Is Atheistic Naturalism Preferable to Theistic Contributions to Science?
In considering the issue of science and faith, the atheistic community has, in general, argued vociferously that science sits solely within the realm of the atheist and therefore has absolutely no place in the theistic realm of faith and non-empirical ideologies. Indeed, today the question of Intelligent Design, an attempt to avoid localizing science to any particular religious tradition or faith movement but rather to act within the realms of science to show the plausibility of creation over and against atheistic evolution, is hotly debated. Many atheists refuse to even engage Intelligent Design advocates because they believe that doing so would open the door for all kinds of silliness, irrationality, Scientology and other Buck Rogers-style religions. To even debate the issue, many atheists claim, would be to open the platform for craziness that has no place in the public square of academia.
As I ponder such claims, however, numerous questions come to mind as to not only the truthfulness of such atheistic claims but also the moral force (or lack thereof) driving such attempts as these. Does the atheist truly hold the realm of science unequivocally? Do faith and non-empirical beliefs truly have absolutely no place in the fields of science? Does debating advocates of particular ideologies such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism truly open the door for Xenu's Galactic Confederation of L Ron Hubbard? I assert that such claims by the atheist are not only false and unprovable, but are also a smoke screen for the utter failure of the atheistic belief system and an attempt to silence the opposition simply because as long as the followers of such incorrect ideologies are not allowed to think for themselves or even hear the other side, they are made gullible and left ignorant enough to follow, without question, the iron fisted proclamations of the atheistic elite and the ingenuity of their man made religion, hidden under the guise of "objective science."
To begin, it is simply false, and obviously so, that science is exclusively in the realm of the atheist. This claim alone, so popular and thrown about so easily by many atheists today, is something that raises serious questions as to the moral framework of those promoting it. For someone to have a Ph.D, or even a MS or BS in any field of scientific inquiry, they will have taken at least one class on the history of science. This means that anyone at the level of public science advocacy knows, at least basically, the history of their belief, which further means they know where many main branches of science have originated. Yet still, it is claimed that atheism alone rules the realm of science unequivocally against any type of theism or faith-based belief. What does the historical evidence have to say about it?
Here is a simple list of some of popular and/or heavily influential scientists of the past, all of which were theistic in their ideologies:
- Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) - Some of the earliest work in physics and biology
- John Philoponus (late 6th century) - Christian critic of Aristotle. Aristotle did, while bringing much solid science to a very non-scientific world, still employ a good deal of nonsense in his studies and Philoponus attempted to correct him.
- Hugh of St. Victor (c. 1096-1141) "Theologian of Science"
- Dietrich von Frieberg (c. 1250 - 1310) Priest who explained the Rainbow through scientific inquiry
- Nicole Oresme (c. 1320 -1382) Inventor of Graphing Techniques
- Georgias Agricola (1494- 1555) Founder of Metallurgy, Roman Catholic who died sadly desiring the reconciliation of the Protestant and Romanist faiths.
- Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) The so-called scientific method goes back to a man who didn't think science could take place apart from God's existence.
- Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630) Discovered the Laws of Planetary Motion
- Johannes Baptists van Helmont (1579 - 1644) Founder of Pneumatic Chemistry and Chemical Physiology
- Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662) Mathematician, physicist, and Catholic philosopher
- Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691) Founder of Modern Chemisty
- Niels Steno (1638 - 1686) Founder of Geology
- Carolus Linnaeus (1707 -1778) Contributed much to the genus and species classifications that we know and understand today
- Michael Faraday (1791 - 1867) Presbyterian preacher and major contributor to electrical research
- Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806 - 1873) Nicknamed Pathfinder of the Seas, he revolutionized sea travel by studying and discovering the currents of the seas after reading certain passages out of the Psalms
- Asa Gray (11810 - 1888) Famous Botanist
- George Boole (1815 - 1864) Ever wonder where boolean logic came from.... yes, that's correct, from a, wait for it..... minister! So intent on becoming a minister he lived a very impoverished life to save up for his training, and began teaching math at a young age.
- James Prescott Joule (1818 - 1889) Anyone even basically familiar with electricity knows Joule's Law. Sadly, though, thanks to deceptive atheists, few know of his religious faith and motivation by his faith to study the orderly world.
- William Thomson (aka Lord Kelvin) (1824 - 1907) While we learn about his great contributions to thermodynamics and classification of temperature named after him we, thanks to those great moral atheists, are never taught that he used to recite Scripture from memory before his university lectures.
- Isaac Newton (1643 - 1727) Certainly not orthodox in his theology from a Christian perspective (probably a socinian, though most likely an anti-trinitarian at best)
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." - Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media
The list could go on quite a ways, but I believe the point has been made. How is it, O great atheist, that to even think that science is of the realm of the theist is such anathema when in fact the very footsteps every scientist follows in today are of a theist of some sort? Why is it that, when integrity and honesty are the virtues to be sought in proper scientific endeavor (or all endeavors, for that matter), so few atheists are honest enough to deal with the historical fact of the positive influence of theism in science? What possible case could the atheist continue to make in this area? The answer, sadly, is pretty obvious. As stated above, it is true that if such indicative states of affairs were presented to the public, the atheist would lose his ability to stomp his feet and dogmatically declare that science excludes faith and that religion has no place in such inquiry. Sad, but when a despotistic regime is in control of the academy, we are to expect no less.
But not only is it the case that history, so hidden and swept under the rug by the atheist, opposes the atheist agenda in science today, but science itself also clearly denies such an agenda. I am convinced that, as Jesus replied to the Pharisees who demanded He silence his disciples, "I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out” (Luke 19:40), that if given a voice, science itself would cry out against such a morally and epistemically reprehensible agenda, for the creation itself knows its creator. It is the suppression of God in the hearts of the wicked that deny that “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1).
So then what of science itself? Can it truly act consistently within the alleged empirical constraints of empiricism? I suggest that it certainly cannot. Consider this list of necessarily assumed and scientifically unargued for presuppositions that science can neither prove nor operate in the absence of:
1. The uniformity of nature
2. The veridicality of induction
3. The existence of a world independent of our minds
4. The proper function of our cognitive faculties
5. The ability of our cognitive faculties to properly and truthfully apprehend the mind-independent world
6. The laws of logic
7. The minds ability to properly and truthfully access the raw data of the mind-independent world
8. The existence of values such as truth
9. The superiority of values such as truth over falsehood in the hopes of accurate reports by scientists in their respective fields
Are any of these presuppositions proven by science? Are they acquired by science? Are they even the conclusion of science? The problem for the atheist who believes that science alone is the only true and proper realm of veridical discourse falls victim to the self-exception fallacy. Just as the epistemic relativist claims that “all truth is relative” all the while assuming that the statement “all truth is relative” is itself the one exception and thus not a relativistic statement, the atheist advocate of scientism states “science is the only accurate source for truth” all the while assuming that the statement “science is the only accurate source for truth” is the one exception to truth statements. The fact of the matter is that science cannot even get off the ground without certain assumptions that are non-empirical necessities. How does the atheistic scientist prove induction? How does the atheist prove the proper function of cognitive faculties? How does the naturalist warrant the existence of a mind independent world, let alone our ability to properly and accurately apprehend it? Even more so, how would he even begin such an endeavor? Certainly he cannot use the scientific method since induction is of course assumed in such, so what route would he take? Is induction tasted, smelled, heard, felt, or seen? Where are the scientific reports proving such?
The world is uniform and gravity doesn’t suddenly reverse or increase, our minds don’t suddenly stop providing us externally apprehended data (apart from certain disorders, etc. that aren’t relevant to our discussion), our cognitive faculties don’t take breaks from proper function (again, apart from certain disorders, etc.). We in fact need to assume a very orderly universe where laws and constants remain consistent with only, at best, minor exceptions, but note that this fact cannot be proven by science, only assumed by it. For the atheist, these are in fact articles of faith, not empirical conclusions. Does this fact seem to set science solely in the realm of the atheist? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Furthermore, let’s think about the theories of the atheist in regards to his naturalistic assumption of the origins of life. The atheist needs to go beyond the above stated presuppositions and assume a few more non-empirical presuppositions that simply cannot be proven by the scientific method (or scientific “methods” depending on one’s philosophy of science).
1. Either a) the world is eternal and always existed and the Big Bang was one of many such events (oscillating universe model), b) there are many worlds/universes out there and the interaction of such worlds/universes cause Big Bang style events in bringing about new worlds (multiple universe or multiverse theories), or c) the universe sprang into existence out of nothing via the Big Bang.
2. Life arose from non-life (contra the law of biogenesis)
3. Contra the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, matter organized itself apart from intelligence and developed into incredibly complex systems over years of “beneficial” mutations despite the fact that most mutations are harmful and fatal.
4. Non-sentient matter became sentient
Any honest scientist is going to have to admit that the above presuppositions are not empirically derived conclusions, but are articles of, wait for it…. faith. While my atheist friends froth at the mouth when I dare to make the obvious known to them, the fact of the matter is that the atheist worldview goes far beyond the realm of the empirical in order for the atheists to substantiate (or at least attempt to) their theory.
Do we see matter become sentient today? Do we see matter organize into information today apart from intelligence? Do we see non-existence producing existence or other worlds produce new worlds? The fact of the matter (pun intended) is that we do not.
Let me here humor the atheist and comment on certain possible refutations of my position to far.
“Beau, it is obvious that complexity comes about apart from intelligence because salt crystals and vortexes form in our bathtubs when we drain the water!”
This is where (nod to Aristotle) virtue plays a role in our endeavors. I say this simply because any scientist worth his salt (yes, pun once again intended) knows clearly the differential between repetition and complexity, and thus we hope and expect that knowledge of the scientist to play a role in discourse such as this. While salt crystals and vortexes form repetition of minor instances of order, they do not go beyond that – mere repetitions of minor forms of order. Salt crystals are repetitions of a very basic structure completely incapable of providing stability for life and vortexes are mere repetitions of another very basic pattern of gravity, environment, and the nature of water. Consider even the “simplest” life form – a single celled bacterium. I suggest anyone unaware of this issue take a basic biology textbook and examine the depth of complexity required for a “basic” single celled organism to live. From metabolism to reproduction, the simplest amoeba requires and exhibits much more complexity than any salt crystal or bath tub vortex. Whilst there are indeed certain instances of minor repetition of simple structures in the world, the depth of order and complexity required for life to exist, let alone thrive, transcends the simple examples the atheist scientist holds so dearly.
Perhaps another attempted refutation of my position would be the claim that origins of existence, by necessity of being non-repeatable and non-empirical, are still scientific because they are the logical conclusion of empirical science.
This critique would end up being the most devastating for the atheist simply because it is (minus the faulty conclusion) exactly what the advocates of Intelligent Design are arguing! Notice that such a position has now denied (and rightly so) that science is limited to empirical research. It has opened the door to what should have been truly required from the beginning and for what has been the driving force for scientists all along who possessed scientific integrity and believed in a creator – that it is the logical conclusion of the evidence and where it points that should be sought in scientific inquiry (the Latin word, scientia, literally means "truth") - not some agenda driven strong arming of a worldview over and against the evidence as is simply the case today. The atheistic scientist cannot make this above stated possible refutation because in doing so he shatters his desperate attempt to hold on to a purely empirical methodology by now allowing for conclusions to that which cannot fit into their empirical-only realm of thinking! (Of course, it is sadly not unexpected to see special pleading taking place when agenda driven worldviews replace truth in permitting the indoctrination of students to replace what began as a very noble and honorable enterprise, alas.)
The question then becomes – what is the more logical conclusion to all the scientific data? Note that for the atheist the “logical” conclusion of complexity and information is nothing other than time + matter + chance. The great moral sacrifices of altruism and cultural revolutionaries opposing evil regimes, the incredible complexity of life, and the amazing ability of a mind to apprehend and assimilate mind-independent reality is reduced to merely time + matter + chance! Now remember, friends - I’m the one being accused of blind faith here!
Why is it that even given our greatest scientific accomplishments (which are indeed great, and I thank God for them, just as the atheist should), when earthquakes strike Haiti and terrorist attacks leaving people injured that people come out in droves (notice the moral praiseworthiness of such instances) to provide blood? Certainly it cannot be the case that something so simple as the very basic and early developed inner life force of the higher developed and complex organisms, blood, is too complex to have evaded even the greatest scientific minds of scientists today to create in a laboratory, can it? Since it merely evolved by non-rational, non-telic and non-sentient means (time + matter + chance) it certainly cannot defy the scientists ability to create in a laboratory, can it? Maybe if we add billions of years, the god called Chance, assisted by matter (though we dare not question matter’s origin) could bring about a complex entity such as this...?
Furthermore, why is it that our greatest creations in the realms of computers (or anything else for that matter) are, oddly enough, incapable of doing what the simplest single celled organism can do – reproduce? Surely we should be able to create a self-reproducing computer as reproduction, seen in the earliest example of “simple” life, is merely an instance of mindless thoughtless evolution necessary in full effect from the very beginning, right?
Perhaps some sparkling red wine, a handful of raw oysters and a little Barry White would assist with such an event...?
It is indeed obvious to anyone not already convinced hook, line and sinker of atheistic scientism and subsequently evolution that any serious thought concerning this issue precludes atheism from being true. But then again, as proven by majority of atheists today, you are not allowed to question or defy the Religion of Chance because you’ll only be excommunicated from their worship services if you do and so mocked, publicly and privately, and condemned as unworthy to even raise a voice (see the documentary Expelled with Ben Stein for one particular instance of how these folks are treated when not bowing down before the altar of the all-powerful Chance...) that, as is clearly the goal, others will not listen to you and the truth will not be permitted to grace the scene.
One final point – the atheist who believes that empirical science is the only realm of accurate and trustworthy apprehension of knowledge truncates the human life and ends up being quite inconsistent with him or herself. The most obvious and glaring example of this is the question of morality. It is understandable that atheists want to do everything in their power to avoid discussion of morality other than to make attacks against theists from the alleged problem of evil. Why is this so? Let’s take a pretty simple and sad example.
How would the atheistic scientist empirically solve this question – is it better to love and protect little babies or torture and kill them for fun?
Is there a scientific method capable of solving this? Is there a test tube large enough to answer this question? Is there a physical constant found in the world able to provide insight to this?
The answer, of course, is a resounding “no.” Science cannot tell us what the law written on our hearts clearly can. It is wrong to hurt and kill infants for fun and no law of the natural world draws us to that conclusion; it is the answer given to us by natural law in our bearing of the image of the sovereign and divine Creator. For the atheistic scientist who is consistent within his or her life, this fact overturns any attempt to necessitate and localize truth on purely empirical grounds. And for the atheistic scientist who admits that truth and knowledge exist outside of empirical science, then there is serious discussion that needs to take place concerning what the atheists are promoting and how he/she can reconcile this inconsistency, and the touting of the popular atheistic mantra, “science as the only viable source for truth!” seriously needs to be discarded. The fact of the matter is that most scientists go home to their wives and believe them when they say, “I love you,” without having to hook her up to some kind of truth electrodes to verify the veridicality or lack thereof of that statement. "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument" - James R. White, Alpha and Omega Ministries.
It is important to understand that science is indeed a valuable realm of truth and rational discourse but it is not the only one, and to limit all of reality merely to this realm, as many atheists clearly and sadly do today, is to truncate the human life; a morally reprehensible thing to do. Truth is not limited to the five senses, and there is no argument capable of presenting that view without appealing to non-sensory truth claims. Science should be properly focused on the immediate empirical facts of reality; no theist debates this, but that does not necessitate that it denies all other realms of truth-inquiry. Once science attempts to deviate from the immediate recording of empirical data (i.e. origins science) it cannot be twisted by the atheist to remain only in the realms of the presupposed agenda of atheists and then falsely presented as truth to others – it then needs to either incorporate theistic discussions or remain in the realm of a descriptive entity, not as a prescription of reality. Putting on a white cloak does not make a scientist a theologian, thus the promotion of the atheistic religion is shameful and deceitful when done in such a manner. I have no problem with one promoting his/her belief system. As is true for any Christian as well as non-Christians (and shame on those Christians who do in fact violate this imperative); promote your beliefs in the marketplace of ideas, but do so with truth, integrity, honor, consistency, and respect, and permit opposition to have its voice. To do otherwise is immoral. When atheists steps out of his or her area of expertise to dogmatize their agenda upon others at the expense of truth itself, they forfeit their right to lead anyone despite their intellectual capability in their respective field.
Now one may wonder why the atheist tries so desperately to hold onto the realm of science in opposition to such obvious problems with their pet theory. The answer seems pretty straight forward to anyone evaluating the evidence: for the atheist, scientific naturalism is the only game in town! Truth becomes irrelevant when an agenda is at stake. Even the desperate theories of Sir Frederick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, scientists at least honest enough to admit the mathematical failure of naturalistic origins of life ideologies, are so patently faith based as to make the junior high school student furrow his brow in confusion at the atheist mantra of “science is the only truth!” Just Google "Panspermia" and see for yourself.
In conclusion, the fact of the matter is that the atheist advocate of purely empirical scientism is morally insufficient in his or her claims and entrenched in a morass of falsehoods and faith based assumptions. Not only is he/she unable to present an accurate conception or description of history, but he/she is also incapable of taking off the blinding glasses of atheism and realizing that it takes a whole lot more faith to believe that the depth of complexity found in the world is seriously the product of non-telic non-rational causes than it does to believe that mind, rationality, complexity, existence, and morality is the cause of a rational and moral Creator. My hat goes off to the atheists – you win when it comes to faith. I just don’t have enough faith to believe in atheism. Let’s hope that someday the absurd bias of naturalism will be overturned by the virtues of truth and integrity amongst atheists created in the image of God and the dialectic discourse within science will once again be one of honor, truth and integrity.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Beau McKinley Boyd
"I just don’t have enough faith to believe in atheism."
ReplyDeleteAtheism = not believing in any gods.
"I just don’t have enough faith to believe in not believing in any gods."
Now do you understand how dumb it is to say "I just don’t have enough faith to believe in atheism."
A quote for you to think about:
If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that what conquers our ignorance is research, not giving up and attributing our ignorance to the miraculous work of a creator.
-- Jerry Coyne
Indeed, today the question of Intelligent Design, an attempt to avoid localizing science to any particular religious tradition or faith movement but rather to act within the realms of science to show the plausibility of creation over and against atheistic evolution, is hotly debated.
ReplyDeleteScientists don't debate intelligent design (also known as THE-MAGIC-MAN-DID-IT). They all agree it's childish nonsense. Even the most religious scientists agree that 'intelligent design supernatural magic' is a religious idea that does not belong in science. They know they can't say "Here a miracle occurred" to solve scientific problems.
Science is a philosophy of discovery, intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson
Beau: Thank you for your fine essay. God bless you.
ReplyDelete@ Pastor Bob+ Nordie
ReplyDeleteThank you, Sir, for your encouragement. It is appreciated. It is my joy and honor to serve my brothers and sisters to the best of my ability, Lord willing. Lord bless you, Sir.
Beau
@ Human Ape: Wow, I am honored to have received such a response from you, Sir. I seem to have really brought out the "beast" in you with my article. I appreciate the emotion involved. I am honored.
ReplyDeleteNow, let me help you out a little here as you don’t understand what exactly your worldview of atheism teaches. I hate to do this as correcting someone else about the nature of what they believe just seems to be a little strange to me, but hopefully I can help you avoid any future mistakes and help you develop a proper understanding of what you believe. You state:
"I just don’t have enough faith to believe in atheism.
Atheism = not believing in any gods.
I just don’t have enough faith to believe in not believing in any gods.
Now do you understand how dumb it is to say I just don’t have enough faith to believe in atheism."
Again, I feel really bad to have to do this to you, Sir, but I need to correct you in your definition. Atheism is a word that uses the Greek alpha negation of the word it is attached to, in this case theism. Just as muse means to think, amuse means to not think, and as Gnostic means to have knowledge, agnostic means to not have knowledge. Does that make sense? Now think about the word theism – it is a proposition stating that God exists, which is more than just an opinionated belief, but an indicative state of affairs (the existence of God). Of course belief on the part of the theist is necessary, but it’s not in the category of “I like vanilla ice cream” as mere opinion, but it’s belief in an objective state of affairs. Are you tracking with me so far, Sir? Let’s apply this to our word now. Atheism is a proposition that alpha negates the proposition of theism, hence it is the statement that God does not exist (again of course accompanied by belief, but not merely in that realm of opinion.)
The fact of the matter is that atheists run into the epistemic failure of having to prove that God or gods do not exist. This of course is a task few are willing to undertake, but I have to press you for consistency here, Sir. If you are an atheist you need to present and defend the proposition that God does not exist. Mere opinion does not suffice. Again, I'm sorry that I have to correct you concerning your own worldview, but such is the case sometimes, so no harm no foul.
This correction does, hopefully, help you understand why your "I just don’t have enough faith to believe in not believing in any gods" is pretty nonsensical. What your argument against me should say is: "I just do not have enough faith to believe in the non-existence of God." Do you understand, Sir? If I could, let me recommend any introduction of World Religions or Philosophy to help you understand some of these terms, as calling something "dumb" when you've failed to comprehend the basic meaning of your own worldview does end up making you look much more foolish than the one you are trying to correct, which I would like to help you avoid in future discourse. Trust me, Sir; you will be taken much more seriously when you know what you are talking about then when you do not.
Now, with that said, I must admit that I am a little concerned you haven't fully read the entirety of my article (or much of it at all) as you've ignored the arguments I've presented about the failure of atheism to be consistent with their practices and beliefs and just asserted the very thing I’ve criticized in my article without any attempt to address those arguments. Remember, us theists are the ones you want to make look “dumb” and “ignorant” so do your side the benefit of not falling into that yourself.
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I can jog your memory of my article and cut and paste something here that requires an athiest defense. Now, Human Ape, I don't want you to pull one of those atheist MAGIC-MAN-DID-IT replies. I want a true answer that doesn't appeal to faith or irrationality to prove your case, okay? It gets tiring hearing the "atheism of the gaps" views that my interlocutors run to when I ask these kinds of questions. Give me the naturalistic answer to why these premises are true for the atheist:
1. The uniformity of nature
2. The veridicality of induction
3. The existence of a world independent of our minds
4. The proper function of our cognitive faculties
5. The ability of our cognitive faculties to properly and truthfully apprehend the mind-independent world
6. The laws of logic
7. The minds ability to properly and truthfully access the raw data of the mind-independent world
8. The existence of values such as truth
9. The superiority of values such as truth over falsehood in the hopes of accurate reports by scientists in their respective fields
No appeals to magic or secrets, Sir, just straight honest answers. How does the atheist explain what only a transcendent God can provide the grounding for? I eagerly await your reply, Mr. Ape. I hope that you will be the first atheist I've interacted with capable of giving a consistent reply that maintains naturalism and explains the non-empirical presuppositions of science (you know, the reason the above mentioned scientists believed that science was possible?).
Now, again I hate to do this, but one more correction needs to be given. You state:
"They all agree it's childish nonsense. Even the most religious scientists agree that 'intelligent design supernatural magic' is a religious idea that does not belong in science."
Now I can't be too nice here, Sir, because you’ve really failed in grasping the most basic premises of this discussion. You do realize, Sir, that the entire ID movement consists of the "most religious scientists" that actually contend for the study of ID in the classrooms as valid science? Are you aware that the most religious scientist do not in fact do as you say but rather do exactly the opposite? You realize that even atheists get the fact that the ID movement contends for this, yes? Look, Mr. Ape, this is such a freshman level inaccuracy that I have to call you out here: to say otherwise means you are either being dishonest or haven't even tried to look at the most basic discussions in this field of what the ID movement stands for. Neither of those two options are acceptable for an individual engaging in this kind of interaction, so I need to call you out as an image bearer of the almighty God to seek at least a modicum of integrity and research in your comments. No one will take you serious when you say you believe in square circles, Sir, so in the future it would behoove you to have at least an elementary understanding of what you are arguing against. Remember, it’s the theists who are supposed to be the “ignorant” ones, so don’t turn against your own kind and show the evidence that the opposite is actually the case. That’s our job. =)
Cheers,
Beau McKinley Boyd
Let me just second some of your thoughts toward human ape, beau...
ReplyDeleteThe encyclopedia of Philosophy which is a standard reference work in the discipline of philosophy reads as follows: “According to the most usual definition an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God: that is that the sentence God exists expresses a false proposition.” In the field of epistemology everyone recognizes that there are three doxastic positions towards a proposition: affirmation, withholding affirmation or negation, and negation. In contemporary analytic philosophy you would be considered an agnostic because you neither affirm nor negate the proposition “God exists”. Now according, to some internet infidels and popular atheist that are not experts in the fields of an epistemology they may say that this is what atheism is but this is simply a mistake that only an epistemological layman would make.
All persons who affirm, withhold, or negate the proposition have to give evidence for their doxastic position. In other words: You have to give reason for thinking that all of theistic arguments are unclear and that the evidence for atheism is unclear. The burden is equally on both of us. Hence, as I said before atheism is entirely unreasonable because there are no good arguments for thinking that God does not exist.
RE: "claims by the atheist are not only false and unprovable, but are also a smoke screen for the utter failure of the atheistic belief system and an attempt to silence the opposition simply because as long as the followers of such incorrect ideologies are not allowed to think for themselves or even hear the other side, they are made gullible and left ignorant enough to follow, without question, the iron fisted proclamations of the atheistic elite and the ingenuity of their man made religion, hidden under the guise of "objective science."
ReplyDeleteAGREED: PSEUDO/NEO-SCIENCE under the GUISE of "Science" only, though ALL OF SCIENCE - COMPLETELY - points contrary to it - that is, CONTRADICTS IT.
The problem with Atheism is that it is religious in nature. That is what Atheists fail to see. It comes from the heart. Until Atheists realize this, ALL SCIENCE can stare at them in the face and shout "here I am! LOOK! the beautiful Creation of God!" - the rocks, human DNA, but they will close their eyes to ALL OBSERVABLE SCIENCE, close their ears to anything it takes TO JUSTIFY SIN. Rebellion of the heart.
The issue is SIN in the heart. This is what BLINDS people to Science. Their Atheist Religion at the core.
This will offend many, but there is no way to prove God because he is Spirit. we can only prove God's Creation. we see God's workmanship, the works of his hands CLEARLY ALL OVER :-). *BUT* NEITHER do we HAVE TO prove God's existence. HE HAS ALREADY MADE IT APPARENT. Romans 1.
JESUS DID NOT COMMAND CHRISTIANS TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OF HIS CREATION, NEITHER DID HE ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OF HIS CREATION. BIBLE ASSUMES IT - AND MOVES TO THE HEART - ROMANS 5, 3, JN 8 ;-).
you will notice for every good and SCIENTIFICAL FACT is another UNSCIENTIFICAL LIE and it never ends...so it is with the heart of man...he desires to, HE MUST, JUSTIFY HIMSELF - FIRST ACCUSE HMSELF, THEN EXCUSE HIMSELF - ALL WITH HIS TONGUE - SEE ROMANS 2.
...watch...after this post, you will see prophecy fulfilled before your very eyes as always - their thoughts accusing and excusing themselves before God - as Jesus said out of the abundance of the mouth their heart will speak - from the heart come blasphemies, deceitfulness, contentions etc.
ReplyDeleteROMANS 1+ MATTHEW 11:25-27 SPECIAL VS. NATURAL REVELATION.
GOD REVEALS HIMSELF NATURALLY TO EVERYONE - IN HIS CREATION - BUT THAT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THEM TO "SEE" OR "UNDERSTAND" SPIRITUAL TRUTHS SUCH AS SIN, ETC - YET, GOD IS COMPASSIONATE IN THAT HE ALSO REVEALS HIMSELF THROUGH SPECIAL REVELATION IN THE HEART. APART FROM THIS, WE ALL SAY "IN OUR HEART", LIKE THE "FOOL" SAID..."THERE IS NO GOD...PSALM 14/53.
Beau: Thank you, Anonymous, for your comments. Let me respond accordingly.
ReplyDelete“Anonymous said...
Haven't read the entire article, but I can only assume that you are basing this on a sampling of the atheist community.”
- BEAU: With all due respect, you’ve missed much of what I’ve argued for and ended up proving my claims, not refuting them. It is clear that you haven’t read the entirety of my article, but let me just suggest for future interactions on your part that you read all of that which you critique. Otherwise you give me more work to do than necessary in correcting you.
As to your initial questions:
" Does the atheist truly hold the realm of science unequivocally?"
No, of course not. Science is a methodology. I find that some religions clash with this methodology and that it can contradict some versions of Christianity (presuppositionalism, for instance), but at it's basic level,the scientific methodology can be used by either theists or atheists.
- BEAU: You then have some work to do in correcting those atheists (of whom, given your comments, you seem to be a part of) who argue as you do below in such a manner as to contend that science is merely in the realm, methodologically or otherwise, of the atheist. Not only does the history of science raise difficulties for your thoughts but the arguments I’ve presented, that you haven’t responded to other than to claim they are only “pragmatic” (more about that in a minute), do as well. What methodology clashes here, Sir/Ma’am? The methodology that contains the non-empirical presuppositions that I’ve argued are unsupported on an atheistic worldview? Presuppositionalism argues that only given the existence of God can we proceed with proper scientific inquiry. The atheist provides no grounding for this methodology, Anonymous. Saying there is a conflict is different than proving it, so until and unless you can do more than assert (such as explain how the atheist scientist gets off the ground given his mind, ability to apprehend the mind-independent world, and uniformity of nature are nothing more than non-telic random chance over time, of which truth is not the goal but survival is) my position stands.
"Does faith and non-empirical belief truly have absolutely no place in the fields of science? "
ReplyDeleteThis one is a little harder to answer - science is an epistemic practice as is 'faith'. So they seem to be at odds.
- BEAU: As I stated above, you should really read the entirety of an article you attempt to refute what it contains. My point in the article is that science, while a proper empirical endeavor does not rest solely in the realm of the empirical, and when the atheist introduces stories of origins that seem to come more from the Brothers Grimm than any realistic enterprise, we cry foul. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument, and if you want pure empiricism to rule science, you need to drop origins research of that which is non-repeatable and non-testable (please show me how you can test consciousness appearing from inanimate matter, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics being naturally overturned by random chance , and the big bang theory occurring without setting up a collider with “intelligently” fined tuned parameters and years of “intelligently” created systems, etc.)
The reason this is difficult is because your question seems to be loaded - you state 'within the fields of science'. Obviously there are assumptions that scientific theories must take in order to operate. These assumptions are generally justified pragmatically and not empirically.
- BEAU: So relabeling them as pragmatic means that the non-empirical necessities are therefore just ignored by the atheist? Sorry, Anonymous, but just sweeping your problems under the rug doesn’t make them go away. I will press you on this – if science in merely in the realm of the empirical (or methodology, whichever you prefer, it’s irrelevant for our discussion) than you have to explain how the atheistic worldview allows for such “pragmatic” necessities.
"Does debating advocates of particular ideologies such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism truly open the door for Xenu's Galactic Confederation of L Ron Hubbard?"
Maybe, maybe not. What it does do is open the door for the advocate of intelligent design to say 'look there is debate within science on this issue', when the reality is, within science, evolutionary theory is one of the strongest theories we have. It would be like a geocentrist arguing with a heliocentrist saying that because a scientist is engaging in a debate with geocentrists therefore their theory is a legitimate (in terms of both sides having equal evidence).
Which certainly not the case.
- BEAU: I’m curious how “evolutionare theory is one of the strongest theories we have” is compatible with you statement below, “science is not in the 'proof' business. Not much (not anything I can think of, anyway) is 'provable' by science”? If science is merely in the business of falsification, how is it that non-repeatable theories such as stated above are not falsified? How is that we cannot prove nor have ever seen (no a priori nor a posteriori reason) consciousness develop from non-consciousness, incredible complexity develop in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the most basic organisms suddenly appearing able to self reproduce and possessing metabolism)? This is exactly why I write this article, Anonymous, because evolution is, truly, a fairytale for adults that remains in the scientific realm because it is the only game in town for the atheist. He has no choice but to make cases of special pleading for his fantasy. The open door for crazy theories comes from beliefs such as inanimate material suddenly becoming self-aware, not that it takes intelligence to create life (what every theory in the lab ends up proving anyway).
" I assert that such claims by the atheist are not only false and unprovable, but are also a smoke screen for the utter failure of the atheistic belief system and an attempt to silence the opposition simply because as long as the followers of such incorrect ideologies are not allowed to think for themselves or even hear the other side, they are made gullible and left ignorant enough to follow, without question, the iron fisted proclamations of the atheistic elite and the ingenuity of their man made religion, hidden under the guise of "objective science.""
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about this - you do realize that it's not just the atheists who have a problem with intelligent design - it's the theistic scientists as well.
- BEAU: I’m curious about this – you do realize that the ID movement consist mainly of theistic scientists who argue for exactly what I’m saying? Are there some theistic scientists that have issues with ID (sure, see Del Ratzsch), but when an entire group of theists come together to create a movement that shows the incredible problems with atheistic naturalism, your objections just become very odd, Sir/Ma’am. As I could easily point out that atheist embrace and/or defend intelligent design (see Anthony Flew’s abandoning of atheism given ID arguments), and see:
http://www.amazon.com/Seeking-God-Science-Atheist-Intelligent/dp/1551118637/ref=reg_hu-wl_list-recs
With all due respect, I would recommend that in your criticisms you learn to differentiate between the things worth mentioning in argument and the things not. When the majority of theist scientists contend for ID, mentioning the handful of those who do not is just not very relevant when my position references the problems that the main group of theists are exposing in your theory.
After a tirade against the strawman that atheists believe that theists have never contributed anything to science, you state this:
- BEAU: My above “tirade” shows clear enough that your view is indefensible and inconsistent, and calling valid criticisms strawmen is not the same as proving it.
"Are any of these presuppositions proven by science?"
?
This is an odd comment to make, since science is not in the 'proof' business. Not much (not anything I can think of, anyway) is 'provable' by science. Science is generally interested in abductive reasoning and falsification, not proof.
- BEAU: Still waiting for the consistency of falsification within your own view, Sir/Ma’am. Special pleading does not prove your point.
Skimming your list, these things are taken pragmatically by scientists. Further, not all of them are shown to be the case. In fact, there's some debate over how uniform nature is.
- BEAU: Minor nuances of principles are, again, irrelevant when the main rough and ready definition of uniformity is necessary for science to get off the ground, else your abductive reasoning can’t even begin to get off the ground. Redefining things as pragmatic is a somewhat cowardly way to hide from having to deal with the problems. Unlike you, Sir/Ma’am, I cannot in good conscience engage in such activity.
A lot of what you write seems to target a loose rabble of atheists.
- BEAU: Of which your view seem to throw you into, Anonymous. And as every popular atheistic apologist defending his faith, nearly every atheist I’ve come across who repeats the vernacular of the apologist, and every debate I’ve seen (I have quite the collection, Sir/Ma’am), you seem to be the one in the loose rabble denying what others contend for.
Cheers,
Beau McKinley Boyd
"- BEAU: You then have some work to do in correcting those atheists (of whom, given your comments, you seem to be a part of) who argue as you do below in such a manner as to contend that science is merely in the realm, methodologically or otherwise, of the atheist."
ReplyDeleteYou need to back up this claim, not simply assert it. I am not making the case that science is only available to the atheist - despite your wishing me to be.
"Not only does the history of science raise difficulties for your thoughts but the arguments I’ve presented, that you haven’t responded to other than to claim they are only “pragmatic” (more about that in a minute), do as well. What methodology clashes here, Sir/Ma’am? The methodology that contains the non-empirical presuppositions that I’ve argued are unsupported on an atheistic worldview? Presuppositionalism argues that only given the existence of God can we proceed with proper scientific inquiry. The atheist provides no grounding for this methodology, Anonymous. Saying there is a conflict is different than proving it, so until and unless you can do more than assert (such as explain how the atheist scientist gets off the ground given his mind, ability to apprehend the mind-independent world, and uniformity of nature are nothing more than non-telic random chance over time, of which truth is not the goal but survival is) my position stands. "
This is all a strawman, as I'm not arguing that science is only within the demain of the atheist. As for your claims about presuppositionalism, those are outside of the scope of this discussion. You simply appear to what to evade criticism here.
"- BEAU: As I stated above, you should really read the entirety of an article you attempt to refute what it contains. My point in the article is that science, while a proper empirical endeavor does not rest solely in the realm of the empirical, and when the atheist introduces stories of origins that seem to come more from the Brothers Grimm than any realistic enterprise, we cry foul. "
Yes, I get that you think this - but it's simply not true. You are trying to pretend that the methodology of science leads to certainty.
It doesn't. Your railing against atheistic strawmen doesn't change this. Does science require the uniformity of nature? no, it actually doesn't. It's a useful presupposition (one at odds with Christian theism, btw).
"Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument, and if you want pure empiricism to rule science, you need to drop origins research of that which is non-repeatable and non-testable (please show me how you can test consciousness appearing from inanimate matter, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics being naturally overturned by random chance , and the big bang theory occurring without setting up a collider with “intelligently” fined tuned parameters and years of “intelligently” created systems, etc.)"
Wow, you really don't understand much of science at all, do you?
Before I waste my time any further: Do you believe that the theory of evolution is random?
You state later that my acceptance of evolutionary theory as being one of the strongest theories in science is at odds with science not being in the proof business. The fact that you are so confused on this is completely sad. Do you think that any theories in science get 'proved'? Are you under the mistaken notion that after a specific amount of evidence a theory becomes a law?
You do realize that theories and laws in science are completely different things - don't you? You realize that gravity is 'just a theory', don't you?
I'm sorry but you've just brought down the level of this blog. You are blathering on about subjects you know nothing about. I will not be reading your ignorant blathering any longer.
Good day and please take a basic philosophy of science course. Here's a good starting point: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteWow, I really seem to have you frothing at the mouth with this one. As I read your post, trying to pick fact from complaint, I find a circularity that is hard to reconcile with your dogmatic claims. There is really no point in getting into a pissing contest with a dog, so other than reference the work of Karl Popper, who revolutionizes the scientific theory of falsifiability and never believed Darwiinian evolution could be considered a valid scientific theory for its very failure in this area as well, or reference that the term theory (i.e. "gravity is just a theory") holds a much different meaning in the scientific realm than in normal vernacular (so much for philosophy of science), there's not much I can do to combat the vitriolic hatred you choose to spew out. I hope that someday you can do more work than merely point fingers at me and make the comments you do, but then again, that's easier then engaging in proper discourse, so why bother? When you fail to grasp that natural laws are, for the theist, God's generalized normativity of which He is able to augment as creator in what we call "miracles" (this is theism 101, Sir), then trying to explain that the uniformity of nature is not an issue for the theistic scientist dealing with the normativity of God's creation, why even bother anymore? Or when the comments you make concerning faith, etc. and the arguments I made about that, to which you are only capable of saying, "Yes, I get that you think this - but it's simply not true. You are trying to pretend that the methodology of science leads to certainty," I don't see how I'm the one needing to do more work than I already did. I of course never said that, but if you don’t think science is believed to provide or can lead to truth (ummmm, can you please do a study on the Latin origin of the word and its uses by the early forefathers of science, Sir?), then I have some ocean front property in Kansas I would like to sell you. Sorry, Sir, but your claims miss the point and it’s hard to take you as seriously as you take yourself. I would like you to explain your theory to the leading atheist scientists today who talk very openly about what is and isn’t “proven” with science, then back down on the falsifiability position when pressed (without, I would add, ever applying that criterion to evolution – btw, how, as we discuss philosophy of science, do you falsify the falsifiability criterion by chance?). Science doesn’t just stop with a criterion that is relatively new within science’s history but does go further than that, but my point is that if you stop science there, even that doesn’t preserve evolution, Sir. I’m troubled by how you just don’t get that.
Look, I know the atheist hates the thought of faith being a requirement for his theory, but that doesn't save you from that truth, Mr. Anonymous. Attempting to brush everything under the rug of pragmatism doesn’t solve your problems, Sir, it only makes them go away in your mind. I'm sorry to have offended you so, but the sad fact is that truth by nature is offensive, and calling everything a strawman doesn’t, contra to your apparent belief, give you the epistemic leg up. Remember, you can’t prove your case because, by your own admission, science isn’t in the proof business… You get pretty angry when you can’t prove your point, however odd that seems, so all I can offer you now is, again, the logical reality that inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. I’m sorry to have offended you, Anonymous, but truth waits for no man. Let me leave you with something to think about:
“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets” ( L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349)
ReplyDeleteI suggest you listen to your betters, young maverick, and realize where the battle is actually taking place.
Cheers,
Beau McKinley Boyd
"Wow, I really seem to have you frothing at the mouth with this one. "
ReplyDeleteSays he who fights stawmen and rambles on at length about them. Your criticism doesn't hold a lot of water.
"As I read your post, trying to pick fact from complaint...... there's not much I can do to combat the vitriolic hatred you choose to spew out." (had to edit due to length)
A whole lot of words you spew, with very little substance. An appeal to an authority about 'darwinian' evolution (do you admit this is different from the modern version?) which is supposed to do what, exactly? Seriously, there's no back up, no argumentation here, it's barely better then a naked assertion and it's out of place at that!
"I hope that someday you can do more work....then trying to explain that the uniformity of nature is not an issue for the theistic scientist dealing with the normativity of God's creation, why even bother anymore? ... " (edited due to length)
This is called special pleading and you can't even rationally justify it with appeals to the bible either. I'm sure you have some ill thought out reason (perhaps god's promising not to flood the world again or something) that justifies (in your mind) reliance on the uniformity of nature. Of course, if one were to point out that just because god acted a certain way in the past, doesn't guarantee he will continue to do so in the future, then your entire foundation would be suspect. Let's ignore those problems though, since you clearly have.
"and the arguments I made about that, to which you are only capable of saying, ... would like to sell you." (edited to length)
Lot's of blathering, little substance. If you never said that, then why even mention the latin origin of the word? Seems like a complete waste of time to me...
"Sorry, Sir, but your claims miss the point and it’s hard to take you as seriously as you take yourself... " (edited due to length)
I have no idea who the 'leading atheist scientists' are. I would however point to this incredibly long winded run-on sentence of yours. What's the point of it? Seriously, to say that some scientists (atheist ones at that) are mistaken about the level of certainty they can claim?
So what?
As to the falsifiability of evolution - are you asserting it cannot be falsified? As to falsification, again, I'm not the one claiming that science deals with certainty. In fact, I am stating that it doesn't. So why don't you answer that question since it seems to be on your plate and not mine.
"Science doesn’t just stop ... I’m troubled by how you just don’t get that." (edit, length)
More blather, no substance.
"Look, I know the atheist hates the thought of faith being a requirement for his theory, but that doesn't save you from that truth, Mr. Anonymous."
I have no problem with faith, presuppositions, etc. That is a strawman, but you keep attacking it anyway.
"Attempting to brush everything under the rug of pragmatism doesn’t solve your problems, Sir, it only makes them go away in your mind. "
They don't go away in my mind, but I don't make up magical beings to justify them either. I admit: I don't know. It's an easy thing to admit, however you seem to have an extraordinary problem with doing so.
"I'm sorry to have offended.... " (length)
More blather.
"Remember, you can’t prove your case because, by your own admission, science isn’t in the proof business…"
More strawmen blather (what 'case' am I trying to prove here??).
"You get pretty angry when you can’t prove your point..." (length)
I'm not really angry - although I certainly ruffled your feathers. I'm just sad that this blog has seemingly degenerated.
As to inconsistency - how about you demonstrate where I've been inconsistent? Or is it simply easier to pretend I have been?
"“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets” ( L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349)"
ReplyDeleteA simple falsification would be to find a fossil in a strata where it did not belong. Say a human in the Cambrian.
The more amusing point is that you seem to claim that god provides the basis for science, yet then you deny the theories that science uncovers.
Talk about an inconsistent worldview.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, typos...
ReplyDeleteMr. Anonymous, any serious interaction with you has, sadly, been cut short by your lack of ability to deal with any of the actual arguments given in the post and the depth of emotion and hate you have decided to pour out here. Here are a sampling of what your responses have been reduced to (btw, anyone reading this is more than capable of seeing the intense emotions you've put into this, but the same cannot be said for your logical arguments - I would suggest you think on that, Sir):
"Says he who fights stawmen and rambles on at length about them. Your criticism doesn't hold a lot of water."
"A whole lot of words you spew, with very little substance"
"More blather, no substance"
"More blather."
"More strawmen blather"
I'm sorry, Mr. angry anonymous, but I just cannot justifying enabling you to continue your vitriol by treating you as a serious interlocutor. I've made my point about falsifiability, your inappropriate attempt to hide under the guise of pragmatism what your worldview cannot handle, and called you to explain the issue of certainty that is, in your mind, lacking in science when you are so "certain" of your position above (as are many of those leading atheist scientists... you don't know them? Perhaps that shows the level of exchange between those of us who actually listen to and engage with the other side and those who barely even know their own side... presuppositions can blind us all if we’re not careful)
To anyone interested, if you are familiar with the hoops atheistic scientists jump through to support their theories you'll know Mr. Anonymous's falsifiability example is a ruse (see any of the recent "ape men" missing links and the real history behind them that the atheist scientist doesn't want you to see, such as the famous Nebraska Man, made entirely from a pig's tooth - do the research, don't take my word for it). Sadly this would just be explained away by some unique strata shifting event some billions of years ago and new non-testable, non-repeatable explanation… and it will be given with certainty, of that there is no doubt. No, Sir, there is nothing that could falsify your theory; the parameters are set tightly enough by the atheistic elite that such cannot be the case. At this point all I can say is I will no longer engage with such childish mockery and name calling but refrain from responding to you. You are the reason we consider taking out the anonymous option - it breeds cowardice in commenting without ever going very far beyond brave name calling. I wish you the best, Sir, but until and unless you can engage in a serious dialectic you will comment alone.
Cheers,
Beau McKinley Boyd
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIf you continue to violate our comment policy your comments will be deleted. Our comment policy is posted on the side it is as follows:
Comment Policy
1. Please be courteous. We will attempt, as much as possible, to write our articles in a spirit of intellectual curiosity, being winsome and charitable in our arguments. We expect the same from all responders.
2. Please remain on topic. The comments section can fill up quickly, making it difficult for everyone to track the discussion. Please try to avoid unnecessary tangents.
3. We currently allow anonymous comments, please do not abuse this privilege. Any anonymous comments that violate either 1 or 2 above will be deleted immediately.
God Bless,
NPT
Everyone is expected to adhere to this...no exceptions.
ReplyDeleteBeau - my pointing out your lack of substance is not indicative of anger. To be frank, you write a lot that isn't germane to what we are discussing.
ReplyDeleteNathan - I respect you and I apologize to Beau for any slight or insult. My intent is not to revoke the anon privileges for everyone.
Back to Beau - You haven't made your point about falsification - in fact, given that you seem to accept science as a valid methodology (right?), I'm at a loss for what you are actually trying to argue here. Does assuming a Christian God make falsifiability some how more 'certain'? If so, how?
I notice that you ignored the point about how you cannot claim to have any certainty with the uniformity of nature. You rail against other worldviews as being unable to support it, yet you cannot do it either since you have to beg the question when you assume that your God will remain consistent with the uniformity of nature. This assumption is based on God's past keeping of his promises - isn't it?
As to the Nebraska man, again, I'm at a loss as to what you think this proves? Does it some how invalidate the more modern finds? Does it somehow invalidate the nested hierarchies? Does Piltdown (which you haven't mentioned) man invalidate genetic sequencing? Does Nebraska man invalidate other fossil finds?
Do you find one (perceived) problem with common descent (which is different from the theory of evolution - a distinction you do not make, I notice) and then throw the entire enterprise of modern biology out?
"You are the reason we consider taking out the anonymous option - it breeds cowardice in commenting without ever going very far beyond brave name calling. "
So you call me out on being angry, on being insulting, on not being a serious interlocutor and at the end of the day you imply that I'm a coward for remaining anonymous?
Seriously?
This is one of my favorite Transcendental arguments that I put a year of my life into studying and analyzing. This argument has been endorsed by Greg Bahnsen and Alvin Plantinga. It argues from our beliefs about the uniformity of nature to God's existence. Let’s take look at the argument from the uniformity of nature, or the "argument from induction".
ReplyDeleteP1: If God does not exist then we have no basis for inductive reasoning
P2: We have a basis for inductive reasoning
C: Therefore, God exists
What is inductive reasoning?
Induction is a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances. This includes past to future instances as well. I know that, in all probability, when I drop the pen I am holding it will fall to the ground, because it has done so in every case in he past.
Why does inductive reasoning require God’s existence?
The problem with inductive reasoning is that on naturalism or atheism there is reason to doubt this basic belief that the future will probably be like the past. The reason why one should doubt this is because there is no supernatural being that controls and sustains reality in a consistent fashion. The atheist might respond that in the past chairs have never turned into flying sharks, but this assumes that the past will be like the future. And the question you have to ask is how you know that the past will be like the future? They might say that they don’t know for certain, but that it has been that way in the past and so probably it will be like that in the future. The problem with this response is that, once again, it assumes that the past is going to be like the future: The very thing you are asking the naturalist or atheist to justify. So on the atheistic worldview, at any given moment, it is equally likely that things could be similar to what they were in the past or that there could be millions of random chaotic possibilities. Both are equally likely. So if this is true on atheism, then 5 minutes from now it is equally likely that the ground you are standing on could retain its similar properties or it could turn into jello (both are equally likely if inductive reasoning is thrown out the window).
How does a belief in God support inductive reasoning?
However, on theism we believe in the God of the universe that is guiding, causing, and controlling reality consistently. So when we are asked how we know that the past will be like the future we can say that nature will be uniformed because we believe in a divine being that controls it consistently. It is a part of God’s nature to make reality consistent and orderly. On naturalism and atheism all you have is the universe by itself which is not guided by anything whatsoever so as not to ensure that the future will be like the past.
What about miracles?
Miracles are not a violation of God’s consistency, for they are merely a unique event that takes place when God is revealing himself. Since these events are rare to the time of the Old and New Testament they do not affect our probabilistic reasoning.
Conclusion:
Thus, from this Transcendental argument we can see that if one wants to be reasonable in holding to their basic belief about the inductive process (uniformity of nature) then they ought to infer God's existence from this basic belief rather than a belief in naturalism.
I would say that if one does not believe in God then one cannot make probably but uncertain predictions and natural extrapolations. So on this score I think Beau has a solid point.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless,
NPT
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou're questions are just missing the point here, Sir, and in short you're asking to me to just repeat myself now with your questions. As your tone has somewhat improved, I'm willing to make a few comments to you about this, but as you state constantly that I'm writing things you don't get or don’t see as to what is being claimed, at this point I either just repeat myself or let the other readers decide what is and isn't understandable.
When you say,
"As to the Nebraska man, again, I'm at a loss as to what you think this proves?"
All I can do is try to explain that I was pointing out the failure of evolutionists to abandon their theory given examples such as "humans in the strata." I did say that, and clearly so, but you didn’t get it and just accused me of things it would take more time to clarify then I’m willing to give. As you don't get it there's really nothing I can do for you - I'm not repeating my argument for you. If you still haven't read the post I suggest you do so. My contention was that your falsifiability example will never make any serious concerns for the dedicated elite of the atheistic community – that has been seen with clear example like Nebraska Man, which you never try to correct but just brush aside and ignore, despite the fact that the textbooks published this for many years as gospel truth. Any attempt to rectify your wrongs, Sir?...
"So you call me out on being angry, on being insulting, on not being a serious interlocutor and at the end of the day you imply that I'm a coward for remaining anonymous?
Seriously?"
Yes, that is what is occurring, and I'm not the only one to see it. You mock and name call but in the end it is you, given such actions, that are shown to be such, not myself. Again, you don't seem to get this, so what do I do for you? Even Jesus properly called the Pharisees what they were, sons of Satan and a brood of vipers, but it wasn’t just abstracted emotivist claims but conclusions of indicative reality based on what they were doing. Go back and read our exchanges from the beginning and ask, objectively, who was the one being disrespectful? There’s a time and a place for accurate depictions, but your intense mocking and ignoring of much of what has been claimed just isn’t that, Sir. That I have to even explain this to you really shows much more about you than the claims you mock so passionately, Sir.
"I notice that you ignored the point about how you cannot claim to have any certainty with the uniformity of nature. You rail against other worldviews as being unable to support it, yet you cannot do it either since you have to beg the question when you assume that your God will remain consistent with the uniformity of nature."
ReplyDeleteNo, I rail against one worldview - atheism, and it cannot do so nor have you attempted to deal with this argument. You just ask me to talk about what you want without dealing with the arguments I've posted and then tell me what I'm saying isn't germane to the discussion. By germane you seem to mean only what you want to discuss as you ask so many more questions than you are willing to deal with. It’s not my obligation to continue a fiasco of finger pointing about which one of us is more logical and which one is dealing with the evidence. You clearly are not, Sir, and don’t understand that simplest points I make, so it’s really down to the readers to decide for themselves. All I ask is that they first read the post that you replied to without first reading yourself, by your own admission (I’m honestly not sure you still ever have, Sir).
You say, "You haven't made your point about falsification - in fact, given that you seem to accept science as a valid methodology (right?), I'm at a loss for what you are actually trying to argue here. Does assuming a Christian God make falsifiability some how more 'certain'? If so, how?"
My point has already been stated, and you only argue that it hasn't and call me to answer your questions. This isn't honest academic engagement, Sir. My point is that falsifiability is all well and good and has an important place in science, but is never applied to the evolutionary schema in any way that will ever possible overturn the theory (claiming something's putrid in Peru when everything the atheist does is only to continue the non-testable non-repeatable theory ((still no comment about that)) reveals the inconsistency of your position, Sir.) Consistently apply the criteria – that’s my point, and I can’t be any clearer. Nor is falsifiability itself the consistent working out of those “certainties” you put forward. I’m just truly amazed at how certain you are of everything when certainly is so irrelevant in the scientific field. Remember, now, I’m the one you call names, Mr. Anonymous.
Sorry, Sir, but I just will not repeat myself for you, and if you don't get it and just resort to name calling and mocking comments about run ons (like this one?), I have no interest in seriously engaging you or trying to justify myself when you have shown so little attempt to understand the basic points I’m making. I wish you the best in your studies and encourage you to be cautious with the glasses you wear when studying (and I will promise to attempt the same in return), and to know that objectivity is not found in the repetition of one’s one position and the name calling of one who disagrees, but rather in the serious evaluation of what is and isn’t consistently applied - such as defending the metaphysical premises the naturalist assumes in order to deny all non-naturalistic claims of science. Certainty is something you’ve pushed much more than I have, Sir, and I do hope that you will someday realize that inconsistency.
Cheers,
Beau McKinley Boyd
This was meant to be the first thing i sent, but the blog messed it up.
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous,
I read through your last response I found something of interest that you mentioned.
"I notice that you ignored the point about how you cannot claim to have any certainty with the uniformity of nature. You rail against other worldviews as being unable to support it, yet you cannot do it either since you have to beg the question when you assume that your God will remain consistent with the uniformity of nature. This assumption is based on God's past keeping of his promises - isn't it?"
Response: The assumption is not based on God keeping his promises but rather on the basic belief that nature will be uniformed generally and then from that basic belief I infer that a God that is consistent exists. This form of reasoning is called transcendental reasoning. I will touch on this argument more in my next post.
God Bless,
NPT
For those interested, it is important to note that Karl Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 199) is the one to have introduced falsifiability into the domain of scientific endeavor. This has not been as universally accepted as you may have been led to believe by the comments, but this was not the model pressed by scientists of the past. Especially when the term for science, scientia in the Latin, is the the word for knowledge - the scientists of the past, and many today, do not abide purely by thee falsification criterion. It is important for those not familiar with the philosophy of science to be aware that what is pressed above is simply a novel addition to what has gone on prior to Popper's great work on the issue. This was the concern I was raising. I highly recommend anyone interested in this discussion get Popper's work in this area - the amazing yet not so well-known fact is that the advocate of falsifiability himself did not believe evolution was falsifiable:
ReplyDelete"[Darwinism] is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" (http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html)
After being attacked by the Darwinian community he used the term "recant" of his retracting of his position, but as atheist Michael Ruse notes (see above reference), "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."
My point is that falsification is not germane to science and that it is not consistently applied by the evolutionist. It is not universally accepted and "disproof" is not the main role of science, as the certain conclusions offered above have shown us, albeit inconsistently. There is a place for it, surely, but to redefine science as having that goal (and only that goal, despite the origination of the term being that for "knowledge" and the history of science being a search for that very knowledge) is just wrong. Again, it was promoted by a man who didn't think evolution was something that could be falsified, but due to the religious zealotry of those who attacked him he had to modify his view, though he didn't fully give in, as popular atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse notes above.
I hope that helps clear up any confusion on my points above!
Cheers,
Beau McKinley Boyd
*((28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994)
ReplyDeleteI hate typos...
Consider this quote (very well said):
ReplyDelete"Recent work in the philosophy of science has revealed the degree to which high level scientific theories
tend to resist simple refutation. If it were applied consistently, in fact, every theory in science would be
hastily rejected. As a result, Karl Popper’s criterion of “falsifiability,” which most commentators seem to
presuppose, was rejected by most philosophers of science decades ago as a litmus test for science.
Nevertheless, it’s certainly a virtue of scientific proposals to be able to say what evidence would count
against it."
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=494
Nathan - "The assumption is not based on God keeping his promises but rather on the basic belief that nature will be uniformed generally and then from that basic belief I infer that a God that is consistent exists. This form of reasoning is called transcendental reasoning. I will touch on this argument more in my next post. "
ReplyDeleteYou are begging the question; you are assuming that god will continue to act in the same manner as he did in the past (ie, that he will continue to keep his promise). What are you basing this on? The fact that he kept his promise in the past?
Your basis seems just as shaky as the atheists basis, since the atheist could just believe that nature will be uniformed generally and from that as well. It seems that adding 'God' to the equation doesn't actually add anything since you would have to beg the exact same question (except with respect to god) that you do for atheism.
The further problem is that if you accept God acting within nature, then you throw away any claims to uniformity. How do you know God wasn't interfering with nature to produce Katrina (or cure someone's cancer)?
An additional issue is that inductive reasoning isn't certain reasoning so it's unclear as to why anyone needs to account for the uniformity of nature.
Beau - I'm not going to engage with you. You only seem to be paying attention selectively. Your condescension continues to drip in your posts even though I attempted to make a fresh slate. You are arguing against the scientific mainstream and as such I can understand being defensive. Were I to argue in a similar vein that the germ theory of disease were not an accurate depiction of reality, I would encounter a lot of resistance and I would be defensive and possibly condescending as well.
I still have to comment that I feel that your two blog posts bring down the intellectual integrity that was common placed on this blog. This was my initial reason for reacting the way I did, and not particularly because of what you've written (I've read similar on other blogs before).
With that, I bid you a good day.
At this point, Mr. Anonymous, all I can truly say is that statements such as:
ReplyDelete"Your condescension continues to drip in your posts even though I attempted to make a fresh slate"
"Were I to argue in a similar vein that the germ theory of disease were not an accurate depiction of reality, I would encounter a lot of resistance and I would be defensive and possibly condescending as well"
"I still have to comment that I feel that your two blog posts bring down the intellectual integrity that was common placed on this blog"
tell everyone reading this much more about you as a person than they do about the theory you mock and rail against. It is truly up to the readers to do what you will not: "Go back and read our exchanges from the beginning and ask, objectively, who was the one being disrespectful?"
It is clear to many, Sir that, "This was my initial reason for reacting the way I did" is a ruse - your emotivism was fueled by your position being addressed in ways you are clearly incapable of even understanding (by your own admission) let alone responding to. The depth to which you have gone in your ad hominem is just astounding, but I tried to allow for a fresh slate ("I wish you the best in your studies and encourage you to be cautious with the glasses you wear when studying (and I will promise to attempt the same in return)") by trying to find some ground of fairness, but even now you cannot return the favor of objectivity. Out of respect for your objections I even clarified my points about my views on falsifiability and certainty, giving you the benefit of the doubt that I may not have been clear enough on these positions, but as my "condescension continues to drip in [my] posts," I guess fairness is only received when one accepts the simply unwarranted theories you yourself have, Sir. I just cannot in good conscience do such a thing when the evidence presented against your theory is overwhelming and when you continually refuse to consistently apply your novel falsifiability criteria. In short, Sir, I simply do not have enough faith to be an atheist. When you can look at the incredible complexity of biochemical systems and say with a straight face these incredibly complex mechanisms are merely the result of non-telic, random, purposeless mutations over time, I am unable to compete with you in the realm of faith.
All the best, Sir.
Cheers,
Beau McKinley Boyd
“You are begging the question; you are assuming that god will continue to act in the same manner as he did in the past (ie, that he will continue to keep his promise). What are you basing this on? The fact that he kept his promise in the past?”
ReplyDeleteBeau - Given that God is understood as the Creator and sustainer of all that exists, a sentient being, and a God of order (Christianity 101, Sir), this objection, very poorly reasoned given that the most basic and fundamental claims of the Christian are readily ascertainable by anyone doing even a cursory glance at Christian theism, cannot get off the ground. If God exists then this point about His nature obtains. Raising the objection as to God’s moral nature of keeping promises is simply overturned based on God’s revelation of Himself, which I can tell by your objections you are very unfamiliar with.
“Your basis seems just as shaky as the atheists basis, since the atheist could just believe that nature will be uniformed generally and from that as well.”
Beau – Why? Is nature “the Creator and sustainer of all that exists, a sentient being, and a God of order”, Sir? It amazes me that you talk about lowering the integrity of a blog, Sir when you are either unable or unwilling to make distinctions as simple as that between a sentient Creator with inanimate matter. Truly astounding, Mr. Anonymous.
“The further problem is that if you accept God acting within nature, then you throw away any claims to uniformity. How do you know God wasn't interfering with nature to produce Katrina (or cure someone's cancer)?”
Beau – Wow… Mr. Anonymous, have you even read the post Nathanael put up? As was the case with you and myself, Sir, Nathanael would merely be repeating himself here as his post has already responded to this very issue. But then again, we’re the ones “paying attention selectively.”
*Sigh.
Good day to you as well, Sir.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beau McKinley Boyd
Beau - you are reading way too much into what I am writing. I was not mocking you by pointing out that you are defensive. I point out that you are being condescending to me (Sir this and Sir that) and you attempt to turn that around on me?
ReplyDeleteThe point about the germ theory of disease was my attempt to explain why you are so defensive, it was not meant to denigrate you.
As to my comment on your inclusion on this blog, yes, it is harsh, but it is a genuine criticism.
You are intent on casting me as a villain here, and that's fine, this is your blog, do as you must.
"Given that God is understood as the Creator and sustainer of all that exists, a sentient being, and a God of order (Christianity 101, Sir), this objection, very poorly reasoned given that the most basic and fundamental claims of the Christian are readily ascertainable by anyone doing even a cursory glance at Christian theism, cannot get off the ground. "
You continually rail against me for these alleged insults yet you pepper your own writings with them. Take a look at the 1/2 paragraph I posted, you spend a lot of words to denigrate me (all the while claiming that I'm continually mocking you).
"If God exists then this point about His nature obtains. "
Why? Where's your reasoning for this? You are simply asserting it.
"Raising the objection as to God’s moral nature of keeping promises is simply overturned based on God’s revelation of Himself, which I can tell by your objections you are very unfamiliar with."
This tells me absolutely nothing as to why you believe you can be confident of the uniformity of nature (or, as the case may be, of God's continual keeping of his promise).
I don't need you to continually tell me that I'm unfamiliar with X or that it's clearly obvious that I'm wrong. What I would like you to tell me is why I'm wrong. What is the reason for maintaining that God's behavior will be consistent as it has in the past?
"Beau – Why? Is nature “the Creator and sustainer of all that exists, a sentient being, and a God of order”, Sir? It amazes me that you talk about lowering the integrity of a blog, Sir when you are either unable or unwilling to make distinctions as simple as that between a sentient Creator with inanimate matter. Truly astounding, Mr. Anonymous."
Why would being a 'creator' (if one is necessary) lead to God's consistent promise? So please, enough with the astonishment and get to the actual meat - tell me how I'm wrong, not just that I'm wrong.
"Beau – Wow… Mr. Anonymous, have you even read the post Nathanael put up? As was the case with you and myself, Sir, Nathanael would merely be repeating himself here as his post has already responded to this very issue. But then again, we’re the ones “paying attention selectively.”
*Sigh. "
Yes, I read it - if you believe that he would be merely repeating himself, perhaps you could rephrase the *reason* that you believe he wrote so that I can better understand your (and his) position?
Just telling me that I'm wrong over and over again isn't really helpful.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe belief in God's consistent nature is not based on inductive reasoning about what he has or hasn't done in the past. It is based on (1) the assertions of Scripture about his nature itself, and (2) Natural Theology (especially "Perfect Being" theology).
What Nate was trying to point out is that our properly basic belief in inductive reasoning is an argument for God, not the other way around (God's existence is not an argument for inductive reasoning). In other words, we all believe in the basic way that inductive reasoning is valid. But without the existence of a perfectly good, all-powerful, supernatural being, there is absolutely no rational basis for believing in inductive reasoning. Therefore, unless you want to bite the bullet and agree that there is no rational basis for believing in the uniformity of nature, inductive reasoning, etc., you must believe in a God (that is very close to the Christian one).
Thank you David, but I'm not seeing how your response addresses the fundamental issue. Let's say I grant that it's not based on what God's done in the past. If that's the case, I'm not sure what you are referring to with regards to the assertions of scripture with regard to his nature. Perfect being theology is an interesting avenue, but I'm not sure it's enough. It doesn't seem to be the case that just because an entity is perfect that it will:
ReplyDelete1. Remain perfect
2. Wish to have a plan that continues to involve the unity of nature.
3. Guarantees that nature is uniform to begin with (there seems to be a disconnect between a perfect being and a uniform/perfect creation - especially considering that creation was not perfect; ie, adam and eve).
I am probably missing the steps for these. It could be that scripture solidifies this entity's wish to have nature uniform.
The problem I see with this is that scripture doesn't actually back this up. There are untold miracles throughout the bible. Further, while you could argue that the bible contains God's general plan, it's rather short on specifics in the modern era. Do you believe that God acts in the modern era? That miracles continue to occur? That God answers prayer (aside from the 'no' answer that wouldn't be relevant here)?
It seems to me that there is a leap here that you (Nate and Beau) are making in just because you believe in a supernatural being, that this somehow means that nature is uniform (and will continue to be so).
As to biting the bullet, I have no problem with that. I admit that I accept inductive conclusions because it seems pragmatically justified to do so. In fact, with some of the recent discoveries in modern science, it could be that nature isn't 'uniform' at it's fundamental levels at all. I guess I don't understand how this is a problem - at least any more of a problem then other philosophical problems (the question of other minds, etc).
Hello again,
ReplyDeleteYou are begging the question; you are assuming that god will continue to act in the same manner as he did in the past (ie, that he will continue to keep his promise). What are you basing this on? The fact that he kept his promise in the past?
Response: A basic belief is not based on previous belief or any belief so it is impossible for it to be circular. I have a basic belief that nature is going to be uniformed and in order to keep that belief justified I infer that the only metaphysical belief that is compatible with such a belief is a belief in a God that controls reality with general consistency.
I hope that clears things up.
God Bless,
NPT
Your basis seems just as shaky as the atheists basis, since the atheist could just believe that nature will be uniformed generally and from that as well. It seems that adding 'God' to the equation doesn't actually add anything since you would have to beg the exact same question (except with respect to god) that you do for atheism.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Well on atheism nothing is guiding nature so there is nothing to ensure it being uniformed so it seems to me that atheism is on a shaky epistemic foundation. If one holds to naturalism then they have a defeater for their basic belief that nature will be uniformed because there is no reason to think that nature will be uniformed this defeats their belief. Whereas, if one infers a theistic conception of God that will generally ensure that nature will be consistent then there is no defeater for such a basic belief that nature is uniformed.
The further problem is that if you accept God acting within nature, then you throw away any claims to uniformity. How do you know God wasn't interfering with nature to produce Katrina (or cure someone's cancer)?
Response: I would say that God is controling everything and every event. This is what right reason teaches as well as scripture (Eph. 1:11). Every event God is acting in and in acting in every event he will function in a generally consistent fashion.
An additional issue is that inductive reasoning isn't certain reasoning so it's unclear as to why anyone needs to account for the uniformity of nature.
Response: Of course that is true by definition. My contention is that on naturalism inductive reasoning cannot even be probablistic, but rather it is equally likely on naturalism in the next 5 seconds that my computer stays a computer or turns into a giant evil demon from East virgina. Hence, there can be no probably predictions on naturalism only epistemic choas so it seems to me.
I realized latter on that you had other responses to what I have said....sorry for my absent mindedness...I have been swamped with research papers for classes....
God Bless,
NPT
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteActually I would say that perfect being or natural theology can pretty much get you all the way (not to the specific God of the Bible, but for the purposes of the uniformity of nature). It just seems intuitively obvious that a maximally perfect being could never become less than perfect. If it could, then I could think of a greater being, namely one that always was and always will be maximally perfect, and that would be God.
I don't see the problem you're attempting to pose with miracles. The point is that nature, in and of itself, will operate uniformly because it is the product of a rational and orderly being. God can sometimes choose to intervene in creation, but that does not make creation itself chaotic or unpredictable.
"A basic belief is not based on previous belief or any belief so it is impossible for it to be circular. I have a basic belief that nature is going to be uniformed and in order to keep that belief justified I infer that the only metaphysical belief that is compatible with such a belief is a belief in a God that controls reality with general consistency."
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you hold that God keeps reality consistent? Also, why assume that if there were no God that reality would be capable of being any different then it is?
I don't know, i suppose I just don't get it.
"Well on atheism nothing is guiding nature so there is nothing to ensure it being uniformed so it seems to me that atheism is on a shaky epistemic foundation."
In what way does God guide nature? it seems to me to be contradictory to say that nature remains uniform and then to say that it does so by supernatural intervention. Perhaps this isn't what you mean. I get the shaky epistemic foundation - this was Hume's criticism - I'm just not seeing how the theist is free of it, or (to be honest) why it matters since I can justify it pragmatically. Ultimately, nature could change tomorrow - the speed of light could be different. In fact, there are some arguments I've read that indicate that it *was* different in the past (I've also read of local violations of the 2 law of thermodynamics) - so the entire uniformity of nature angle seems shaky to begin with.
"If one holds to naturalism then they have a defeater for their basic belief that nature will be uniformed because there is no reason to think that nature will be uniformed this defeats their belief."
There is no reason to believe that it won't be uniform either. I'm not sure why this is a 'defeater', exactly. Please explain.
"Whereas, if one infers a theistic conception of God that will generally ensure that nature will be consistent then there is no defeater for such a basic belief that nature is uniformed."
Again, I question why one would assume that God would necessarily be consistent. Why couldn't one just assume that the basic attributes of nature is to be what they are?
"I would say that God is controling everything and every event. This is what right reason teaches as well as scripture (Eph. 1:11). Every event God is acting in and in acting in every event he will function in a generally consistent fashion. "
If this is what you say, then what do you mean that nature is uniform? It would seem that things occur because of God's wishes, not because of natural causes and as such, there would be no uniformity to nature. Further, unless you know (specifically) the mind of God, I can't see how you could lay claim to the uniformity of nature. God could intervene with gravity, for example, and any inferences we have from it are now null.
"Of course that is true by definition. My contention is that on naturalism inductive reasoning cannot even be probablistic, but rather it is equally likely on naturalism in the next 5 seconds that my computer stays a computer or turns into a giant evil demon from East virgina. Hence, there can be no probably predictions on naturalism only epistemic choas so it seems to me."
Why is it equally likely? I'm not even sure it's logically possible since your computer has a set of defined characteristics which would contradict the characteristics of an evil demon.
I would probably agree that you couldn't be certain about the future, but I don't see how it's justified that you are suggesting that it is equally likely that your computer will act like an evil demon as it would to acting like a computer.
"I realized latter on that you had other responses to what I have said....sorry for my absent mindedness...I have been swamped with research papers for classes.."
Don't worry about it - this is just conversation. Interesting, but not nearly as important as classes and such.
David - "Actually I would say that perfect being or natural theology can pretty much get you all the way (not to the specific God of the Bible, but for the purposes of the uniformity of nature). It just seems intuitively obvious that a maximally perfect being could never become less than perfect. If it could, then I could think of a greater being, namely one that always was and always will be maximally perfect, and that would be God."
ReplyDeleteMaybe. I'm ignoring the God as put forth in the Bible for a second to concentrate on the maximally perfect being. It seems to me that such a being wouldn't actually do anything, but jumping past that and into a maximally great being who created something (which also doesn't seem 'perfect', but skipping past that), I don't see exactly why it would be 'greater' to have a consistent universe then one that was not. Then again, I've always found the ontological argument to rest on the subjective, so that may have something to do with it.
I'm also not sure that a maximally great being would be able to interfere with it's creation - what would the point be, since it's creation would be perfect? Any such interference would seem to suggest that such a creation was not perfect.
"I don't see the problem you're attempting to pose with miracles. "
Why not? ;-p
"The point is that nature, in and of itself, will operate uniformly because it is the product of a rational and orderly being."
Here's where I'm getting confused: On the one hand, it seems to me that if God is in control of everything, then it doesn't make sense to talk of nature operating in any such way. Essentially the law of gravity seems to be, basically, how God's plan is currently unfolding. In other words, for the past billion years, objects of mass have attracted each other because God wills this to be so, because it fits with his plan. From this conception of God's control though, I don't see how we would be justified in believing that God's plan would always be for gravity to act this way. After all, God is way beyond us intellectually, so it almost seems as a given that this could not be so (because if so, we would have figured God out to some extent).
"God can sometimes choose to intervene in creation, but that does not make creation itself chaotic or unpredictable. "
ReplyDeleteMaybe not 'chaotic' in some senses of the word, but I don't see how God could act within nature and the results be anything except unpredictable. Let's say God cures someone's cancer - essentially God is interfering with a whole host of natural laws (or with what we assume to be natural laws). God has a plan for the entire creation, not just select individuals or select 'cancers', so if you can't be certain that nature is going to operate consistently due God's miraculous intervention, then aren't you in a worse spot then the naturalist? I mean, at least in their vision, there is nothing to actively interfere with nature. Whereas on the Christian view (the one I'm most familiar with), there are demons, floods (worldwide or not), raising of the dead, floating up in the sky, rocks being flung at people, cities being burned to the ground, etc, etc. I'm not sure what your views of modern day miracles are, but if you believe they happen, then they add to the litany of interference.
In summary, I agree that induction seems to be problematic, but it seems to me that when you introduce supernatural entites, it becomes ever more so. Even in Nathan's example of evil demons, that is more in line with Christian theism then it is with naturalism. Why won't my computer turn into an evil Demon? Because evil demons don't exist (my view). Why doesn't your computer turn into an evil demon? I suppose you could say something about Christ dwelling within you and that protects your belongings, but on your view, *my* computer could turn into an evil demon...
Sorry if that was a bit rambling. I do appreciate the discussion, it's been interesting of late. :-)
I'll let you, Beau, or Nathan have the last word.
Hello Again,
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you hold that God keeps reality consistent? Also, why assume that if there were no God that reality would be capable of being any different then it is?
Response: The basis for God keeping reality consistent is from my basic belief that reality is consistent. There is no assumption either way what reality would be or would not be if nothing were controlling it and keeping it consistent. Hence, there can be no justification either way because on naturalism nothing is in control of nature that is personal so there can be no guaranteed assumption of anything and no principle of warranted induction.
In what way does God guide nature? it seems to me to be contradictory to say that nature remains uniform and then to say that it does so by supernatural intervention. Perhaps this isn't what you mean. I get the shaky epistemic foundation - this was Hume's criticism - I'm just not seeing how the theist is free of it, or (to be honest) why it matters since I can justify it pragmatically. Ultimately, nature could change tomorrow - the speed of light could be different. In fact, there are some arguments I've read that indicate that it *was* different in the past (I've also read of local violations of the 2 law of thermodynamics) - so the entire uniformity of nature angle seems shaky to begin with.
Response: All I can infer is that God causes, controls, and guides all things in creation in a generally consistent fashion. This is a personal metaphysical explanation rather than a reductionistic natural explanation. The former need not require a how explanation in order to be adequate explanation where as the latter requires a how explanation to be an adequate explanation. I do not hold to the traditional Swinburne definition of supernatural intervention that God just lets things go and then he intervenes. I would say that God is in control of all things and God rarely disrupts this order to reveal his purposes to human kind for redemptive purposes. When God disrupts his order this is called a supernatural intervention. Pragmatic justifications are not pragmatic. This is because if it’s equally likely that the ceiling is going to turn into a giant vampire then you better run for your life or billion other absurd equally likely possibilities could occur. It just seems from a intellectually honest stand point no one actually lives this way because no one has such chaotic concerns of strange things like this happening.
There is no reason to believe that it won't be uniform either. I'm not sure why this is a 'defeater', exactly. Please explain.
Response: Suppose you have a billion possibilities of what could occur all of them equally likely then it is improbable that any one of them should occur because they are one among perhaps a billion possibilities. That reality is going to be consistent is one of these billion possibilities and since the chances are one in a billion then chances of that one occurring is unlikely hence you have a defeater for your basic belief that nature will be uniformed.
Again, I question why one would assume that God would necessarily be consistent. Why couldn't one just assume that the basic attributes of nature is to be what they are?
ReplyDeleteResponse: This is just a natural inference from our basic belief that nature is uniformed. The reason why one cannot posit nature is because it is impersonal and cannot control and guide to ensure consistency. Only persons can control and guide things not merely natural things.
If this is what you say, then what do you mean that nature is uniform? It would seem that things occur because of God's wishes, not because of natural causes and as such, there would be no uniformity to nature. Further, unless you know (specifically) the mind of God, I can't see how you could lay claim to the uniformity of nature. God could intervene with gravity, for example, and any inferences we have from it are now null.
Response: I would say I know the mind of God from my basic belief that nature is uniformed. God’s desire to have general consistence is a necessary aspect of his nature hence his wishes could not be other than making nature generally consistent. God could intervene but it is highly improbable. As you have said this is induction not certainty. I only expect God to be generally consistent.
Why is it equally likely? I'm not even sure it's logically possible since your computer has a set of defined characteristics which would contradict the characteristics of an evil demon.
Response: At T1 they had those characteristics but those characteristics could change at T2 or a billion other absurd alternative possibilities. This is not a logical contradiction. I cannot see what law logic it would violate. I am not saying that at T1 a computer can just be a demon and a computer at the same time with the same respect rather I am saying at T2 the computer changes into an evil demon.
I would probably agree that you couldn't be certain about the future, but I don't see how it's justified that you are suggesting that it is equally likely that your computer will act like an evil demon as it would to acting like a computer.
Response: It would be equally likely because there is no guarantee either way that it will be the same. The fact that nature will be uniformed in each passing moment is perhaps at best one among a billion different possibilities. If I were a consistent Atheist I would start acting pretty strange because who knows what could happen next even probably.
Thanks for your time.
God Bless,
NPT
“Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBeau - you are reading way too much into what I am writing. I was not mocking you by pointing out that you are defensive. I point out that you are being condescending to me (Sir this and Sir that) and you attempt to turn that around on me?”
Beau - Anonymous – you are reading way too much into what I am writing. There’s a difference between being defensive and not being interested in repetition. As for the condescending tone, I’m in the military and Sir/Ma’am is how I speak, especially in discussion. Don’t read beyond what is given, Sir.
“The point about the germ theory of disease was my attempt to explain why you are so defensive, it was not meant to denigrate you.
As to my comment on your inclusion on this blog, yes, it is harsh, but it is a genuine criticism.”
Beau - I’m really not going to go back and forth on who is or isn’t the more respectful one. This, Sir, is truly what denigrates the blog, not arguments against atheistic naturalism.
“You are intent on casting me as a villain here, and that's fine, this is your blog, do as you must.”
- Further reason why I am no longer taking you serious, Sir. These comments just say much more about you as a person than they do about the position you rail against (see the repetition, Sir – this is why further interaction with you is pointless. It’s merely become an exercise in repetition.)
"Given that God is understood as the Creator and sustainer of all that exists, a sentient being, and a God of order (Christianity 101, Sir), this objection, very poorly reasoned given that the most basic and fundamental claims of the Christian are readily ascertainable by anyone doing even a cursory glance at Christian theism, cannot get off the ground. - You continually rail against me for these alleged insults yet you pepper your own writings with them. Take a look at the 1/2 paragraph I posted, you spend a lot of words to denigrate me (all the while claiming that I'm continually mocking you).”
Beau – Eh? Is this supposed to be a response to my definition of God….?
"If God exists then this point about His nature obtains. Why? Where's your reasoning for this? You are simply asserting it.”
Beau – God, based on who and what He is, Scripturally revealed or otherwise - God is a being of consistency and truth. Matter is not a being of consistency and truth, yes? I can’t help but ask, Sir, why this is so difficult for you to get, especially when Nathanael has virtually said the same thing already? Are we to repeat this again because you won’t get it? Think about it, Sir – as a sentient being, God is not only capable of possessing a will, but as an all powerful being He is capable of fulfilling that will, and if He created to maintain, generally, uniformity, such obtains.
"Raising the objection as to God’s moral nature of keeping promises is simply overturned based on God’s revelation of Himself, which I can tell by your objections you are very unfamiliar with. -This tells me absolutely nothing as to why you believe you can be confident of the uniformity of nature (or, as the case may be, of God's continual keeping of his promise).”
ReplyDeleteBeau – Read God’s revelation of Himself in the Bible, Sir, and think on what was stated above. If you just don’t get it then you just don’t get it, but all I can encourage you to do is think on the difference between what Christians say God is and what everyone apart from the pantheist says nature is. The answer should become clear at some point.
“I don't need you to continually tell me that I'm unfamiliar with X or that it's clearly obvious that I'm wrong. What I would like you to tell me is why I'm wrong. What is the reason for maintaining that God's behavior will be consistent as it has in the past?”
Beau – I have done so, and have done so again, but I won’t continue to do so. At this point I can only keep telling you to go back and read what was written. If you don’t understand God’s consistent nature then you don’t understand basic Christian revelation, which explains God’s nature as such. Sorry, Anonymous, but I think there are some simple things you need to consider in this discussion, but as you admit to not even reading the things you critique (and respond with such hatred when your worldview is challenged with issues you’ve still yet to deal with), I doubt you will do so now.
"Beau – Why? Is nature “the Creator and sustainer of all that exists, a sentient being, and a God of order”, Sir? It amazes me that you talk about lowering the integrity of a blog, Sir when you are either unable or unwilling to make distinctions as simple as that between a sentient Creator with inanimate matter. Truly astounding, Mr. Anonymous. -
Why would being a 'creator' (if one is necessary) lead to God's consistent promise? So please, enough with the astonishment and get to the actual meat - tell me how I'm wrong, not just that I'm wrong.”
Beau – Do you realize this is the exact same question you’ve already repeatedly asked me here? Why even break the paragraphs up as if you are responding to multiple lines of thought when only one question rides the entirety of your objection?
"Beau – Wow… Mr. Anonymous, have you even read the post Nathanael put up? As was the case with you and myself, Sir, Nathanael would merely be repeating himself here as his post has already responded to this very issue. But then again, we’re the ones “paying attention selectively.
*Sigh. - Yes, I read it - if you believe that he would be merely repeating himself, perhaps you could rephrase the *reason* that you believe he wrote so that I can better understand your (and his) position? Just telling me that I'm wrong over and over again isn't really helpful.”
Beau – “rephrase the *reason*” is what has been going on here, Sir. If just telling you “you are wrong” is not helpful, let me admonish to with “just repeating myself to you” isn’t helpful.
Cheers,
Beau McKinley Boyd
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWell, since I get the last word, could I get your name? Just a first name, and it doesn't even have to be your real name! I just hate having to call people "anonymous." Especially when we get two different people commenting on the same thread as "anonymous", then it's just confusing! Plus, if you ever comment again in the future (which I hope you will!), we'll know it's you. It makes everything feel more personable.
Thanks!
David - I like being referred to as anonymous, but my name is Jesse.
ReplyDelete