Later on in life, I would experience a few more crises of faith. The most painful one occurred during my doctoral studies. I came to realize that all of my previous bouts with doubt ended when I found the answers I was looking for. In other words, I had been looking for ways to confirm the truth of my Christian faith. This time, I wanted to engage in a most sincere quest for truth, no matter where it led. I wanted to take a thorough look at whether Jesus rose from the dead. I would not avoid any difficult question or troubling issue. And I would, in a sense, document my journey for others to view and criticize. That’s why the book that resulted ended up being so large.
http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2012/05/02/michael-licona-interview/
The notion of embarking on a quest for truth, "no matter where it leads," is a popular axiom. But that's a dubious way of framing the issue.
To begin with, it doesn't surprise me that Licona is a cradle Christian. The notion that we have a duty to pursue truth wherever it leads is very idealistic, and many people raised in the faith share that idealistic outlook.
That, however, can be very ironic. What if your idealistic quest for truth terminates in nihilism? What if you begin with idealism but end with nihilism?
Suppose that pursuing truth no matter where it takes you eventually leads you to atheism. And what, in turn, if atheism leads to moral and existential nihilism? Indeed, that's not just hypothetical. A number of secular thinkers candidly admit that implication.
Logically, that's not a two-way street. For a nihilist has no obligation or motivation to pursue truth no matter where it leads.
But if nihilism could never function as your starting-point (except for the sake of argument), then why should it function as your (potential) end-point? The quest for truth is self-defeating if the destination nullifies the very value of truth and truth-seekers. Why begin the journey if that's where the journey ends? It becomes a worthless intellectual exercise in which you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
This way of casting the issue is short-sighted and naive. It's foolhardy to imagine that intellectual honesty requires you to maintain that everything is up-for-grabs.
Moreover, that's not even possible. A quest for truth presupposes criteria. You can only question some things if you take other things for granted. Something must furnish a standard of comparison. Everything can't be questionable, for something can only be questionable in relation to something unquestionable or less questionable.
Both in principle and practice, we should take atheism off the table. No position that conduces to moral and existential nihilism even merits consideration. And that greatly narrows the remaining options.
It really comes down to religious options. And it's easy to narrow down the religious options. In Eastern religion, the divine is essentially unknowable.
In the West, most religious traditions attempt to ground their claims in the Bible. It may be part of the Bible, or the Bible plus their supplements. But that provides a common standard of comparison. That provides a criterion.
Succinct, lucid, persuasive. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that in seminary I had a specific professor who would evangelize the axiom of "Pursue truth no matter where it leads." Him and Licona are friends and share similar assumptions regarding historiagraphy.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the basic premise of James Swan's worldview book. Very helpful.
ReplyDeleteAlso serves as a reminder that no one is, nor indeed can be, neutral or presuppositionless when it comes to the truth.
- Assuming for the sake of argument atheism were true, then nihilism almost certainly follows (though some atheists deny it).
ReplyDelete-If nihilism were true, then it wouldn't matter whether you lived according to truth or not. Every endeavor would be equally meaningless, equally arbitrary and equally permissible.
-If everything were equally permissible, you might as well believe in some God who promises an eternal afterlife since:
1. even most knowledgeable atheists admit that gods or a God may exist; even the Christian God. For example, even John Loftus admits that with all his knowledge he a.) can't completely disprove the existence of the Christian God; b.) with all the arguments he uses to debunk Christianity, the Christian God may nevertheless still exist.
2. since gods or a God may exist, it's more likely that they'll/he'll grant you eternal life if you believe in gods or God (especially if you believe in the right gods or God). Maybe gods or a God does exist.
3. of the alternatives of having a.) only this life or b.) this life and a next life, the latter is a better option (i.e. option b.).
4. there are intellectual, psychological, emotional, social and other earthly benefits to certain forms of theism, even were atheism true
-If one were to pick gods or a God, it's best to pick Christian monotheism for evidential [e.g. scientific, historical, textual etc.], philosophical and moral reasons.
Each one of the above points can be defended by Christian apologists in a fuller manner. If so, then one might as well be a Christian than an atheist or any other kind of theist or religious person.
a collection of links on Pascal's Wager by Christians and non-Christians. I especially recommend William Lane Craig's articles (here and here).
Deletehttp://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/12/pascals-wager.html
An atheist might respond that he can't bring himself to believe as true something he doesn't believe to be true (or believes *not* to be true). That is, doxastic voluntarism is impossible to carry out. However, one can always immerse oneself in literature (e.g. the Bible, apologetical books) and environments (e.g. church, prayer meetings, nature) that foster belief in God and that can eventually lead to belief in God. Besides, there is no proof that the Christian God doesn't exist, as well as there being plenty of evidence that the Christian God does exist. Also, of the various theistic options, the evidence for the Christian God is superior to other gods/Gods. Also, the Christian God is conceptually superior to other gods/Gods.
DeleteAn atheist might respond that he doesn't know if God exists or not, but he does know this earthly life does exist and it's unwise to waste one's entire life (which alone is certain) researching evidence for a potential God and a potential afterlife. But that assumes it'll take a lifetime to come to theistic, even Christian theistic conclusions. In the information age this objection/excuse is much less relevant than in past generations. Also, from the Christian perspective, God promises to be found by those who sincerely seek Him.
If the scales of the evidence for or against God's existence even slightly tips in the direction of God's existence, then it's best to commit oneself to trusting God even if one isn't epistemologically certain a God exists. More certain belief can follow afterwards. [BTW, as a Van Tillian, I think everything, to some degree or another, is evidence of God's existence]
Finally, the fact is that most atheists refuse to do these types of things because it would interfere with fulfilling their selfish desires. Yet, Christians would argue that living the Christian life is more blessed than living a non-Christian life (though, it is also more difficult due to persecution, sacrifices, self-discipline, the requirements of love et cetera).
If anyone is interested, here are related blog posts of mine.
Detecting and Finding God
http://gospelcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/07/detecting-and-finding-god.html
"Unveiling" The Hiddenness of God
http://gospelcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-hiddenness-of-god.html
"Both in principle and practice, we should take atheism off the table. No position that conduces to moral and existential nihilism even merits consideration. And that greatly narrows the remaining options."
ReplyDeleteFirst, if you're willing to make the quest for truth to be a complete joke by removing a major contender, why not just deny the premise that atheism entails nihilism instead. In other words, instead of putting your head in the sand regarding ontological questions, why not put your head in the sand regarding normative questions? It would probably be a lot easier for people who have already begun the quest for truth and have, unsurprisingly, found theism to be untenable.
Second, your last paragraph seems to imply that you think the quest for truth should be limited to the Bible. You must be referring to theological or normative truths, for you most likely don't believe the Bible is the source for truths concerning scientific issues such as physics. The problem is that the Bible makes claims and touches upon issues that cross into scientific territory. For example, the order of creation found in Genesis. What happens when something like fossil evidence refutes such claims? (Which it has.) Do we put are heads in the sand? Moreover, take the doctrine of the soul. What happens if we look around and find nothing but physics? (Which we have: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/).
If the Bible gets these answers wrong, what can we say about the veracity concerning its other pronouncements?
I can't help but feel that there's a reason as to why there is no consensus on what the Bible teaches;why when someone like Issac Newton tries to extract scientific knowledge from it, it's to no avail; why sections making predictions, such as the Book of Revelations, are so vague that even sophisticated believers, such as William Lane Craig, have no idea what it means. The Bible isn't a source of truth. It's a book of stories. Of course, you may call me a "village atheist" if you want. But that's the impression, I quickly and forcefully get when reading its pages.
Lastly, you are confused about nihilism. If by nihilism, you mean the denial of intrinsic value, then I am sorry to inform you that nihilism can't be avoided by postulating God, because intrinsic value is a logical non-starter, If things such as love or sadism had intrinsic moral worth, we would be able to find "goodness" or "evil" within the concept of these things (just as we know a triangle is necessarily a three-sided shape). However, thanks to G.E. Moore we know that it isn't the case. We come to beliefs about the intrinsic value through intuitions attached to concepts, not intrinsic to them. Thus, a different group of people could find love to be morally abhorrent even through they fully understand its concept. That being said, for someone to be consistent, its unnecessary to hold the "intrinsic value" of truth. All that's needed is that they themselves value the truth. It's what pushes them to action in the first place.
"For example, the order of creation found in Genesis. What happens when something like fossil evidence refutes such claims? (Which it has.)"
DeleteWhy don't you substantiate this? Both from the fossil evidence itself as well as exegetical theology, which would be entirely relevant given your claim.
"What happens if we look around and find nothing but physics? (Which we have: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/)."
Carroll's post has several hidden presumptions which one could quite easily question. More broadly speaking, he's a physicist venturing outside the areas of his expertise.
"I can't help but feel that there's a reason as to why there is no consensus on what the Bible teaches"
Even if it were true "there is no consensus on what the Bible teaches" it doesn't necessarily imply the Bible isn't consistent in what it teaches (if this is what you're implying).
"why when someone like Issac [sic] Newton tries to extract scientific knowledge from it, it's to no avail"
What makes you think Newton is reliable in this matter? Just because he was a great scientist doesn't mean he was a great or even good biblical scholar.
Besides, you're speaking like a prejudiced 21st century Westerner.
"why sections making predictions, such as the Book of Revelations,"
It's Revelation. It's not plural. Perhaps this reflects your biblical illiteracy.
"are so vague that even sophisticated believers, such as William Lane Craig, have no idea what it means."
Craig isn't a biblical exegete. He's not a NT scholar. He's not an expert on Revelation.
Instead, check out someone like G.K. Beale.
"The Bible isn't a source of truth. It's a book of stories."
For one thing, your objection is stupid even on its own terms. Stories can be a source of as well as convey truths. They're not mutually exclusive.
"Of course, you may call me a 'village atheist' if you want. But that's the impression, I quickly and forcefully get when reading its pages."
Given (among other things) you've made several assertions without so much as providing supporting argumentation for most of them as well as sallied forth in leaps of illogic, the "impression" I get when I read what you write isn't too far from "village atheist."
brownmamba "First, if you're willing to make the quest for truth to be a complete joke by removing a major contender, why not just deny the premise that atheism entails nihilism instead."
DeleteYour objection is hopelessly superficial. If atheism implicates moral and existential nihilism, then it's atheism that makes the quest for truth a complete joke. Indeed, a bad joke.
"In other words, instead of putting your head in the sand regarding ontological questions…"
What's wrong with putting one's head in the sand if moral and existential nihilism supply the frame of reference? Your nearsighted disapproval confirms the fact that you fail to grasp the intellectual consequences of the issue under review.
"Second, your last paragraph seems to imply that you think the quest for truth should be limited to the Bible."
In context, I'm responding to Licona. The question is whether there's a fallback to Christianity.
"The problem is that the Bible makes claims and touches upon issues that cross into scientific territory."
Which I never denied.
"For example, the order of creation found in Genesis. What happens when something like fossil evidence refutes such claims? (Which it has.)"
i) To begin with, I don't assume that the sequence in Gen 1 is strictly chronological. For instance, the relation between Day 1 and Day 4 seems to be a deliberate anachronism.
ii) In principle, the fossil record could be a part of God initiating the story in medias res–just as historical movies begin at a certain point in the ongoing history of the world, but have an implicit backstory.
"Moreover, take the doctrine of the soul. What happens if we look around and find nothing but physics?"
Evidently, you fail to grasp the hard problem of consciousness. Likewise, you're evidently ignorant of empirical evidence for the independent existence of the soul (e.g. OBEs, NDEs, apparitions).
"I can't help but feel that there's a reason as to why there is no consensus on what the Bible teaches;why when someone like Issac Newton tries to extract scientific knowledge from it, it's to no avail; why sections making predictions, such as the Book of Revelations, are so vague that even sophisticated believers, such as William Lane Craig, have no idea what it means."
Which contradicts your contention that the Bible makes claims which cross into scientific territory. Can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is too vague to clearly teach anything or else Bible teaching is clearly wrong.
Cont. "If by nihilism, you mean…"
DeleteI said what I meant by nihilism by including adjectives: "moral" and "existential." To elaborate:
Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H1
While nihilism is often discussed in terms of extreme skepticism and relativism, for most of the 20th century it has been associated with the belief that life is meaningless. Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. Given this circumstance, existence itself--all action, suffering, and feeling--is ultimately senseless and empty.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H3
In his study of meaninglessness, Donald Crosby writes that the source of modern nihilism paradoxically stems from a commitment to honest intellectual openness. "Once set in motion, the process of questioning could come to but one end, the erosion of conviction and certitude and collapse into despair" (The Specter of the Absurd, 1988). When sincere inquiry is extended to moral convictions and social consensus, it can prove deadly, Crosby continues, promoting forces that ultimately destroy civilizations.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H4
"then I am sorry to inform you that nihilism can't be avoided by postulating God, because intrinsic value is a logical non-starter, If things such as love or sadism had intrinsic moral worth, we would be able to find 'goodness' or 'evil' within the concept of these things (just as we know a triangle is necessarily a three-sided shape)."
You confuse the meaning of words and/or concepts with whether these ideas have real-world correlatives.
"However, thanks to G.E. Moore…"
That's terribly dated. Moore's intuitionism is pretty passé even within secular ethics.
"That being said, for someone to be consistent, its unnecessary to hold the 'intrinsic value' of truth. All that's needed is that they themselves value the truth."
So you're telling me that science has no intrinsic truth value? If so, why do you make science a standard of comparison?
brownmamba seems to think that something in this discussion actually matters. My only question is: why?
Delete"What's wrong with putting one's head in the sand if moral and existential nihilism supply the frame of reference?"
ReplyDeleteIf one wants to put their head in the sand, fine. It's just factually incorrect to say you're going on a quest for truth and then proceed to exclude an immensely, plausible position. If you really don't care about facts, you might as well just make up a worldview that doesn't entail nihilism, say you were "inspired", and call it a day.
"i) To begin with, I don't assume that the sequence in Gen 1 is strictly chronological. For instance, the relation between Day 1 and Day 4 seems to be a deliberate anachronism."
Okay fine. But is there anything in Genesis that can be read straightforwardly? If not, can it really be helpful for finding truth.
"ii) In principle, the fossil record could be a part of God initiating the story in medias res–just as historical movies begin at a certain point in the ongoing history of the world, but have an implicit backstory. "
I'm not certain what you're saying here, but I interpret this to mean that the living things that are purported to have been fossilized may have not actually existed; God only made it seem that way to provide back-story. Do you sense any irony when you call the quest for truth on atheism to be a bad joke, when you hypothesize God making things seem not the way they are on a grand scale? You might as well add some Cartesian demons to your ontology( not entirely dissimilar to what Plantinga did to explain away natural evil).
"Evidently, you fail to grasp the hard problem of consciousness. Likewise, you're evidently ignorant of empirical evidence for the independent existence of the soul (e.g. OBEs, NDEs, apparitions)."
I do grasp the hard problem of consciousness. When one looks at the brain, one doesn't see anything resembling a perception. If it weren't for our own conscious selves, there would seem to be no reason to believe that there is something "what its like to be a human being".
What you don't seem to understand is that trying to solve the problem by adding a new "substance", such as the soul, would make what we know about physics to be false at least some of the time. Unless the soul behaves exactly like physical entities, we should be able to see this indiscretion when the soul interacts with the rest of physical reality. But we haven't. Thus, it seems that the soul has been empirically falsified. My general point, however, is that the existence of the soul can be settled by observation just like many other truth claims; claims you would rather look at the Bible to find answers for.
"Which contradicts your contention that the Bible makes claims which cross into scientific territory. Can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is too vague to clearly teach anything or else Bible teaching is clearly wrong."
We're blending multiple issues here. Obviously, some parts are explicit (like the Ten Commandments). My main point, however, is that the great bulk of the Bible is vague when it comes to making verifiable claims. What I had in mind is the Book of Revelations. But take for example, the claim we are made in the image and likeness of God. What does this mean? Descartes believed that this meant we had free will. I read it to mean we have a soul. This could be clearer. My other point, however, is that the relatively few times that the Bible does make fairly clear scientific claims, like in Genesis, it often turns out to be wrong. And when this happens, people like yourself claim that the Bible really isn't making a clear scientific claim, and a fog is placed around the passages.
"Okay fine. But is there anything in Genesis that can be read straightforwardly? If not, can it really be helpful for finding truth."
DeleteJust because something can't "be read straightforwardly" doesn't mean it can't "be helpful for finding truth." For example, Kafka isn't exactly a "straightforward" read. But his literature can be "helpful for finding truth" such as his book Metamorphosis in illustrating the sort of alienation and isolation many European Jews of his era felt.
"Do you sense any irony when you call the quest for truth on atheism to be a bad joke, when you hypothesize God making things seem not the way they are on a grand scale?"
Neo-Darwinism "mak[es] things seem not the way they are on a grand scale." Yet I doubt you think neo-Darwinism isn't true.
"You might as well add some Cartesian demons to your ontology( not entirely dissimilar to what Plantinga did to explain away natural evil)."
It seems to me you're substituting philosophical buzzwords like "Cartesian demons," "ontology," and "natural evil" (as well as name-dropping) for philosophical thinking and reasoning. It seems to me you're attempting to impress with mere words rather than impress with actual depth of analysis.
"I do grasp the hard problem of consciousness. When one looks at the brain, one doesn't see anything resembling a perception. If it weren't for our own conscious selves, there would seem to be no reason to believe that there is something 'what its like to be a human being'."
At best, all you've done is half regurgitate the definition of what "the hard problem of consciousness" is. What would be a bit more impressive is if you actually could understand its implications given your worldview.
"What you don't seem to understand is that trying to solve the problem by adding a new 'substance', such as the soul, would make what we know about physics to be false at least some of the time."
Again, you're at best just half regurgitating what someone else has already said - i.e. Sean Carroll. But why should we grant Carroll's premises?
"Unless the soul behaves exactly like physical entities, we should be able to see this indiscretion when the soul interacts with the rest of physical reality. But we haven't. Thus, it seems that the soul has been empirically falsified."
Again, this is just your watered-down summary of Carroll.
Anyway, why should a substance dualist, for example, accept Carroll's definition of the soul largely in terms of physical states or processes? I imagine it would in fact be a point of contention!
"My general point, however, is that the existence of the soul can be settled by observation"
Actually, this is an assertion without an argument.
"claims you would rather look at the Bible to find answers for."
Are you deficient in basic reading comprehension? Here's what Steve said: "Evidently, you fail to grasp the hard problem of consciousness. Likewise, you're evidently ignorant of empirical evidence for the independent existence of the soul (e.g. OBEs, NDEs, apparitions)." These are hardly "look[ing] at the Bible to find answers for."
"My main point, however, is that the great bulk of the Bible is vague when it comes to making verifiable claims."
DeleteIronically, your main point is itself quite vague.
Besides, what makes you think it's the Bible which is "vague" rather than it's you who lacks understanding of what the Bible teaches?
"What I had in mind is the Book of Revelations."
I've already corrected you on the misspelling.
"But take for example, the claim we are made in the image and likeness of God. What does this mean? Descartes believed that this meant we had free will. I read it to mean we have a soul. This could be clearer."
If you're honestly trying to understand the Bible, then it'd help improve your comprehension if you read Genesis side-by-side with a few good commentaries. See here for some recommendations.
"My other point, however, is that the relatively few times that the Bible does make fairly clear scientific claims, like in Genesis, it often turns out to be wrong."
Why don't you give a specific example or two of where you think "the Bible does make fairly clear scientific claims, like in Genesis, it often turns out to be wrong"?
"And when this happens, people like yourself claim that the Bible really isn't making a clear scientific claim, and a fog is placed around the passages."
Your arguments lack specific examples. In that respect, your arguments are quite foggy.
"What you don't seem to understand is that trying to solve the problem by adding a new 'substance', such as the soul, would make what we know about physics to be false at least some of the time. Unless the soul behaves exactly like physical entities, we should be able to see this indiscretion when the soul interacts with the rest of physical reality. But we haven't. Thus, it seems that the soul has been empirically falsified. My general point, however, is that the existence of the soul can be settled by observation."
DeleteThere are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics. But the three most widely cited are probably the Copenhagen interpretation, the many worlds interpretation, and Einstein's neo-realism. All three are perfectly consistent with current observations.
Moreover, it's arguable based on, say, the many worlds interpretation of QM that, once a measurement is made by an observer, the universe splits, in turn and by degrees generating an infinite number of universes, and as such there exists a universe in which any event which could occur has occurred. This includes a universe in which the soul exists.
Cont.
ReplyDeleteAs for nihilism, I assumed that you meant the denial of intrinsic value because you mentioned the lack of intrinsic value when writing about nihilism before. What Crosby has to say is interesting though it does sound absurd that nihilistic philosophy has destroyed civilizations. That being said your expounded definition of nihilism and Crosby's study doesn't undermine anything I said. My point holds as long as moral realism depends on the intrinsic goodness/ or evil of things such as love/kindness/hatred etc... I'm arguing that that intrinsic value is not possible (theism/atheism notwithstanding). The point is that if properties had intrinsic moral worth, we would be able to come to know this analytically. That is, if goodness is intrinsic to a property, then it should be found in its concept. However, this is not the case for anything. I don't know what you meant by the correlatives comment.
"So you're telling me that science has no intrinsic truth value? If so, why do you make science a standard of comparison?"
This is clearly not what I meant. What I meant is that you don't need to view truth itself to have intrinsic moral value, to engage in the scientific enterprise. All that's necessary is that you yourself value the truth.
brownmamba:
Delete"If one wants to put their head in the sand, fine."
You disregard the specifics of my response. I said "What's *wrong* with putting one's head in the sand if moral and existential nihilism supply the frame of reference?"
So you duck the real force of the question.
"It's just factually incorrect to say you're going on a quest for truth…"
I never said that. I was responding to Licona's notion that people should pursue the truth "no matter where it leads."
"…and then proceed to exclude an immensely, plausible position."
Atheism is immensely plausible to an atheist. Nothing like a circular appeal.
"If you really don't care about facts…"
You still don't get it. I understand. Your position is too threatened if you allow the point to sink in. The irony is that Christians like me take atheism more seriously than atheists like you. You keep avoiding the dilemma that your position generates. Atheism is self-defeating. To repeat:
"In his study of meaninglessness, Donald Crosby writes that the source of modern nihilism paradoxically stems from a commitment to honest intellectual openness. 'Once set in motion, the process of questioning could come to but one end, the erosion of conviction and certitude and collapse into despair.'"
"Okay fine. But is there anything in Genesis that can be read straightforwardly?"
I arrive at my interoperation (i.e. the anachronism of Day 4) by a straightforward reading of the text. Just comparing Day 1 with Day 4.
"Do you sense any irony when you call the quest for truth on atheism to be a bad joke, when you hypothesize God making things seem not the way they are on a grand scale?"
Your comparison is fatally equivocal. On the one hand, atheism is a "bad joke" because it renders good and evil nebulous; values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures; life has no intrinsic meaning or value.
Compare that to the possibility that the cosmos is, in some measure, a stage set, like a movie set in the Old West. The movie set has period architecture, dated newspapers, stage props. That fictional setting supplies the backdrop for the action. Real action. Real actors. Why is it acceptable for directors to do this, but the idea that God would do it is somehow unacceptable?
I'm not saying that's the case. But there's nothing wrong with that in principle. And if it were true, it would be empirically indistinguishable from a real past.
Cont. "What you don't seem to understand is that trying to solve the problem by adding a new "substance", such as the soul, would make what we know about physics to be false at least some of the time. Unless the soul behaves exactly like physical entities, we should be able to see this indiscretion when the soul interacts with the rest of physical reality. But we haven't. Thus, it seems that the soul has been empirically falsified."
DeleteIf I'm receiving garbled messages on my cellphone, that could either be because my cellphone is malfunctioning or because there's a problem at the source–the cell site. Which end is the source of the problem: the receiver or the transmitter? The cellphone or the cell tower?
"My general point, however, is that the existence of the soul can be settled by observation just like many other truth claims; claims you would rather look at the Bible to find answers for."
If the soul exists, it is not an empirical entity, so it can't be directly observed. Anymore than we can normally observe someone at the other end of the receiver when we answer the phone.
That does, however, allow for the possibility of observable effects, viz. veridical OBEs, NDEs, ESP, apparitions.
"My main point, however, is that the great bulk of the Bible is vague when it comes to making verifiable claims. What I had in mind is the Book of Revelations. "
"Prophecy is verifiable after the fact, but not in advance of the fact.
"But take for example, the claim we are made in the image and likeness of God. What does this mean?"
Try this:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/57/57-4/JETS_57-4_673-88_Ortlund.pdf
"My other point, however, is that the relatively few times that the Bible does make fairly clear scientific claims, like in Genesis, it often turns out to be wrong."
Begs the question.
"And when this happens, people like yourself claim that the Bible really isn't making a clear scientific claim, and a fog is placed around the passages."
That isn't what I claimed.
"I don't know what you meant by the correlatives comment."
Do moral concepts correspond to real events? Is it actually wrong to torture babies for fun. Or is that just a matter of how we define words? Stimulative definitions, viz. "married bachelor" is a contradiction in terms?
"What's *wrong* with putting one's head in the sand if moral and existential nihilism supply the frame of reference?"
DeleteIf someone values the truth to a great enough extent, then they shouldn't put their head in the sand. It'll be a fruitless exercise, since questions and doubts will continue to haunt them until they pursue the answers into the ground. Given that most people value the truth greatly, this is probably the prescription for a lot of people. However, for some people, I don't think they are doing anything unethical by putting their heads in the sand if they find some conclusions too destabilizing. My objection was not an ethical one, it was a factual one, to which you already responded. Crosby's study sounds interesting, but its in contrast to the nihilists that I'm familiar with that aren't/weren't in despiar (Alex Rosenberg, John Leslie Mackie). So I don't think all out truth seeking necessarily leads to despair, even if the conclusion is nihilism.
"Atheism is immensely plausible to an atheist. Nothing like a circular appeal."
I could say the same thing about Christianity. Evidently, there are a lot plausible scenarious on Christianity (if your're a Christian), like your suggestion that we're in the middle of some cosmic movie. If it weren't for your Christian belief, would there be any reason to disbelief that the past goes back as far as carbon dating, cosmology, ext says it does? .
There are several issues with your suggestion besides the prima facie absurdity, even for Christians. A director isn't being deceptive when he provides the back-story, because we all know its' a movie. In the case of God, he clearly is because we would've been given every reason to believe in the past, but in reality it was not the case. Secondly, the back-story is provided by a director so that the story in the movie we see makes sense. I don't see why a distant past is necessary for God to tell his "story". Especially since it contradicts the other story of creation he revealed in the Bible.
"If I'm receiving garbled messages on my cellphone, that could either be because my cellphone is malfunctioning or because there's a problem at the source–the cell site. Which end is the source of the problem: the receiver or the transmitter? The cellphone or the cell tower?"
I think this is a rather stock response that doesn't really address what I was saying. My point was that even though the soul itself is not observable, we should be able to observe its effects. Allow an analogy that may seem strange: Take the hypothesis that there is a giant who lives in Times Square. Furthermore, this hypothesis states that the giant interacts with his surroundings( he enjoys playing with new years ball, for instance). If this hypothesis were true, shouldn't we see the effects of this giant? But lets say we don't. What happens to this hypothesis? It seems to have been empirically falsified. The argument from people like Sean Carroll contends that we are in the same position for the hypothesis of the soul.
"the nihilists that I'm familiar with that aren't/weren't in despiar (Alex Rosenberg, John Leslie Mackie). So I don't think all out truth seeking necessarily leads to despair, even if the conclusion is nihilism."
DeleteJust because a nihilist (as a person) isn't in despair doesn't necessarily mean nihilism (as a system of belief) isn't despairing. You're confusing the two.
"If it weren't for your Christian belief, would there be any reason to disbelief [sic] that the past goes back as far as carbon dating, cosmology, ext [sic] says it does?"
What makes you think a non-Christian couldn't question the accuracy of carbon dating, cosmology, etc.? There are many non-Christians who do.
In fact, if I were an atheist, and I subscribed to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, then it's possible there exists a universe which appears older than it actually is, despite carbon dating, etc.
"A director isn't being deceptive when he provides the back-story, because we all know its' a movie. In the case of God, he clearly is because we would've been given every reason to believe in the past, but in reality it was not the case."
There are many things which could be classified as "deceptive." Some people appear older than they actually are. Sometimes the harvest moon appears bigger nearer the horizon than higher up in the sky. Sometimes we witness starlight from stars which died millennia ago. These are all in a sense "deceptions," but what's wrong with these sorts of "deceptions"?
"Secondly, the back-story is provided by a director so that the story in the movie we see makes sense. I don't see why a distant past is necessary for God to tell his 'story'. Especially since it contradicts the other story of creation he revealed in the Bible."
You keep alleging there are contradictions in the Bible, but you keep failing to provide any specific examples.
"I think this is a rather stock response that doesn't really address what I was saying. My point was that even though the soul itself is not observable, we should be able to observe its effects."
You evidently passed over Steve's response to you. Here's what he said: "If the soul exists, it is not an empirical entity, so it can't be directly observed. Anymore than we can normally observe someone at the other end of the receiver when we answer the phone. That does, however, allow for the possibility of observable effects, viz. veridical OBEs, NDEs, ESP, apparitions."
"The argument from people like Sean Carroll contends that we are in the same position for the hypothesis of the soul."
It doesn't sound like you fully understand Carroll's point. That may constitute part of what he claims, but he claims a fair bit more. It's a bit ironic you don't grasp everything Carroll claims including what's read between the lines since you're the one who originally cited his post.
"Given that most people value the truth greatly, this is probably the prescription for a lot of people."
DeleteGiven naturalistic materialism what is "truth"? Is "truth" measurable and observable? Shouldn't we be able to observe the effects of "truth" if it actually, empirically existed?
"Secondly, the back-story is provided by a director so that the story in the movie we see makes sense. I don't see why a distant past is necessary for God to tell his 'story'."
DeleteThis is like saying, I don't see why a history of the United States has to begin with Columbus (c. 1492). Sure, I suppose we could begin a history of the United States at an earlier or later period of time. There could be advantages and/or disadvantages to starting with the pre-Columbian period or starting with the American Revolution. But since it's the historian writing the historical book, then it's his or her choice to begin where he or she has begun.
"Especially since it contradicts the other story of creation he revealed in the Bible."
To elaborate on my previous point, are you referring to Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2? If so, then what specifically do you find contradictory?
brownmamba:
Delete"If someone values the truth to a great enough extent, then they shouldn't put their head in the sand."
i) You keep missing the point. The question is why, from a secular standpoint (i.e. moral and existential nihilism), people ought to value the truth.
ii) Furthermore, naturalism conduces to alethic relativism. If we think with our brains, and our brains are the byproduct of an unintelligent process (i.e. naturalistic evolution), then there's no reason to suppose our brains are reliable truth-detectors. Would you buy a computer that was the byproduct of an unintelligent process? Would you rely on a computer that was the byproduct of an unintelligent process? Would you fly a plane with computers like that?
"So I don't think all out truth seeking necessarily leads to despair, even if the conclusion is nihilism."
Because they lack the courage of their convictions.
"If it weren't for your Christian belief, would there be any reason to disbelief that the past goes back as far as carbon dating, cosmology, ext says it does? There are several issues with your suggestion besides the prima facie absurdity, even for Christians."
How is that any more "absurd" than cosmologists who speculate that, for all we know, the universe might be a giant hologram?
"A director isn't being deceptive when he provides the back-story, because we all know its' a movie."
When children watch movies, do they know the difference between fantasy and reality? Are Disney films "deceptive"?
"In the case of God, he clearly is because we would've been given every reason to believe in the past, but in reality it was not the case."
Your argument is circular. That only follows on the naive assumption that appearance and reality are conterminous. But physics routinely drives a wedge between appearance and reality.
I don't deny the reality of the past. I deny the reliability of unlimited induction from the present to the past. That presumes that the universe is composed of machines within machines within machines. Even human beings are machines. All agency is mechanical. Hence, everything operates with mechanical uniformity. The clockwork universe.
That I reject. Not all causes are physical causes. There are causes within the universe involving mental agency. Hence, we can't extrapolate from the present to the past in a linear, uninterrupted continuum. Mental agency isn't an automated process. It allows for rational discretion.
The question is not the reality of the past, but when the past begins. Where does the preamble end and the action begin?
If creation ex nihilo is true, then there's a sense in which the world is a story in progress from the first moment of the universe.
"Secondly, the back-story is provided by a director so that the story in the movie we see makes sense. I don't see why a distant past is necessary for God to tell his 'story'."
Nature is cyclical. Creating a cyclical process will break into the process at some arbitrary starting-point. Where do you begin a circle? It could be anywhere. Once the cyclical process is in place, you can mentally rewind it.
"Especially since it contradicts the other story of creation he revealed in the Bible."
What story does it contradict?
"Take the hypothesis that there is a giant who lives in Times Square."
That's an unoriginal variation on Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in My Garage," which is, in turn, an unoriginal variation on Anthony Flew's invisible gardener.
But if, as even many secular philosophers concede, the mind has properties that are irreducible to a physical state, then the brain is inadequate to explain the effects.
Moreover, as I've noted twice before, there's corroborative for the ontological independence of the soul.
"This is clearly not what I meant. What I meant is that you don't need to view truth itself to have intrinsic moral value, to engage in the scientific enterprise. All that's necessary is that you yourself value the truth."
ReplyDeleteSounds awfully subjective to ground such things as truth and morality in a highly individualized concept of self. Again I ask why such things matter or have any significance at all given a naturalistic materialist universe.
Earlier Steve wrote, "Likewise, you're evidently ignorant of empirical evidence for the independent existence of the soul (e.g. OBEs, NDEs, apparitions)."
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting book written in the 19th century that collected many stories of the paranormal including those of ghosts, bilocation, predictive dreams etc. It's a NON-Christian book that's religious enough to quote the Bible but gives a different interpretation of the phenomena. The name of the book is The Night Side of Nature by Catherine Crowe. There are various editions at archive.org and google books (e.g. here). I'm halfway through it and the stories are really interesting. I started reading it because John L. Nevius recommended it in his book Demon Possession and Allied Themes. He too qualified it as a Non-Christian work, but nevertheless recommended it because of the amazing stories recorded in it.
If even 1/8th of the stories in the book are credible, it would strongly disconfirm standard versions of materialism. I discovered Nevius' book from a previous post by Steve.
Of course there are more modern books on the paranormal which have greater documentation and empirical backing. Nevertheless, Crowe's book is interesting because of the numbers of stories.
DeleteHere's the link to the edition of The Night Side of Nature that I've been reading. It's in color and it's a good cleanly legible scan.
Deletehttps://archive.org/details/nightsideofnatur00crow
In physicalism, "truth" is simply whatever your brain tells you. A brain that's the incidental result of a mindless product.
ReplyDeleteConsider what the brain of someone on an acid-trip is telling him.
Exactly. Yet brownmamba insists on acting as if he/she thinks there's some sort of premium placed on "truth" for some unexplained, assumed, unargued for reason.
DeleteSomebody's been caught with their hand in the worldview cookie jar, whoopsie!
There's a lot I can respond to here, but I'm going to mainly focus on a couple general points and some key points Steve made. I appreciate some of you for providing links, but I'll explore them at a later time.
ReplyDeleteAs for the OBEs, I take them as seriously as you probably take accounts of alien abductions. The ones I am familiar with(admittedly not many), turned out to be largely discredited, such as the kid who inspired the best selling book and turned out to be a liar. Rigorous scientific observation is what I had in mind for empirical evidence.
As for the contradictions between the claims of the Bible and science, the specific example I had in mind was Genesis 1, where it is written (at least in my New American Bible for Catholics) that birds were created before land creatures. According to the consensus in evolutionary science, birds evolved from reptiles. Steve has already given his thoughts about the strict chronology of the passage.
"i) You keep missing the point. The question is why, from a secular standpoint (i.e. moral and existential nihilism), people ought to value the truth. "
If there's any reason to value the truth, it's because it fulfills ones' capacities as a rational creature. This reason would hold for both theism/atheism. My main point, however, is that the "intrinsic value" of truth is not what's important. As rational creatures, its the fact that we do value the truth that's important and all that is necessary to justify an attempt to seek it.
"i) Furthermore, naturalism conduces to alethic relativism. If we think with our brains, and our brains are the byproduct of an unintelligent process (i.e. naturalistic evolution), then there's no reason to suppose our brains are reliable truth-detectors."
I think that this point is confused. Our brains' existence may be the result of a mindless process, but brains themselves are not mindless. You may question the possibility of conscious awareness arising from Darwinian processes, but once you grant this possibility, how a creature could reliably know the truth is not difficult to see. If we understand "truth" to mean "what is the case", then the "the truth" is what molds and shapes the brain in the first place. Conscious awareness of "the truth" is empirical data/experience. The ability to make connections between concepts( which are abstractions of experience) , provides the ability grasp conceptual truth. Moreover, these conceptual truths aren't as profound as philosophers make them seem. It may be "metaphysically necessary" that a horse is a mammal, but this isn't some cosmic truth. Once one understands what a horse and mammal is (not difficult), the "truth" can be grasped. I don't see why a Darwinian creature couldn't know these trivialities.
Now, different creatures may have different kinds of experiences (such as a bat and a human). However, one kind of experience may have more predictive potential than another (leading to obvious survival benefits); thus we can see how some experiences are weeded out and don't become the status quo (such as the experiences that result from acid).
To the point about the man on the acid trip, is this not a problem for the theist as well? After all, his cognitive faculties were also shaped by God, only to be overpowered by some acid? The reason why he has false beliefs about his experience is because his phenomenon are private. This is the basis of the falseness of his beliefs (at least about his experience) on both theism and atheism. Where is the advantage?
"As for the OBEs, I take them as seriously as you probably take accounts of alien abductions. The ones I am familiar with(admittedly not many), turned out to be largely discredited, such as the kid who inspired the best selling book and turned out to be a liar. Rigorous scientific observation is what I had in mind for empirical evidence."
DeleteThere are scholars including physicians and scientists who make a credible case for NDEs, OBEs, ESP, and the like. This isn't to imply I wholeheartedly agree with what they argue. In fact, I would disagree with many of their interpretations. Nevertheless, we can at a minimum draw a distinction between the data and its interpretation, and focus on the raw data or evidence presented. For example, although I don't vouch for it, The Atlantic recently published an article on NDEs titled "The Science of Near-Death Experiences." At the least, I would think this suggests the evidence for NDEs isn't as easily dismissable as you may currently believe.
"As for the contradictions between the claims of the Bible and science, the specific example I had in mind was Genesis 1, where it is written (at least in my New American Bible for Catholics) that birds were created before land creatures. According to the consensus in evolutionary science, birds evolved from reptiles. Steve has already given his thoughts about the strict chronology of the passage."
Actually, even on neo-Darwinism, it's not true "birds evolved from reptiles." Rather, on neo-Darwinism's traditional phylogenetic tree, most modern birds descended from a particular lineage of now-extinct dinosaurs. There's a lot more that could be said about all this too, but I'll leave it alone for the time being.
More importantly, there is no such consensus in "evolutionary science." There's a mainstream view (i.e. neo-Darwinism), but there are likewise significant challenges to fundamental aspects of neo-Darwinism. And I'm not referring to the religious when I say this. Rather, I'm referring to secular scholars challenging neo-Darwinism.
For example, take natural genetic engineering (e.g. James Shapiro) which challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with random mutations and natural selection.
Or take facilitated variation (e.g. John Gerhart, Marc Kirschner) or evolutionary developmental biology (e.g. Sean Carroll, Rudolf Raff, Jeffrey Schwartz) which challenge neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with random mutations.
Or take self-organization (e.g. David Depew, Stuart Kauffman, Mark Newman, Bruce Webber) or neutral evolution (e.g. Michael Lynch, Arlin Stoltzfus) which challenge neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with natural selection.
Or take neo-Lamarckism (e.g. Eva Jablonka, Massimo Pigliucci) which challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with heredity.
Again, to my knowledge, these are all secular scholars, or at least they don't appear to have any religious ax to grind.
By the way, I thought I should add the following. If I'm not mistaken, the most common view on neo-Darwinism is modern birds descended from theropods (a subgroup of dinosaurs). But there have also been challenges to this view. For instance, if we look at their anatomy, and particularly their skeletal systems, the theropods seem to have a distinctive "lizard-like" pelvis rather than a "bird-like" one. Also, while theropods and birds each possess three digits on their forearms, theropods have digits numbers one to three, while birds have digits numbers two to four. There's likewise debate over the relation between the forelimbs and the hindlimbs of theropods in contrast to birds, which are at odds with one another. There are more differences in the skeletal systems of theropods and birds (e.g. significant differences in skull shapes and sizes housing respective brains), but these should suffice for now.
DeleteIf we move onto theropod vs. avian physiology, we could ask how birds which have a unique and intricate system for distributing air around their bodies to support their higher metabolism in flight could have evolved this unique and intricate system from theropods. Intermediary states from theropods to this avian physiological system would not seem to be viable. There are several other issues to deal with including the very issue of the evolution of flight from theropods to modern birds, which includes debates over whether creatures like the Archaeopteryx were (if we had to use modern classifications) more "bird" than "reptile" or "reptile" than "bird."
brownmamba:
Delete"As for the OBEs, I take them as seriously as you probably take accounts of alien abductions. The ones I am familiar with(admittedly not many), turned out to be largely discredited, such as the kid who inspired the best selling book and turned out to be a liar. Rigorous scientific observation is what I had in mind for empirical evidence."
i) I suspect many "alien abductees" are liars and publicity hounds. However, I think some "alien abductees" had a genuine encounter, but not with ETs.
ii) I take it that you haven't done any in-depth study of OBEs, NDEs, &c. Jason Engwer and I have posted a lot of material on that.
iii) I don't know what you mean by "rigorous scientific observation." Do you mean experimental evidence in contrast to anecdotal evidence?
What about studying animal behavior in the wild rather than the laboratory. Is that "unscientific" because it isn't "rigorous"? Or did you have some other distinction in mind? If field studies are scientific, anecdotal evidence for OBEs, NDEs, &c. can also be scientific.
iv) I'm also unclear on why "scientific" observation is the paradigm. Take oral history, based on eyewitness observers. That's not "scientific," but it's the basis for much historical knowledge.
"As rational creatures, its the fact that we do value the truth that's important and all that is necessary to justify an attempt to seek it."
You continually miss the point. If, say, the truth concerns a dire unavoidable consequence, then why should I "value" it. Knowing about it does me no good. I will be irreparably harmed, and there's nothing I can do to prevent it. There's no reason for my to value the truth in that context.
"I think that this point is confused. Our brains' existence may be the result of a mindless process, but brains themselves are not mindless."
Would you bet on racehorses by rolling dice to pick the winners? The reliability of the product is contingent on the reliability of the process.
"If we understand 'truth' to mean 'what is the case', then the "the truth" is what molds and shapes the brain in the first place."
i) By defining truth to mean "what is the case," you seem to be gesturing at a correspondence theory of truth. However, correspondence involves a relation (between two or more things). A natural process isn't true or false. It has no truth value.
Rather, a truth would be a true belief or true proposition about a natural process.
ii) In naturalistic evolution, it's not "the truth" that produces the brain, but unintelligent physical causes.
iii) A physical state lacks inherent meaning. For instance, an arrangement of rocks spelling S.O.S. is not intrinsically meaningful. Rather, it has extrinsic meaning. Meaning has been assigned to that pattern by a linguistic community.
Brain states don't refer to anything. Brain states aren't about anything.
"To the point about the man on the acid trip, is this not a problem for the theist as well?"
In atheism, the human brain is the ultimate frame of reference. There is no higher corrective.
iii) I don't know what you mean by "rigorous scientific observation." Do you mean experimental evidence in contrast to anecdotal evidence?
DeleteIn the context, I was referring to the possible evidence of the soul. Given that the soul is allegedly in the brain, the kind of observation that would be appropriate would be the same as for any other phenomenon taking place in the body. Controlled observations using the tools of neuroscience are what I had in mind. Field studies may be scientific, but aren't appropriate in this context.
"i) By defining truth to mean "what is the case," you seem to be gesturing at a correspondence theory of truth. However, correspondence involves a relation (between two or more things). A natural process isn't true or false.
"Rather, a truth would be a true belief or true proposition about a natural process."
"ii) In naturalistic evolution, it's not "the truth" that produces the brain, but unintelligent physical causes."
When I said the truth molds the brain, what I should have said is that "reality" molds the brain. If a creature becomes consciously aware of this reality, it isn't difficult to see how creatures with such brains come to true beliefs. (Given the explanation I gave previously). The analogy about the horse race is misleading: there's no connection between the outcomes of the race and the dice. However, there is a connection between the brain and reality.
Now what you're bringing up is the problem of intentionality. Notice, however, that there is a subtle difference between the kinds of questions you have asked. In the previous response, the question you were getting at was "how can we trust our beliefs/reason on atheism/naturalism?". In this response, you're really asking "how do beliefs even exist on atheism/naturalism, (given the problem of intentionality)?"
I think the problem of intentionality piggybacks on the hard problem of consciousness. Given that I don't think postulating the soul really does much to solve the hard problem, I'm not convinced that the problem of intentionality is insurmountable for naturalism (once you get consciousness, you get intentionality).
As for a truth being a true proposition, this sounds problematic if you deny the ontological reality of propositions. Do propositions actually exist as features of the world?. If not, what then happens to truth? I don't know what exactly what to make of this.
"In atheism, the human brain is the ultimate frame of reference. There is no higher corrective."
I would think the external reality would be the frame of reference on both atheism/theism
"Given that the soul is allegedly in the brain,"
DeleteNo one here ever agreed to this, I don't think. This would be a huge point of contention.
"the kind of observation that would be appropriate would be the same as for any other phenomenon taking place in the body."
Again, this begs the question.
"Controlled observations using the tools of neuroscience are what I had in mind."
What is it about "the tools of neuroscience" - by which I take it you mean CT scans, (f)MRIs, PET scans, and the like - that you think would necessarily tell us anything about the soul?
"Field studies may be scientific, but aren't appropriate in this context."
Why not?
brownmamba:
Delete"In the context, I was referring to the possible evidence of the soul. Given that the soul is allegedly in the brain…"
What makes you think that according to substance/Cartesian dualism, the soul is "in" the brain?
Rather, it's a case of the soul *using* the brain. And even in physical situations, an agent can have remote access or remote control (e.g. wireless transactions).
"…the kind of observation that would be appropriate would be the same as for any other phenomenon taking place in the body."
Which piggybacks on your false premise (see above).
"Controlled observations using the tools of neuroscience are what I had in mind. Field studies may be scientific, but aren't appropriate in this context."
If you have reported OBEs where an individual saw or heard things he couldn't perceive in his body, given where his body was at the time in relation to the observation, then that doesn't require "controlled observations using the tools of neuroscience."
Same thing with apparitions. If, say, a decedent appears to an acquaintance at the time of the decedent's death (i.e. the acquaintance wakes up and sees an apparition of the decedent), the acquaintance glances at the clock, goes back to sleep, then finds out the next day that the individual who appeared to him died the night before at the time on the clock, that doesn't require "controlled observations using the tools of neuroscience."
Likewise, a crisis apparition in which the decedent warns or informs an acquaintance about his situation or the situation of somebody he cares about. As it turns out, the warning (or information) was prescient. That doesn't require "controlled observations using the tools of neuroscience."
These would be examples of veridical OBEs and apparitions. Of course, they depend on testimonial evidence, and you can always deny the credibility of the witness. Since, however, most of our knowledge is dependent on testimonial evidence, that borders on global skepticism.
In any case, my immediate objective is not to document cases (although that material is available), but to describe types of cases. The kinds of examples that would constitute veridical evidence.
"When I said the truth molds the brain, what I should have said is that 'reality' molds the brain."
And the reality that produces the brain, given naturalistic evolution, consists of mindless physical causes and events.
"The analogy about the horse race is misleading: there's no connection between the outcomes of the race and the dice. However, there is a connection between the brain and reality."
There's a connection between spicy food and indigestion.
"Now what you're bringing up is the problem of intentionality. Notice, however, that there is a subtle difference between the kinds of questions you have asked."
That's because I'm tailing you. When you turn, I turn.
And you don't offer a counterargument to my examples.
"As for a truth being a true proposition, this sounds problematic if you deny the ontological reality of propositions. Do propositions actually exist as features of the world?. If not, what then happens to truth? I don't know what exactly what to make of this."
Propositions can be viewed as abstract objects. Of course, that runs counter to physicalism.
And in theism, God's true beliefs guarantee truth. Because his beliefs are timeless, the truths never pass out of existence.
"I would think the external reality would be the frame of reference on both atheism/theism."
In physicalism, reason is confined to the brain.
"Mental agency isn't an automated process. It allows for rational discretion".
ReplyDeleteJust curious. Does this imply an endorsement of libertarian free will?
"As rational creatures, its the fact that we do value the truth that's important and all that is necessary to justify an attempt to seek it."
ReplyDeleteOoh, I love this game!
"As rational creatures, its the fact that we do value rape that's important and all that is necessary to justify an attempt to seek it."
"As rational creatures, its the fact that we do value torturing babies that's important and all that is necessary to justify an attempt to seek it."
"As rational creatures, its the fact that we do value female genital mutilation that's important and all that is necessary to justify an attempt to seek it."
"As rational creatures, its the fact that we do value genocide that's important and all that is necessary to justify an attempt to seek it."
Okay, your turn!
"Actually, even on neo-Darwinism, it's not true "birds evolved from reptiles." Rather, on neo-Darwinism's traditional phylogenetic tree, most modern birds descended from a particular lineage of now-extinct dinosaurs."
ReplyDeleteEven so, this wouldn't save Genesis from being incorrect about birds being created before land animals.
"More importantly, there is no such consensus in "evolutionary science.""
I don't doubt there are diverse positions about certain specifics about the drivers of evolution, but major facts about the evolutionary tree, (such as whether dinosaurs lived with early humans) are as settled as they can be. This is the consensus of which I was referring.
As far as there not being a plausible evolutionary route from dinosaur to bird, I am admittedly not a biologist so I can't pretend to put up a rigorous defense of the details. However, I will say two things. Many phenomenon once thought to be problematic regarding their evolutionary development have come to be explained plausibly, such as the eye. Secondly, the transitional forms between theropods and birds are exactly were you'd expect them to be if evolution from the former to the later took place. Moreover, as you go from later to younger, the fossils gradually resemble more and more like modern birds and less and less like theropods. It's the trend and the fact that there is nothing out of place (such as something resembling an ostrich fossil placed millions of years before modern birds) that produces confidence in the evolutionary connection.
"Even so, this wouldn't save Genesis from being incorrect about birds being created before land animals."
DeleteI'm afraid you fail to grasp the point. If it's true neo-Darwinism is fundamentally if not fatally flawed, then this casts significant doubt on neo-Darwinism if not outright sinks it. If "evolution" is so wrong, then this implicates the standard evolutionary tree as well. In which case you can't necessarily even compare the Genesis chronology (if it is chronological) with evolutionary chronology in the first place.
By the way, I haven't so much as discussed how best to interpret Genesis, which would be entirely relevant to the debate here.
"I don't doubt there are diverse positions about certain specifics about the drivers of evolution,"
Actually, these aren't just "certain specifics about the drivers of evolution." These are fundamental to neo-Darwinism.
"but major facts about the evolutionary tree, (such as whether dinosaurs lived with early humans) are as settled as they can be."
If the fundamentals are wrong, then this significantly impacts the state of the evolutionary tree and, indeed, phylogenetics as a whole. So, no, these aren't "as settled as they can be."
"I am admittedly not a biologist so I can't pretend to put up a rigorous defense of the details."
If you can't rigorously defend the details, then you probably haven't really thought through the scientific issues. As such, how would you even be able to appreciate the arguments for (let alone against) "evolution"? At best, you're taking evolution to be true on expert authority, but what happens when the expert authorities themselves disagree with one another (as I pointed out in my previous comment)?
"Many phenomenon [sic] once thought to be problematic regarding their evolutionary development have come to be explained plausibly, such as the eye."
Of course, this cuts both ways. Many phenomena once thought to be problematic regarding their evolutionary development have only become increasingly implausible on evolutionary theory - and yes, I could say, such as the eye.
"Secondly, the transitional forms between theropods and birds are exactly were [sic] you'd expect them to be if evolution from the former to the later [sic] took place."
This is just an assertion without an argument. Where precisely would you "expect" them to be, given neo-Darwinism?
Plus, what I wrote in part challenges this. Not sure if you simply passed over what I wrote or failed to understand what I wrote.
"Moreover, as you go from later to younger, the fossils gradually resemble more and more like modern birds and less and less like theropods. It's the trend and the fact that there is nothing out of place (such as something resembling an ostrich fossil placed millions of years before modern birds) that produces confidence in the evolutionary connection."
Sorry, but "resemble" is very vague if not amateur-ish. There are many organisms which "resemble" other organisms, but they don't share a direct common ancestor(s). Some placentals "resemble" some marsupials across at least some if not much of their (purported) evolutionary developmental stages, yet according to evolutionists they're not directly related to one another.
"Secondly, the transitional forms between theropods and birds are exactly were [sic] you'd expect them to be if evolution from the former to the later [sic] took place."
DeleteWhich specific "transitional forms" are you referring to?
"Moreover, as you go from later to younger, the fossils gradually resemble more and more like modern birds and less and less like theropods."
So you're arguing modern birds are descended from theropods because fossils are transitioning from theropods to modern birds? If so, this is a blatantly circular argument.
Also, this doesn't address my previous points (e.g. contrasts in their respective physiologies).