outline some paranoid fantasy about how atheists are running the country and operating some shady cabal behind the scenes of science.”

I didn’t say anything about a “shady cabal behind the scenes.” Can you quote me to that effect? No you can’t. You’re not even attempting to be honest.

What I said is that we have judges who subvert the democratic process. Did I say this happens behind the scenes? No.

Likewise, did I say atheists were “running the country”? No, I said they were exert disproportionate influence. You’re the one who’s acting paranoid when you feel the need to misrepresent what I actually said, turning it into a cartoon version to suit your agenda.

“Anyway, we saw examples where organs of people who could see, hear, and who weren't insane etc being unable to tell them about reality. Why would a designer design organs for perfectly healthy people that can't perform their function properly, to the point where psychologists are arguing for the unreliability of witness testimony?”

i) To begin with, you forfeit the right to use that argument. You’re committed to methodological naturalism. As such, you cannot evoke teleological explanations in natural science.

What you are doing here is to cite examples of faulty design: design defects. That would be an example of dysteleology. But dysteleology presupposes teleology. So methological naturalism disallows you from identifying examples of faulty design in nature. You’re not entitled to say that a particular organ is malfunctioning since you’re not entitled to say that it has a particular function to perform in the first place. If naturalistic evolution is true, then eyes and ears and fingers and brains and hearts and lungs have nothing they’re supposed to do. There’s no task they’re supposed to perform. No assigned role to play.

That’s a goal-oriented perspective which has no place in naturalistic evolution or methodological naturalism.

You keep fudging. That’s because you’re an unbeliever living in God’s universe. So you can’t help using God-talk.

ii) Also, like a lot of unbelievers, you don’t know much about Christian theology. Christian theology is about more than divine creation. It also has a doctrine of the Fall. The world as we see it today isn’t morally or physically pristine.

“You got upset before when I joked at the idea for the demon theory of psychology, now you are saying it's a double standard that I don't let the supernatural, allowances for people's personal beliefs or absurd ideas into forensics or medicine. Make up your mind one way or the other.”

Once again, you managed to miss the boat. Possession is valid category in psychology. I gave a quote by Stephen Braude, which plainly went right over your head, and I also cited an online article, published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal, which were you were obviously too lazy to read.

“But you're making claims for the supernatural as relates to biology/cosmology of a level that you'd never claim for anything else.”

Such as what? Give me some examples.

“And demanding those particular branches of science make special allowances for your personal beliefs”

All you’ve done here is to beg the question. Who gets to define science in the first place? You think the atheists get to define science, and then the Christians have to ask for special allowances? The way you frame the issue betrays your own tendentious bias.

“I can pick examples of one-offs for anything and say 'look, miracle' when there's nothing particularly unusual going on in the bigger picture.”

Now you’re being illogical. Something unusual doesn’t have to be going on in the bigger picture for something inexplicable to be going on in the little picture.

“But anyway, I refer to my previous point, where I was simply answering what would convince me of a miracle.”

I’ll grant you that given your illogical burden of proof, no amount of evidence will convince an irrational unbeliever like yourself.

“Then people assume it to be factual (scientology being a great modern day example of this, which I'm sure we can both agree is false)?”

If, as you correctly state, we both agree that scientology is false, then people don’t assume it to be factual. Some do and some don’t. So you’re example proves nothing one way or the other.

“Yet on the other pointing to a man who explicitly states he supports the core ideas of evolution but takes issue with some of the finer details.”

No, Gee’s thesis is more radical than that. Given that fossil finds are separated by vast intervals of time, it’s impossible to sequence them.

“But as he's been told hundreds of times, all science works this way. Why single out biology/cosmology?”

Because science is a big field and he’s taken a special interest in evolutionary biology. Cosmology is of interest as well to the degree that it has apologetic potential (e.g. the fine-tuning argument).

“He's also been asked for his alternative supernatural methodology and has remained silent on the matter for a number of years now. Why is this?”

To begin with, Johnson is a popularizer, not a high-level theorist. And he probably doesn’t want to get bogged down in the religious angle. You don’t have to come up with an alternative to point out the flaws in the reigning paradigm. That’s a separate issue.

“And what constitutes 'evidence' for the supernatural?”

Why don’t you read a few standard titles in the field of philosophical theology and Christian apologetics? It’s not as if no one has ever attempted to answer that question before.

“Except it kind of does, since the designer has to be supernatural (ID 'theory' states that not only aspects of biology, but also cosmology are best explained by design (ie fine tuning of the universe) - since something that is a part of nature couldn't design nature (as it would have to exist prior to nature existing), then we have to go to the supernatural). The biblical God is a supernatural intelligent designer you'd agree?”

Now you’re committing a level-confusion. To say the biblical God is supernatural is not to say that a supernatural creator or designer is the Biblical God. And it also doesn’t mean that ID-theory operates with the Biblical category of natural kinds. ID-theory operates at a more abstract level than that.

You’re like someone who walks into an automated factory, doesn’t see any engineers on the floor, and therefore denies that anyone designed the factory in the first place. After all, robots seem to be doing all the work. Who needs humans to get the ball rolling?

“Except, as I said to Rho, I'm arguing for a view of the world where I expect boundaries between living organisms to be fuzzy as opposed to distinct.”

Even that YEC makes allowance for microevolution as well as speciation (depending on how you define it), while ID-theory is compatible with theistic evolution.

“To set up a methodologically reliable study they would not have chosen people who were certifiably insane for example.”

Now you’re moving the goalpost from “as intelligent and reliable” to “not certifiably insane.”

“Right, but the brain plays a pretty critical role in perception, controls the sensory organs and integrates the inputs from said organs.”

False, implanted memories aren’t based on misperception. No perception was involved. You cited an example to prove something it doesn’t prove. Now you resort to special pleading to shore up your faulty example.

“I was showing how large numbers of people (in Rho's view) can become convinced of something that is (he claims) not true.”

Like the global warming scam?

“I don't - i'm asking how a YEC model, such as the one Rho subscribes to (you may also, I have no idea what precisely it is you believe), would explain it. I don't mean tell me it actually happened, I mean explain why or how it happened. What is the reason the creator doesn't put these animals in places they'd be well suited to?”

Gen 1 doesn’t give us a map of primeval world. You’re making assumptions on which the text of Scripture is silent. Assumptions about primeval climate, biodiversity, biodistribution, topography, &c.

For example, Gen 1 doesn’t imply that God even made polar bears. Rather, he made natural kinds, including bears. Creationism is not opposed to adaptive variation. God didn’t create every subspecies of bear by direct fiat. You’re not going to get that from Gen 1.

Moreover, animals don’t have to be created in situ to be there at a later date. Some animals can cross natural barriers. Other animals are introduced into a foreign habitat by sailors.

“And yes in some cases to the 2nd part - quadripedalism is far more beneficial in a lot of environments and having a solid base for walking/running would be exceptionally beneficial (eg it provides more stability than bipedalism), so being able to both fly and having the advantage of four unlimbed wings (birds and bats occasionally walk/run after all) would be tremendous.”

No, there’s a tradeoff between specialization and general utility. A limb that’s more efficient for ground locomotion is less efficient for airborne locomotion. That’s why there’s no such thing as optimal design.

If you have six limbs rather than four, then you have to divert more energy and muscle mass to six limbs. Isn’t there a reason why organisms with more than four limbs tend to be aquatic or insectile? Beyond a certain weight, it’s not cost-effective to have more than four limbs.

But if you think you can come up with a better design, by all means do so. Produce a working model. Create a bird with two wings and four feet. Take it out for a test flight. Let’s see your new-and-improved model in action. Stick your neck out. Do the legwork.

“Which is why im asking them to stick their neck out and make a positive prediction, rather than letting actual scientists do all the leg work…Evolution can actually EXPLAIN it, since vertebrates don't have the body plan to support the addition of a 3rd pair of limbs.”

That’s not a prediction. That’s a retrodiction.

“This fits with evolution, as processes can only build on what is already there, and cannot make giant sudden leaps to entirely rearrange developmental processes to accomodate such things (eg like a horse with wings).”

A winged horse wouldn’t be a horse. A horse is too heavy to fly. You’re equivocating.

“Noone is telling me Detroit designed some/all life though. They are telling me God/the designer did. If i wanted opinions of the people of Detroit in I could even jump on a plane myself and go and ask them why they wanted to do what they did, or read a poll that someone had conducted. I couldn't do the same for God/the designer. I don't even see what point you are trying to make here.”

Do you need to hop on a plane and interview the engineers to know their cars were designed by automotive engineers? No. It’s a non-sequitur to say you don’t know something is designed unless you know who or why or how it was designed.

“All of these can also be emergent properties as well as teleological ones.”

i) In that event, you’re admitting that evolution and creationism and/or ID-theory are empirically equivalent. So the scientific evidence doesn’t favor one over the other.

ii) Futuyma didn’t merely say they were emergent properties. He used teleological categories to explicate the nature of their emergence. Teleology and emergence are not synonymous concepts.

“But Ridley also offers several criticisms of phenetic classification over those pages.”

Which is one of those internecine debates in evolution.

“The idea that evolution would generate hierarchies isn't an assumption, since evolution is a known biological process that creates hierarchies (since it is a branching process as well as conforming to Markovian mathematics, which produces hierarchies with branching processes).”

All you’re doing here is to beg the question in favor of macroevolution. And you might want to read Fred Hoyle’s book on the Mathematics of Evolution.

“Linnaeus also predated Darwin by about 100 years, so couldnt possibly have come up with the hierarchical system to fit around evolutionary assumptions.”

That’s a description, not a prediction—based on ascending levels of abstraction. A snake is a subset of reptilian animals, which is a subset of animate objects, which is a subset of material objects, &c. It’s easy to classify objects hierarchically from infimae species to universals.

“This would be the same Kurt Wise who said even if all the evidence pointed in the opposite direction of creationism, he'd still be a creationist in spite of it. I wonder what other conclusion he was likely to reach based on that starting assumption?”

This would be the same Dawkins who said even if there were no actual evidence in favor of Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories. I wonder what other conclusion he was likely to reach based on that starting assumption?

“In these particular examples I'm dealing with microevolution.”

Evidence of microevolution is not evidence contrary to creationism, much less ID-theory. ID-theory is open to macroevolution.

You continually conflate different positions and then act as if evidence contrary to one is also at odds with another. In this case you’ve succeeded in producing evidence consistent with each of the opposing positions. Are you even attempting to be honest?

“However, I'm always curious to know the view of creationists as to why God put a limit on how much his creatures would be capable of adapting to their environs, and where exactly this limit is?”

i) Are you sorry you can’t mutate into a salamander?

ii) Where, exactly, do you draw the line between purple and red?

iii) The basic issue between creationism and evolution is the grand evolutionary narrative. That’s what creationism rejects. Two opposing narratives.

“I actually referred to the make-up of the material we all possess (the code) as opposed to DNA itself being an evolutionary prediction, but__1) It doesn't necessarily predict DNA - it predicts a common heritable material, but there was no reason it had to be DNA._2) every time we find a new organism, it's a test of that prediction, since there's no reason they should have to share their heritable material if they are not related.”

i) You’re backdating Darwin’s prediction with a very anachronistic gloss. Classic retrodiction.

ii) You also equivocate on what it means to be “related.”

“The idea of the universal/near universal genetic code was based on the assumption of common ancestry for many years prior to this.”

That’s a disguised description masquerading as a prediction.

“So their findings confirm earlier predictions, as well as making another prediction that their findings will be universal/virtually universal based on evolutionary assumptions. This has since withstood every test it has been subjected to thus far.”

Now you’re playing a shell game. What has stood the test of time? Common descent? Or DNA?

“The fact that those two examples are far from the only ones (a quick hunt on google can dig them up easy enough), and let's be realistic, the DI are advocating the use of a textbook that says 'cdesign proponentsists' plus every previous 'creationist' in the older version switched for a 'design proponent' in the newer ones with no other changes. What other conclusion would anyone reach from that?”

If you were honest, you’d reach the conclusion that ID proponents range along a continuum:

YEC>OEC>theistic evolution>agnosticism

For you to treat every ID proponent as a front man for creationism is demonstrably false.

“But they did it by playing by the rules of methodological naturalism.”

Nature doesn’t follow our rules. Our rules ought to follow nature. That’s your problem.

Folks like Rupert Sheldrake study natural phenomena which the scientific establishment ignores because some natural phenomena refuse to play by the rules.

“It doesn't - I outlined before that it doesn't provide any barrier a priori to the supernatural.”

By definition, methodological naturalism erects an a priori barrier to the supernatural.

“But as soon as we come to the testable prediction stage supernaturalism hits a sticking point, since anything can be attributed to 'magic man did it'.”

You’re imprisoned within your self-reinforcing prejudice. Because you don’t believe in God, you can never bring yourself to honestly and accurately state the opposing position. And I don’t expect that I’ll be able to pierce through all your layers of protective prejudice. This is for the benefit of other readers.

“Magic man” is not the alternative. The alternative is intelligent agency. Unlike inanimate forces, intelligent agents can exercise rational discretion. As such, they lack the absolute predictability of a machine.

At the same time, this doesn’t mean that anything goes. We’re talking about a rational agent. The principle of sufficient reason.

“However, there's no reason Meth. Nat couldn't have supported for example a young earth/global flood hypothesis if such evidence existed. Unfortunately for those views, it didn't.”

i) That’s palpably false. For example, you can’t reduce Gen 1-2 to nothing but second causes. The role of divine agency is explicit and ineluctable.

ii) In addition, there are situations in which the same effect might have more than one possible cause. The evidence doesn’t always single out a unique cause.

“If science as it is now bothers creationists and IDists so much, why are they desperate to have their ideas recognised as scientific? Why don't they just come up with the supernatural methodology they keep talking about.”

i) What “supernatural methodology” is David Berlinski always talking about?

ii) I thought Dembski’s primary objective was to come up with rigorous criteria to identify the presence, or absence, of design in nature. It doesn’t prejudge the methodology one way or the other.

“I am making sense - the demands can be phrased roughly like this:__1. Person X believes religious/supernatural story A to be true or has personal belief B_2. Science presents evidence to the contrary.”

Of course, the minor premise (2) simply begs the question.

“So science has to drop the usual rules it plays by to make special allowances for religious claims/individual beliefs?”

Science shouldn’t be inventing prejudicial rules about what’s possible or not in the natural world. That isn’t based on observation. That’s in advance of observation. A filter on observation—to screen out evidence of the supernatural.

“Basically, whatever lots of people believe, we should make allowances for it?”

A straw man argument.

“Isn't this why Galileo got put under house arrest, since empirical evidence went against baseless popular belief.”

Methodological naturalism is not an empirical principle.

“I don't see any reason why we can't expect to see this type of special creation again if it is indeed true.”

Because, according to Gen 1, special creation doesn’t recur at a later date.

“First of all, science doesnt really work on the basis of 'what Steve from an internet blog is willing to accept'.”

First of all, reality doesn’t really work on the basis of 'what methological naturalism is willing to accept'.”

“Second where are you positing the 'origin' of any of these 'cycles'?”

Creation ex nihilo.

“Most of the science you would be willing to accept will certainly involve a lot of indirect observation.”

It would behoove you to acquire a modicum of philosophical sophistication. I’m discussing indirect realism, which is a standard theory of perception. Empirical science is no better than your theory of perception.

Scientific success doesn’t depend on scientific realism. It only depends on a systematic correlation between appearance and reality.

“So if a judge stood up and said 'I assume you are guilty' before the start of a trial, what other conclusion would he come to whether the defendant was or not?”

That’s only as good as your metaphor. And even a judicial proceeding takes some things for granted, such as the rules of evidence. Evidence is theory-laden. Without a worldview, nothing counts as evidence.

Some worldviews have more explanatory power than others. That’s the sense in which the Christian worldview is presupposed. Not an arbitrary postulate—but a self-confirming axiom.

“Maybe we shouldn't assume anything until we can provide evidence either way.”

If you can’t assume anything, then nothing could ever count as evidence that Stonehenge was designed. You’re operating with a suicidal, bootstrapping empiricism.

“Naturalism has a track record of providing acceptable and useful explanations.”

i) “True” and “useful” are two different things. Lies can be useful.

ii) You are also confounding natural causes with a naturalistic philosophy. Those are not convertible propositions.

“Anyway, I keep asking, not even for an explanation, but a hypothesis that I could test even if it turns out to be wrong. Or provide me with an example where an appeal to the supernatural has come up with a new technology or a groundbreaking discovery. it surely shouldn't be difficult if the approach is as productive as people seem to think.”

One of your problems is a persistent inability to distinguish the distinguishable. Supernaturalism and ID-theory are not interchangeable. You’re welcome to judge ID-theory by the usual scientific criteria.

But supernaturalism is not a scientific hypothesis. Many truths involve personal agents. Many truths involve historical or anecdotal evidence.

It’s a category mistake to say that something is only true or credible if it has a technological track record. That’s only applicable to the way we harness the inanimate forces of nature. That is inapplicable to personal agency. Mental causation.

“It's because of atheists that gay people find it difficult or impossible in many states to get married or adopt?”

Why do you, as secular biologist, think that homosexuals should have a right to marry each other or adopt kids? You didn’t get that from evolutionary biology.

What’s the survival advantage of homosexuality? Shouldn’t natural selection weed out homosexuals?

Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. And you have no moral or scientific basis to believe otherwise.

“The general attitude of the US populace towards atheists is not particularly pleasant - just look at Ben Stein's movie comparing science and atheism to the Nazis.”

Isn’t that a gross overstatement on your part? He wasn’t talking about science in general. Rather, didn’t he draw a connection between Darwinism, social Darwinism, and National Socialism? And isn’t that a historically well-attested connection?

“You are aware that the head of your country professes to be a born-again Christian and that there are no known atheists holding a high ranking political position?”

Sounds good to me. I was a Huckabee supporter.

“I'm sure you're aware some states (eg Tennessee and Texas) have laws that make it illegal for an atheist to hold political office, despite this being against the terms of the US constitution?”

It would be unconstitutional if we were talking about Federal officeholders, not about state or local officials.

“Also, by appealing to popular sovereignty, you are again basically saying pretty much anything should be decided on the basis of enough people believing it, no matter how ridiculous. Past examples such as that of Galileo show the flaw with this approach.”

I didn’t *appeal* to popular sovereignty. I didn’t say if that was good or bad. Once again, you lack the mental discipline to follow your own argument.

I was answering you on your own grounds. To remind you of your own argument, since you can’t keep track of what you say, you originally said:

“It’s hard to argue that atheists who are a tiny minority (about 1.5-2%) have any real political power. Why would anyone pander to such a tiny voting bloc?”

I answered your rhetorical question by explaining to you that “They exert political power out of proportion to their numbers because they resort to the state and federal courts to subvert popular sovereignty.”

Whether or not popular sovereignty is a good thing is irrelevant to the issue you raised.

At the same time, when opponents of ID-theory rush to the courts to ban ID-theory from the public school curriculum, they take science out of the hands of scientists and put it in the hands of judges. Rather than the Church, the judiciary now becomes the arbiter of science.
Mon Jun 02, 06:42:00 PM CDT

http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/05/overhauling-science.html

18 comments:

  1. Reasons for Interpreting The Serpent Simply As a Serpent

    The context in Genesis is that all the "beasts of the field were created in a single 24-hour earth-day and they were all called GOOD," and just two chapters later the serpent is called a "beast of the field" as well, so I assume it was created GOOD with all the other beasts of the field.

    The verse in which the serpent is called a beast of the field states that the serpent was "the wisest (or shrewdest) beast of the field that the Lord God had created."

    That same serpent was cursed to "go on its belly and eat dust all the days of its life."

    The context in Genesis is of the "wisest beast of the field" that was also "created GOOD" along with all the other "beasts of the field."

    ReplyDelete
  2. "You’ve obviously not done any reading in theistic modal metaphysics"

    Do you have any examples? I'm intrigued.

    "“Do you know of any observation that would prove God wrong? ie falsify him? i know of things that would falsify common descent, but i can't think of any for God.”

    Do you know of any observation that would falsify an abstract object like a possible world?"

    I'm guessing that you gave a quick "shoe-on-the-other-foot" answer to this question because of time and space constraints. But I'm curious about some of the implications of it - how might you answer this if you had a bit more time and space?

    One last thing. Hume's argument against induction was raised. But thinking about it, how does the theist escape the same dilemma? We can demonstrate, for example, God's trustworthiness by pointing to fulfilled prophecy and providence, but doesn't that also beg the question in favour of prior experience?

    Thanks for any help.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rintintin said,

    “Maybe the supernatural effector wouldn't even need to be a deity, since we don't actually know anything about the possibilities that exist in the supernatural world.”

    Steve said,

    “You’ve obviously not done any reading in theistic modal metaphysics.”

    I’ve noticed that whenever you are in a debate and you don’t feel like answering a question, you assign people a reading assignment with the assumption that your opponent isn’t familiar with any theistic objections. Even if “theistic modal metaphysics” is legitimate branch of scholarly research (which it isn’t, because theology generally does not correspond to reality) and some people may have tried to answer Rintintin’s objection in the past, does not mean that the defenders of god have provided a rationally sound answer to it. Nor should anybody be expected to keep up with the writings of obscure apologists. The fact that in place of providing a rationally sound, self-supporting counterargument in your reply, you give your opponent a reading assignment, seems to suggest that there is no such sound counterargument in existence. If you were really interested in truth, perhaps you would try to be a bit more helpful in your reply – maybe showing your opponent where he had gone wrong, maybe calmly and politely guiding him to some sources that you found informative. Surely you have time to do that, as your free time is dedicated mostly to writing long and tedious internet posts like this one. But no, your reply is something like: “Fuck off, dumbass, I’ve read more obscure theologians than you, so nothing you say in this matter can possibly have any merit.”

    Rintintin said,

    “It's interesting what you are willing to attribute to supernaturalism given that we don't know if a supernatural realm even exists. the natural realm can be observed by simply looking out the window.”

    Steve said,

    ”Really? Can one observe abstract objects by simply looking out the window? Can one observe consciousness by simply looking out the window?”

    So what? One can’t observe an algorithm, either, and yet it is perfectly consistent with metaphysical naturalism to affirm that things like that exist. We use abstract concepts to describe material processes or epiphenomenal aspects of the material world. That is another thing entirely from belief in supernatural entities.

    Rintintin said,

    “Would it not be an idea to show that the supernatural exists before claiming what it can and can't do?”

    Steve said,

    ”Would it not be an idea for Rintintin to acquaint himself with some of the standard apologetic literature which does that very thing.”

    Again, this is an arrogant assumption that rintintin hasn’t heard theists recite their apologetic claims (as we all have –ad nauseam). The fact that there exists “standard apologetic literature” does not mean that it has any merit to it, or that anybody who doubts that the supernatural exists hasn’t read that literature, as your grandstanding implies.

    Rintintin said,

    “If the supernatural can come and act in our world, how does it bridge the gap between natural and supernatural - can I observe this taking place? Whereabouts does it happen?”

    Steve said,

    ”One can observe supernatural effects, just as one can observe mental effects, although neither the mind nor the supernatural is directly observable.”

    Sure, but the processes of the mind are governed by physical laws. The physical components of those processes can be taken apart and investigated, if one chose to do so. One cannot investigate the components of a “supernatural” deity. Of course, that is assuming the existence of “supernatural effects”, which you tell us one can observe.

    Rintintin said,

    “Your variant of supernaturalism includes talking snakes and plants, neither of which possess the cognitive ability or anatomy to talk - is there any reason I should take this viewpoint any more seriously than I do Scientology's ludicrous tales?”

    Steve said,

    ”You might try to properly exegete the Biblical verses your alluding to. Otherwise, is there any reason I should take your jejune interpretations any more seriously than I do Scientology’s ludicrous tales?”

    I would also add, to Rintintin’s list, the idea of a worldwide flood, the existence of a universe under ten thousand years old, the interbreeding of the “sons of God” (Gen. 6.2) with human females, and other such assorted bits of Semitic mythology. Now, to take only the example of Eve conversing with the serpent in the garden:

    Genesis 3

    1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
    2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
    3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
    4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
    5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
    Yeah, I guess it would simply be a “jejune interpretation” to read this as a conversation with a serpent. An accurate rendition of the text, I guess, is not the way to “properly exegete” the Bible (but then again, ever has such been the way of apologists).
    Rintintin said,

    “Uhoh. How can one utilise things like logic as a tool if the world potentially will not behave in a logical fashion 10 minutes from now dependent on the whim of a God, especially as you have no means of knowing when it will change or how often it has changed in the past (there is no guarantee he will give warning when observed laws will be subject to change).”

    Steve said,

    ”If you want to play that card, then you have no means of knowing that you’re not a brain in a vat.”

    I have no objection to this statement.

    Rintintin said,

    “The same process you use when you try and fix your sink. You don't resort to supernatural guesswork to try and fix the sink, since any and all logically coherent supernatural 'explanations' could describe why the sink is blocked without actually helping solve the problem.”

    Steve said,

    “Christian theology distinguishes between creation, miracle, and providence. You suffer from the typical, self-reinforcing ignorance of the unbeliever. Try to learn something about Christian theology before you go tilting at windmills.”

    Theoretically, if Christian theology corresponded to anything in reality, then the three categories of “creation, miracle, and providence” might have some validity and they might be worthy objects of human reasoning. Therefore, your imputation of ignorance to your opponent makes little sense, as it is okay to be ‘ignorant’ of a bullshit discipline like theology. In any case, merely pointing out the existence of these three categories does nothing to answer rintintin’s question. If your sink needs fixing, you could theoretically construct a coherent supernatural explanation as to why that is the case, without there being anything logically wrong with your idea (although it would require a lot of intellectual acrobatics). You do that all the time with Christian theology, except you dress it up in fancy terms like “presuppositionalism.”

    Rintintin said,

    “So where do we stop with naturalism and start with supernaturalism? Demonic possession used to be attributed as the cause of mental illness, and is in line with biblical thought (Jesus cures many people of such afflictions).”

    Steve said,

    ”More of your self-reinforcing ignorance. The synoptic Gospels distinguish between natural illness and demonic illness.”

    Only if by “self-reinforcing ignorance” you mean “accurate truth.” There is no place in the synoptic gospels where there is presented a handy rule of thumb for distinguishing between natural illnesses and demonic illness. If there is one, present it. Moreover, there is no place where an illness presented that is explicitly described as having non-demonic causes (of course, in the absence of such a statement, the first-century reader’s imagination would naturally gravitate towards the demonic-possession theory of illness).

    Rintintin said,

    “Can I shout 'viewpoint discrimination' if psychiatric journals won't allow me to publish my demonic theory of mental illness?”

    Steve said,

    ”Yes, that’s an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination. All your doing is to offer intellectual snobbery in lieu of serious argument.”

    No theory falls outside the realm of true science if it has empirical evidence backing it up. The demonic possession theory of mental illness is not a good theory because it has been shown to be lacking such evidence and has had virtually no explanatory power in the history of modern science. If you can provide evidence of such a phenomenon, then there are more than enough media outlets catering to the popular demand for the paranormal that would be willing to widely publicize your case.

    Steve said,

    “To take one counterexample:

    “’I’ve had similar experiences with mental health professionals, including MAs, PhDs, and MDs. I’ve come to know quite a few members of that community since writing my book on multiple personality. Once it became know that I’d done extensive and open-minded research in parapsychology, many started confiding to me apparent psychic episodes involving their patients. They also made it very clear that these conversations needed to remind confidential…They were simply unwilling to risk possible ridicule and ostracism by revealing their experiences to their colleagues,” S. Braude, The Gold Leaf Lady (U of Chicago Press, 2007), xviii.’”

    I won’t comment on the claims of this person, but I do find it amusing that a creationist like yourself would make common cause with advocates of the paranormal in order to prove the innate bias of the scientific establishment.

    Your second link is difficult to access, btw.

    Rintintin said,

    “Do you know of any observation that would prove God wrong? ie falsify him? i know of things that would falsify common descent, but i can't think of any for God.”

    Steve said,

    ”Do you know of any observation that would falsify an abstract object like a possible world?”

    What is your point here – is it to say that abstract objects cannot be falsified, or to make an analogy between god and a possible world? I must confess I don’t understand your objection at all (but I am also pretty confident that whatever it is, it is probably a stupid red herring, given the author). Some abstract objects are potentially falsifiable. For example, the general theory of relativity could be theoretically falsified if we observed an object moving faster than the speed of light. Of course, it is true that there is little that could theoretically falsify a God – just as there is almost nothing we can do to falsify the existence of a celestial teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars.

    Rintintin said,

    “Supernaturalism is used largely as 'God of the gaps' or some kind of default setting eg 'there is no known natural explanation, therefore it must be a supernatural force', yet no evidence has been provided to support that claim.”

    Steve said,

    ”You continue to illustrate your self-reinforcing ignorance of Christian theology. The Bible doesn’t deny second causes.”

    The Bible does deny second causes for the creation of man, especially evolution by natural selection. In the account in Genesis, God creates man in a single day, presumably in an instant. Of course, given that you are a fundamentalist, you naturally deny evolution or any way of explaining the generation of life according to purely material causes. The entire thesis of the “intelligent design” movement is that at some point God must have stepped in and instantaneously provided the necessary design. In that sense, you do indeed adhere to a ‘God of the gaps’ theory, because you insist that some things cannot be explained by natural processes and require supernatural assistance. It is not “self-reinforcing ignorance of Christian theology” to point this out this, Steve. Control your mouth and actually try to think before you ramble.

    Rintintin said,

    “God is not part of science, but what he is purported to have done is - a global flood is a testable proposition.”

    Steve said,

    ”It would behoove you to exegete a text before you try to debunk it.”

    Is this supposed to be a reply to Rintintin’s statement? What part of the text of the flood story in Genesis has he not interpreted correctly? The fact that the flood was worldwide?

    Rintintin said,

    “You are aware that speciation has been observed repeatedly both in a lab and in nature, without any observed instance of a designer at hand if that's what you're meaning by 'origin of species'?”

    Steve said,

    ”Two points of clarification:

    i) Mark Ridley, in his standard textbook on Evolution, lists five different definitions of species (biological, ecological, phenetic, phylogenetic, typological).

    So it’s easy to equivocate over examples of speciation.

    ii) The Bible doesn’t operate with the fundamental unit of a species, but with the fundamental unit of a natural kind. So speciation, per se, wouldn’t contradict Scripture.
    Fri May 02, 07:59:00 AM CDT

    http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/04/blog-post.html”

    A “species” is defined in biology as a group of organisms that are similar enough that they mate together and produce reproductively viable offspring (this excludes mules, the result of horse-donkey interbreeding, which are sterile). It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between species – is a species a group of organisms that can’t interbreed, or merely don’t? Both the latter and the former have been observed in biology, so it would be false to say that biological speciation hasn’t occurred within human memory.

    Steve said,

    “Plantinga has argued at length that evolutionary psychology undermines rationality. And Dawkins, in The God Delusion, made equally skeptical claims. Hence, naturalism commits intellectual suicide.”

    Are we supposed to take your last assertion as truth just because Alvin Plantinga said so? I’m dying to see where in the God Delusion Dawkins makes these “skeptical claims” (whatever that means). Dawkins, and most evolutionary biologists, would say that reason oriented towards the truth would be a reproductively successful adaptation. Your point is by no means proved just because one philosopher says so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lyosha07 said:

    "If you were really interested in truth, perhaps you would try to be a bit more helpful in your reply – maybe showing your opponent where he had gone wrong, maybe calmly and politely guiding him to some sources that you found informative."

    How "helpful", "calm", "polite", etc. is Lyosha07 in his reply to Steve and in his posts elsewhere? What "sources" do we get from Lyosha07's posts? How often does he offer us documentation for his assertions? He asks for "sources that you found informative", yet here's what he said in the two sentences just before the sentence in which he asks for "sources that you found informative":

    "Nor should anybody be expected to keep up with the writings of obscure apologists. The fact that in place of providing a rationally sound, self-supporting counterargument in your reply, you give your opponent a reading assignment, seems to suggest that there is no such sound counterargument in existence."

    He objects to "reading assignments", then criticizes Steve for not "politely guiding" people to some reading assignments. He then goes on to use some "polite" profanity and make some other "calm" and "polite" comments.

    As bad as Lyosha07's latest post is, it's at least more substantive than most of what he writes, though that isn't saying much. Below are some examples of previous threads he's participated in. Notice how little support he offers for his claims and how evasive he is:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/book-recommendations-for-unbelievers.html

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/03/loftus-on-skids.html

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/03/go-with-your-evolved-sense-of-right-and.html

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/competition-in-religion.html

    Notice, also, that Lyosha07 brings up a lot of subjects Steve and other Christians have addressed in previous threads. Lyosha07 often ignores that material when it's posted, and he makes no attempt in this thread to interact with what Steve and others have already said in those previous posts.

    Regarding "talking snakes and plants", a subject mentioned by a few non-Christians who have posted or have been quoted in this thread, it should be noted, again, that Genesis doesn't tell us much about what the serpent was prior to the fall. If it became what we today call a snake, or became something similar, after the fall, it doesn't therefore follow that we should assume that it was such prior to the fall. And I don't know what "talking plants" are in the Bible. Nothing in scripture suggests that something like a snake or a plant has a natural ability to speak. What is the criticism of "talking snakes and plants" supposed to prove, then? The Biblical illiteracy and irrationality of the skeptic?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lyosha07: "I’ve noticed that whenever you are in a debate and you don’t feel like answering a question, you assign people a reading assignment with the assumption that your opponent isn’t familiar with any theistic objections."

    It's even worse than this. Since Steve doesn't even indicate any titles or authors, it's clear that his intent here is not to inform his readers, but to discredit his interlocutor with the wave of his hand. The net result is that he comes off as a pretender at best, trying to bluff his way through his response to an opponent for whom he has absolutely no respect whatsoever. He's a middle aged man in a hurry, himself a lap dog for a long list of names, many of which he drops in his post as he tries to pump it up to make it appear intimidating. In fact, it's a lot of hot air. Any rational person who takes the time to read through any of it should see this pretty quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jaguk Hemaphredes said:

    "It's even worse than this. Since Steve doesn't even indicate any titles or authors, it's clear that his intent here is not to inform his readers, but to discredit his interlocutor with the wave of his hand. The net result is that he comes off as a pretender at best, trying to bluff his way through his response to an opponent for whom he has absolutely no respect whatsoever. He's a middle aged man in a hurry, himself a lap dog for a long list of names, many of which he drops in his post as he tries to pump it up to make it appear intimidating. In fact, it's a lot of hot air. Any rational person who takes the time to read through any of it should see this pretty quickly."

    Jaguk's problem is that he's jumping into the middle of a longstanding debate, as if I haven't given names and titles before. I don't reinvent the wheel every time I debate a new opponent.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hays: "I don't reinvent the wheel every time I debate a new opponent."

    You never invent anything to begin with. Instead, you rely on cheap tactics in order to discredit opponents rather than actually present a defense for your position. It's just another day for the middle aged man in a hurry to save the world from non-belief, Romanism, Arminianism, and other worries that fester in your dark soul.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jaguk Hemaphredes said...
    Hays: "I don't reinvent the wheel every time I debate a new opponent."

    You never invent anything to begin with. Instead, you rely on cheap tactics in order to discredit opponents rather than actually present a defense for your position. It's just another day for the middle aged man in a hurry to save the world from non-belief, Romanism, Arminianism, and other worries that fester in your dark soul.

    6/03/2008 8:28 AM

    *****************

    And this wasn't meant to discredit your opponent?

    Intellectual hypocrisy isn't an intellectual virtue, despite what you've been told.

    On a related note, let's analyze one of the re-occurring complaints here:

    Rintintin said: “Maybe the supernatural effector wouldn't even need to be a deity, since we don't actually know anything about the possibilities that exist in the supernatural world.”

    Steve replied: "You’ve obviously not done any reading in theistic modal metaphysics."

    Note that RTT *is not* asking questions. He's not trying to "learn." He is making an *un argued* assertion which could, in the eyes of the uninformed, appear to be an "argument." He furthermore made a universal claim, viz., "we don't actually know anything about the possibilities that exist in the supernatural world."

    Note, then, he makes a *modal* claim, and offers it *as if* it were just common knowledge.

    Given this context, what, pray tell, was wrong with Steve's response? He didn't tell the guy to read books, Steve made an *observation* that the guy had not read any. Given the cock-sure claim of RTT, and given the stupidity of it, Steve just notes that the guy is an unlearned dweeb.

    Like if I said, "We don't know anything about the possibilities ES cells have for helping humans," one could rightly point out that I had obviously not done any reading in the field of embryo technology (not that I think we *should* destroy the embryo for his or her stem cells, but I do note what the scientists say are the possibilities of what *can* be done with them).

    Lyosha said,

    "Even if “theistic modal metaphysics” is legitimate branch of scholarly research (which it isn’t, because theology generally does not correspond to reality)"

    I'm sure Steve is going to respond to most of your points, but the above was rather ridiculous. If theistic modal metaphysics isn't a legitimate branch of scholarly research, then Rintintin shouldn't have made his claims about theistic modal metaphysics!

    Moreover, many scientific anti-realists are atheists and they do not think that (many, most, all) scientific theories "correspond to reality." So you'd have your fellow atheists, who are more brilliant than you, btw, not engaging in a legitimate branch of inquiry. And, if they are right, then most scientists are not engaged in legitimate enterprises since their theories do not "correspond to reality."

    And, lastly, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why you think employing question begging epithets are normally a good way to argue and hone intellectual virtues?

    ReplyDelete
  9. To flesh out ETB's observation - this tale was originated by the Levites, who were priests of Leviathan - a snake god. The serpent is portrayed in a positive light if you think about it. What he says is true. This tale is the product of a labor dispute between YHVH worshippers and the previous Leviathan/Nehushtan worshippers who were being displaced.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jason Engwer said,

    "How "helpful", "calm", "polite", etc. is Lyosha07 in his reply to Steve and in his posts elsewhere? What "sources" do we get from Lyosha07's posts? How often does he offer us documentation for his assertions?"

    Do I need to point out that in my very last post on this blog, I offered to recommend some reading materials to Christians who might be interested (in the calmest way posible)? However, as is to be expected with members of this blog, the reaction was completely hysterical and defensive. However, hysteria is par for the course for this blog, which is why few rational people invest the time it takes to create rational posts in them. If I was looking for a rational discussion, I would look elsewhere on the internet.

    Jason said,

    "He asks for "sources that you found informative", yet here's what he said in the two sentences just before the sentence in which he asks for "sources that you found informative":

    "Nor should anybody be expected to keep up with the writings of obscure apologists. The fact that in place of providing a rationally sound, self-supporting counterargument in your reply, you give your opponent a reading assignment, seems to suggest that there is no such sound counterargument in existence."

    There's a difference between keeping up with the (inane) works of people like Charles Haddon, Cornelius van Til, and all the modern apologists, and possessing a basic grasp of the theistic theology and apologetics with which to refute it, any more than I would have to acquaint myself with the works of Mormon apologists. I generally spend my free time doing more productive activities, such as reading works of literature or of science. And my objection to Steve's particular brand of casiustry was that if he was really sure that there was a counterobjection that his opponent was ignorant about, and which couldn't be expressed succintly in a paragraph, he should rather politely point out to him where such material exists. Instead, Steve uses it as a tool to simply dismiss his opponent out of hand, and thus the debate is closed, advancing nowhere.

    Jason Engwer said,

    "He objects to "reading assignments", then criticizes Steve for not "politely guiding" people to some reading assignments. He then goes on to use some "polite" profanity and make some other "calm" and "polite" comments."

    My use of "profanity" was a direct parody to Steve's snarky rantings. Indeed, if there is a possible response to the sophistry and grandstanding expressed on this blog constantly, it is best encapsulated by profanity. Oh, horror!

    Jason Engwer said,

    "As bad as Lyosha07's latest post is, it's at least more substantive than most of what he writes, though that isn't saying much. Below are some examples of previous threads he's participated in. Notice how little support he offers for his claims and how evasive he is:"

    My posts on this site are determined largely by the hysterical reactions that follow them. As such, the potential to have rational discussion is limited by the members of this blog. My posts on this blog, however, have contained much more reason than have the long rantings written by the true believers in defense of their pre-scientific religion.

    Jason Engwer said,

    "Notice, also, that Lyosha07 brings up a lot of subjects Steve and other Christians have addressed in previous threads. Lyosha07 often ignores that material when it's posted, and he makes no attempt in this thread to interact with what Steve and others have already said in those previous posts."

    Given the quality of your reasoning exemplified thus far, why should I believe that anything you have ever said deserves any merit? However, I would check what you said previously if we were discussing a particular point rationally and calmly (alas, that never can happen on this site, due to Christian grandstanding and demagoguery). However, I would also point out that neither have you read every single atheistic objection to your "work." Moreover, in your long and tedious writings against "heresies" like Roman Catholicism and Arminianism, there are countless points where critical Biblical scholarship had something to say and you ignored it, preferring the dogmatic "Calvinist" position to something a secular interpreter might say. Does that mean that your work is necessarily worthless? Not necessarily (although I think that it is anyways). Also, if you want to be persnickety about it, your post considered a "drive-by" reply because you didn't answer every single topic I raised in the post. I don't blame you for that, because most people have lives outside of the internet (although that is questionable in the case of you and Steve). But it does show that discussion is possible without one person arrogantly claiming that one person should be silenced because he hasn't read an obscure piece of writing with questionable relevance to the discussion.

    Jason Engwer said,

    "Regarding "talking snakes and plants", a subject mentioned by a few non-Christians who have posted or have been quoted in this thread, it should be noted, again, that Genesis doesn't tell us much about what the serpent was prior to the fall. If it became what we today call a snake, or became something similar, after the fall, it doesn't therefore follow that we should assume that it was such prior to the fall."

    Okay, lets assume that this particular theory is true. Even so, there is nothing within the text of the Bible that shows it to be the case, much less within the relevant Genesis story. Thus for Steve to accuse rintintin of not exegeting the Bible properly is pure grandstanding intended to prevent rational discussion.

    Jason Engwer said,

    "And I don't know what "talking plants" are in the Bible. Nothing in scripture suggests that something like a snake or a plant has a natural ability to speak. What is the criticism of "talking snakes and plants" supposed to prove, then? The Biblical illiteracy and irrationality of the skeptic?"

    Well, aside from the fact that talking snakes are in scripture, as I have already belabored. As for the plants, I am assuming that rintintin was referring to Jesus' cursing of the fig tree (and imputing to a tree anthropomorphic powers), but I could be mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thnuhthnuh: "To flesh out ETB's observation - this tale was originated by the Levites, who were priests of Leviathan - a snake god. The serpent is portrayed in a positive light if you think about it. What he says is true. This tale is the product of a labor dispute between YHVH worshippers and the previous Leviathan/Nehushtan worshippers who were being displaced."

    Is this an example of "form criticism" that you referenced recently?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Is this an example of "form criticism" that you referenced recently?

    Exactly, TUaD. For instance, the passage in Ex 4:24 and following - it's dissonant and nonsensical. Do you think it 'just happened that way'? Of course not. The priests were at that time seeking to replace bridegroom circumcision with infant circumcision, and this story was their justification for it.
    Robert M Price goes into the details in his 'Life of Moses Lecture' available here for the 4 books dealing with Moses. The Biblical stories are easily categorized by what they seek to explain: place names (etymological), natural phenomena (etiological - ex the rainbow in Gen 6), practices (ceremonial), etc.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Paul Manata said,

    “Note that RTT *is not* asking questions. He's not trying to "learn."”

    Why should he be trying to learn from people like you? Setting aside the arrogance of that claim, there is no reason to believe that you and your coreligionists have ever had anything meaningful to teach the world, both now and throughout history.

    He is making an *un argued* assertion which could, in the eyes of the uninformed, appear to be an "argument." He furthermore made a universal claim, viz., "we don't actually know anything about the possibilities that exist in the supernatural world."”

    And it is a perfectly reasonable statement to make, because it is self-evidently true. For you to explain the nature of the supernatural entity, you must first show us that there is a supernatural entity at all. Theology has nothing meaningful to say about the possible existence of the “supernatural”, because theology consists of stupid speculations. Throwing around meaningless words like “theistic modal metaphysics” does nothing to advance knowledge.

    “Note, then, he makes a *modal* claim, and offers it *as if* it were just common knowledge.

    Given this context, what, pray tell, was wrong with Steve's response? He didn't tell the guy to read books, Steve made an *observation* that the guy had not read any. Given the cock-sure claim of RTT, and given the stupidity of it, Steve just notes that the guy is an unlearned dweeb.”
    As I already indicated, if there was some legitimate point to be made (which there isn’t), then Steve could have been more helpful in his reply. Instead, he chose to cite the existence of a questionable branch of human scholarship, “theistic modal metaphysics”, to dismiss his opponent and avoid having to answer the question.

    “I'm sure Steve is going to respond to most of your points, but the above was rather ridiculous. If theistic modal metaphysics isn't a legitimate branch of scholarly research, then Rintintin shouldn't have made his claims about theistic modal metaphysics!”

    Theistic modal metaphysics isn’t a legitimate branch of scholarly research because it deals with an imaginary subject. Rintintin did not make a claim about theistic modal metaphysics, he made a point about the limitations of human knowledge. Steve decided to pull that phrase out of his ass in order to avert discussion.

    “Moreover, many scientific anti-realists are atheists and they do not think that (many, most, all) scientific theories "correspond to reality." So you'd have your fellow atheists, who are more brilliant than you, btw, not engaging in a legitimate branch of inquiry. And, if they are right, then most scientists are not engaged in legitimate enterprises since their theories do not "correspond to reality."”

    So what? If they are truly right, then you are just as deluded as I am. Pointing out the possibility that these “anti-realists” might be correct does nothing to advance the discussion between theism and atheism.

    ***

    To continue with Steve’s comedy of errors:

    Rintintin said,

    ““2. If potentially we can't trust our faculties then how are we to assume the theist is capable of accurately of apprehending theistic truths (whether from the bible, or in the ability to formulate a first principle that he or she regards as self-evident on the basis of possibly faulty senses)?””

    Steve said,

    “Once again, I assume that Alan’s scepticism was directed at evolutionary psychology.

    But what do you think the senses are for? As a naturalist, you can’t invoke a teleological explanation. So, for you, the senses have no function, do they?”
    The senses enhance an individual’s likelihood to reproduce successfully, and generally speaking, the better they are, the more the chance of successful reproduction.
    Rintintin said,

    “3. Even if we accept that we have to revert to supernaturalism, we're still no closer to affirming it as the Christian God.”

    Steve said,

    It’s a stepwise argument. Arrive at the Christian God by process of elimination.

    Why can’t the Christian God be eliminated by a process of elimination, while others can? The burden of proof is on you to show that the Christian god is any less ridiculous than anything else. Moreover, your proposed methodology assumes that the human imagination is capable of understanding every possible supernatural state of affairs.

    Rintintin said,

    “Is there any way either of us could distinguish it from a natural cause?”
    Steve said,

    “Depends on what sort of examples your looking for. What about a miraculous answer to prayer?”

    Rintintin said,

    “1. but I can just choose a logically consistent version of theism at random, make things up and claim they are accounted for by the miracles my God can perform.”

    Steve said,

    “And where’s your supporting evidence?”

    And where is your evidence for your beliefs, Steve? The resurrection, presumably? However, for you to ask the question, “where is your evidence”, is to demand an evidentialist apologetic approach – which you deny for your own theology (probably because the evidence is too weak to justify an evidentialist approach). Why the double standard, Steve? Why can’t you just take it as a presupposition that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and argue between competing worldviews?
    Rintintin said,

    “I'm also not analysing it from naturalistic presupps - I'm anazlyzing from the point of observation. We observe that snakes do not talk. We observe that they don't have the anatomy to talk.”

    Steve said,

    “Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Gen 3 refers to a talking snake, men and women living back in the Bronze Age didn’t observe talking snakes either. So it’s as if you’re experience is any different from theirs on that score.”

    1. Gen 3 does refer to a talking snake. The story purportedly explains why snakes slither on their bellies. Hence the snake in the Genesis story is best understood as being the ancestor of all living snakes.

    2. If there is a difference of testimony between modern observers and Bronze Age observers, then the best course to take it to believe the course of events that is most likely, given what we can observe about natural laws. In that case, the chances that the author in Genesis was repeating a myth is much more likely than the chances that snakes actually were able to speak in the past.

    Rintintin said,

    “Serpents generally refer to snakes in symbolic literature.”

    Steve said,

    “Not true. They can also refer to numinous beings like snake-gods.”

    More to the point, you’re trading on the meaning of the English word. But the Hebrew word has its own set of connotations. “

    It is pretty clear that the snake/serpent (it makes no difference what term you use in English because they are synonyms in our language) in Genesis was understood as being the ancestor of all biological snakes/serpents in existence. The fact that the Hebrew word for snake/serpent has some connotations does not imply that the Hebrews distinguished between mere biological snakes and “numinous beings like snake-gods”, but that the Hebrews viewed snakes as having certain supernatural powers (the same goes for medieval Europe; most pre-scientific societies attributed supernatural powers to animals, and many animals were deified).

    Rintintin said,

    “So you advocate that the miraculous/supernatural can and does occur in our world, thus breaking some physical laws potentially without forewarning.”

    Steve said,

    “Christian theology has a doctrine of providence. It would really behoove you to master these elementary distinctions.”

    What you mean by “Christian theology”, of course, is nothing more than the speculations, elaborations, harmonies, and interpretations of people centuries or millennia removed from the Biblical texts. Of course, these “elementary distinctions” that you propose Rintintin acquaint himself with has nothing directly to do with his simple observation and is an irrelevant red herring.

    Rintintin said,
    “I have no reason to accept that this will not be the case 10 minutes from now, you do.”

    Steve said,

    “Actually, you have no good reason to presume that since—as Hume pointed out long ago, it’s fallacious to infer the future from the past. Absent a doctrine of providence, you have no principled basis for your confidence in inductive logic.”

    The “doctrine of providence” has no power to provide such a “principled basis”, since it is faith-based. If atheists cannot presume anything at the future, then theists can only presume to offer an answer once they have some proof. Absent that, it is a meaningless claim, equivalent to your earlier statement that questions about the nature of the supernatural can be answered by “theistic modal metaphysics”, which is essentially a non-answer.

    Rintintin said,

    “1. You still haven't provided evidence for your claim even if there is no known natural explanation - god of the Gaps.”

    Steve said,

    “And you’re [sic] alternative is naturalism of the gaps.”

    Of course, Steve! All things being equal, if an event can be explained by a supernatural phenomenon or a natural phenomenon, it is much more probably that the natural explanation is true.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lyosha,

    "Why should he be trying to learn from people like you? Setting aside the arrogance of that claim, there is no reason to believe that you and your coreligionists have ever had anything meaningful to teach the world, both now and throughout history."

    I assume your behavior (here, above) in how you treat those you disagree with is one you would rather us emulate?

    Besides that, you rather miss the point. You chastised Steve for not being helpful and teaching. But that wasn't the context. That wasn't the spirit of the interlocutor. Learning is a two-way street, Lyosha. It's not a passive project as in osmosis. It's rather more like a pitcher and a catcher. The catcher must work to "get" the ball. And the more active and involved in the game he is, the better "receiver" he is.

    Lastly, I find it funny that you just admitted that atheists are close minded and are not in these discussions to *learn*, but rather to *preach*.

    When I pointed out that RTT was simply *asserting* rather than *arguing* (something your crowd says is the role fundamentalist preachers from West Virginia fill), and thus a counter assertion to the contrary was fine, you said:

    "And it is a perfectly reasonable statement to make, because it is self-evidently true."

    Well, no, it isn't "self-evident." But perhaps you're working with a rather broad understanding of "self-evidency."

    I also find your understanding of probability theory rather that of a neophyte.

    Why would you think we "don't know anything about the possibilities that exist in the supernatural world?" First, why think alternatives are equipossible? Second, why think contradictory states of affairs would be possible. If it is "self-evident" that we can't know the "possibilities" in a supernatural world, then you must be saying that it is possible, in a supernatural world, mine, for instance, that A and ~A could both be true at the same time and in the same relationship. Why think God, who most atheists would grant is a necessary being, if he exists, could exist and not exist at the same time? What grounds your saying that this is a possible state of affairs? Why think it is not possible for God to create a world? Is that a "possibility" in a "supernatural" world? I frankly find this all an indication of how serious you should be taken.

    "For you to explain the nature of the supernatural entity, you must first show us that there is a supernatural entity at all."

    And of course *possibility* doesn't entail *actuality*. You don't even seem to be able to keep your categories straight. And, we have "shown you" that God exists. Indeed, he has shown you. So, we can speak of his nature. Now, you may retort, "But I don't believe in him, so you/he hasn't shown me." Okay, but this is rather quite different a claim. You are *now saying* that you must *accept* what we "show you" in order for us to explain its nature. But this is *wildly implausible*! It is akin to saying that since the Church didn't "accept" the arguments from Copernicus regarding heliocentricity, Copernicus was not allowed to "explain the nature of" a heliocentric universe! How Roman Catholic and dogmatic if you, Lyosha.

    "Theology has nothing meaningful to say about the possible existence of the “supernatural”, because theology consists of stupid speculations."

    You have nothing meaningful to say about the impossibility of the "supernatural" because atheology "consists of stupid speculations."

    "Throwing around meaningless words like “theistic modal metaphysics” does nothing to advance knowledge."

    I'd love to hear what theory of meaning you're employing to say that the *words* "theistic modal metaphysics" are "meaningless." I assume you have one in terms of which your belligerent assertions can be so grounded?

    "As I already indicated, if there was some legitimate point to be made (which there isn’t), then Steve could have been more helpful in his reply."

    If Rintintin had a legitimate point to be made, he (and you, by proxy) could have been more helpful in making it.

    I find your method of argument terribly underwhelming. And, I must wonder, if you think the way you're going about "making points" with *me* is "helpful," then what, pray tell, could *possibly* be your beef with how Steve answered? If you think your contribution to our discussion is "helpful," then I rue the day you attempt to be unhelpful.

    "Instead, he chose to cite the existence of a questionable branch of human scholarship, “theistic modal metaphysics”, to dismiss his opponent and avoid having to answer the question."

    I've already addressed your spin, so repeating points isn't usually considered "helpful." And, it isn't "questionable" considering that it is a lively and robust are of specialization with dissertations being approved at places like Oxford, Cambridge, etc., on said topic. Also, if you pick up a piece of good atheology, you'll find the topic seriously addressed. It's you who is out of touch with the sate of scholarship. You're just trying to cover-up your ignorance with a belligerent attitude about something you're obviously ignorant of. This isn't "helpful."

    "Theistic modal metaphysics isn’t a legitimate branch of scholarly research because it deals with an imaginary subject."

    That's called truth by stipulation. I could just *stipulate* the opposite. What you haven't done is *argue* for your claim. This is a most "unhelpful" way to proceed in a discussion.

    "Rintintin did not make a claim about theistic modal metaphysics, he made a point about the limitations of human knowledge."

    No, he did make such a claim. And, he did not make a point about *knowledge*, he made a point about what *is* or *isn't* possible. Moreover, if the claim is epistemic, then it is shown to be nothing more than *question begging*. This is so because if God has indeed revealed himself to man, made us in his image in order to know him and the world, then we *can* know this (based on the testimony of another person). Indeed, it is *possible* that God exists and that he could reveal himself (and if you think it is *im*possible, I'd love to see the argument), therefore it cannot be the case that we cannot know what is possible since we know that a God might exist and might reveal himself. Atheists just (usually) say that he *hasn't*. So, you begged the question and confuse the de jure with the de facto. All these things are "unhelpful."

    "So what? If they are truly right, then you are just as deluded as I am. Pointing out the possibility that these “anti-realists” might be correct does nothing to advance the discussion between theism and atheism."

    Anti-realism is not about being "deluded." I'd tell you to go read up on the subject which you are trying to act conversant on, but then you'd say I was being "unhelpful".

    More importantly, you, as is common, fully fail to grasp the point of my comment. Science would not fail to be a "legitimate subject" is anti-realism turned out to be the case. I don't know of any atheist philosopher who would claim that it science would not be "legitimate" anymore.

    I did "advance the subject" by providing a undercutting warrant defeater for your general claim about "illegitimacy."

    At any rate, the only way you can claim theology is "illegitimate" is by your *assertion* that God does not exist.

    So, at this point, I guess my response is: Prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lyosha07 wrote:

    "Do I need to point out that in my very last post on this blog, I offered to recommend some reading materials to Christians who might be interested (in the calmest way posible)? However, as is to be expected with members of this blog, the reaction was completely hysterical and defensive."

    That's your reinterpretation of the discussion, and it's not convincing. The replies to your post weren't "hysterical and defensive", and you didn't tell us that you wanted to recommend some books. Rather, you entered a thread about Christians giving books to unbelievers and other Christians, and you asked if I would "check out" book recommendations from "unbelievers". You used the plural ("unbelievers") rather than referring to yourself, and you didn't tell us that you wanted to recommend some books. When I asked for a clarification of what you were getting at, you refused to offer a clarification. Why would anybody reading my introductory post in that thread conclude that I would want book recommendations from unbelievers in that context?

    You write:

    "However, hysteria is par for the course for this blog, which is why few rational people invest the time it takes to create rational posts in them. If I was looking for a rational discussion, I would look elsewhere on the internet."

    Then why do you keep reading our posts and keep participating in the discussions?

    You write:

    "And my objection to Steve's particular brand of casiustry was that if he was really sure that there was a counterobjection that his opponent was ignorant about, and which couldn't be expressed succintly in a paragraph, he should rather politely point out to him where such material exists."

    The problem, as I explained to you in my last post, is that you condemned Steve's source citations as "reading assignments", but then went on to suggest that he should cite sources for us to read.

    You write:

    "My use of 'profanity' was a direct parody to Steve's snarky rantings."

    You suggested that Steve isn't "calm" and "polite" enough. Now you claim that you object to the "snarky" nature of his "rantings". How is your use of vulgarity a "parody" of Steve's alleged "snark"? And if you object to Steve's "snark" (and our "arrogance", etc.), then why are your posts characterized by references to the "tribal deity" of Christians, their "irrational faith", etc.? You make such comments frequently, not just in response to Steve. Your claim to be interested in "calm" and "polite" discussion, without the sort of "arrogance" you claim we have, is contradicted by your own behavior over the months you've been posting here. See the examples I've linked to above.

    You write:

    "Indeed, if there is a possible response to the sophistry and grandstanding expressed on this blog constantly, it is best encapsulated by profanity."

    No, the best parody of "sophistry and grandstanding" would be sophistry and grandstanding, not vulgarity. Your posts do have a lot of sophistry and grandstanding, but not in an attempt to parody us. Your posts also have a lot of vulgarity.

    You write:

    "Given the quality of your reasoning exemplified thus far, why should I believe that anything you have ever said deserves any merit? However, I would check what you said previously if we were discussing a particular point rationally and calmly (alas, that never can happen on this site, due to Christian grandstanding and demagoguery). However, I would also point out that neither have you read every single atheistic objection to your 'work.' Moreover, in your long and tedious writings against 'heresies' like Roman Catholicism and Arminianism, there are countless points where critical Biblical scholarship had something to say and you ignored it, preferring the dogmatic 'Calvinist' position to something a secular interpreter might say. Does that mean that your work is necessarily worthless? Not necessarily (although I think that it is anyways)."

    If you had read enough of my material to credibly make the sort of judgments you make above, you'd probably know that I'm not a Calvinist.

    You write:

    "Even so, there is nothing within the text of the Bible that shows it to be the case, much less within the relevant Genesis story."

    If an unbeliever asserts that Genesis 3 refers to a "talking snake", with the modern definition of "snake" in mind, then the burden of proof is on his shoulders. If the text is inconclusive, or if it implies that the creature was something other than a modern snake when it spoke, then the unbeliever's argument can't be sustained.

    You write:

    "As for the plants, I am assuming that rintintin was referring to Jesus' cursing of the fig tree (and imputing to a tree anthropomorphic powers), but I could be mistaken."

    Aside from the fact that "plant" isn't the most natural way of referring to a tree in the English language, the fig tree in the passage you're referring to doesn't speak. Why should we conclude that there are "talking plants" in the Bible on the basis of that passage?

    You write:

    "Gen 3 does refer to a talking snake. The story purportedly explains why snakes slither on their bellies. Hence the snake in the Genesis story is best understood as being the ancestor of all living snakes."

    Its similarity to modern snakes was a result of the fall, so you can't assume that it was comparable to a modern snake before the fall, when the speaking occurred.

    You write:

    "If there is a difference of testimony between modern observers and Bronze Age observers, then the best course to take it to believe the course of events that is most likely, given what we can observe about natural laws. In that case, the chances that the author in Genesis was repeating a myth is much more likely than the chances that snakes actually were able to speak in the past."

    There are a lot of factors involved other than the ones you're referring to. We have evidence for the Divine inspiration of the Bible, including Genesis, evidence that we've discussed in many places on this blog and elsewhere. We have much more than the general reliability of "Bronze Age observers" to go by. And the observations of "modern observers" could only tell us what normally occurs with modern snakes. They can't tell us that the modern snake is the same as the pre-fall creature in Genesis 3, nor can they tell us whether a supernatural agent spoke through such a creature in the past. Nothing in Genesis 3 suggests that modern snakes have a natural ability to speak human language. The fact that you raised this objection to begin with is bad enough. The fact that you keep repeating it and trying to defend it, after being corrected repeatedly, is even worse.

    You write:

    "And where is your evidence for your beliefs, Steve?"

    As Steve has said, you're asking him to keep reinventing the wheel. And when the wheel is reinvented, you'll probably just leave the discussion, as you've done so often before.

    If you're interested in reading Steve's arguments for his beliefs, why don't you consult his e-book on the resurrection, the archives of this blog, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lyosha,

    "The senses enhance an individual’s likelihood to reproduce successfully, and generally speaking, the better they are, the more the chance of successful reproduction."

    I would tell Lyosha to "read up" on EAAN, but then he would tell me that I'm being unhelpful.

    I don't see why you would have to form *true* beliefs based off sensations for reproduction to to be successful.

    There's also an ambiguity. A reproduction is successful so long as a child is produced. When does sensation of to do with conception, growth, birthing, etc?

    Morever, the animists believe everything is a spirit. So, once could see a woman, and form the belief that: That spirit-women looks like a nice reproduction machine." Of course, since she is not a spirt-women, the belief is false.

    Frankly, there are just too many combinations possible that would acheive in the desired behavior, that the probability that our beliefs are aimed at truth is simply low (or inscrutable).

    Moreover, the argument Steve was making is aimed at a *reflective* naturalist. So, proper function might dicate having sex with the opposite member just like proper function might demand hope when faced with devastating news of your health. This would be proper functioning, beliefs aimed at survival, but it would not be produced by the part of our cognitive faculty aimed at producing *true* beliefs. On reflection, the person would have to admit that they didn't have warrant to believe that "keeping in good spirits" would prolong their life. Likewsie, the reflective naturalist's "animal drive" may take over when confronted with a potential good mate, but, later, EAAN argues that, on reflection, the naturalist recognizes that she has an alethic defeater for this belief of the Humean-lopp variety.

    If you had taken the time to get conversant on that which you're talking about, then your comment would have been helpful and would have advanced the dialog. As it is, you just paraded your ignorance of the subject around the neighborhood that is our meta.

    ReplyDelete
  17. MATHETES SAID:

    “Do you have any examples? I'm intrigued.”

    See my post in response to LYOSHA07 for citations.

    “How might you answer this if you had a bit more time and space?”

    No, I don’t think abstract objects are falsifiable. They’re necessary entities—divine properties.

    “One last thing. Hume's argument against induction was raised. But thinking about it, how does the theist escape the same dilemma? We can demonstrate, for example, God's trustworthiness by pointing to fulfilled prophecy and providence, but doesn't that also beg the question in favour of prior experience?”

    I don’t object to induction, per se. We all rely on induction. It’s unavoidable. But it’s a question of grounding it.

    You can’t prove induction by induction. That would be viciously circular. But you can confirm induction by other things. Proving God doesn’t depend on induction. But having proven God on other grounds, then prophecy and providence supply other lines of evidence. That’s an epistemic issue.

    And, metaphysically speaking, creation and providence provide the grounding for induction, while revelation (i.e. God’s promises) lays an epistemic foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just saw this - I wrote a quick response here

    regards
    RTT

    ReplyDelete