Posted on 12/03/2004 3:48:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
I don't see how that's any different from Laplace, Weinberg, or myself declaring that divine purpose is unnecessary (even weaker: not obviously necessary) to explain the workings of the universe...or the mind.
Right now we have excellent physical models that describe the motions of the planets, the formation of stars and galaxies, the origin of species, and even the unfolding of the universe, and none of these models employ "purpose" or "will" in their descriptions. Someday, I expect soon, we may have such a model for the mind. Many religions will take a serious blow, but God will go on as ever before.
Yes, I accept that statement. Everybody recognizes design, and even purpose, every day. The sentences I read from you are obviously designed. When we ask why the centerfielder threw the baseball to third base instead of first, we acknowledge purpose by saying "fielder's choice". So by example, design and purpose are not unrecognizable in all cases.
It's curious to hear you arguing that Weinberg (and other scientists) must not dismiss design or purpose, on the grounds that they can't recognize it even if it's there. The whole logic behind the "Intelligent Design" fashion is that there exists some sort of objective litmus test by which design can be unambiguously detected. Either design is universally detectable or it isn't. If design is universally detectable, your in-principle complaint against Weinberg fails. If design is not universally detectable, "Intelligent Design" collapses as science.
(This argument does not cut both ways, as Weinberg does not say that design and purpose don't exist, just that the things in the natural universe don't require a design explanation.)
A scientist insisting that design is not evident is as great a stretch as saying it does, especially if one won't accept a criteria for recognizing design's existence.
Show us criteria that work, first. We're not saying that the design hypothesis is necessarily wrong, just that it's not necessary. But if it can be upgraded to testable someday, we can discuss it further.
I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.
and
I think that part of the historical mission of science has been to teach us that we are not the playthings of supernatural intervention, that we can make our own way in the universe, and that we have to find our own sense of morality.
He's not talking about the ultimate cause behind the creation of the universe. He's talking about the chain of events within the universe. Proximate causes, in other words. Fair game.
John Polkinhorne, a physicist and a priest has written (extremely paraphrased): "The water in the teapot is boiling because the gas fire is heating it up. The water is also boiling because I want a cup of tea."They are both scientific. They are both (presumably) true. That is not the issue.Tell me which of these two true facts is not scientific.
The issue is whether or not it takes supernatural intervention to create an entity that can "want" something. The creationists believe that intelligence can only come from a supernatural source. That's why the ID'ers call their movement "Intelligent Design", yet when you get beyond the press releases and into their essays, speeches, & books, you discover that they've declared "philosophical naturalism" or "materialism" as the true nemesis that threatens the moral fabric of society. It's a false dichotomy.
Of course, the real reason they frame the debate this way is because they can't push explicit appeals to God into the government schools' biology classes. But their goal is to prevent the students from doubting God's existence. So they came up with this euphemism - "intelligent designer" - while trying to slip in their real position - supernaturalism - under the radar.
Forrest & Gross are not being condescending in their book. They are very respectful of how successful a public relations ploy this has been. But ID is simply not an honest approach.
An open challenge:I'll work on that problem as soon as you tell me how to design a scientific experiment to test whether or not unicorns exist.Design an experiment utilizing the scientific method to test whether the natural laws of the Universe are impersonal or not.
If it can't be done, then the assertion of "impersonal laws" by Weinberg is non-falsifiable.
"understanding as a consequence of "impersonal" laws acting over billions of years"
This has been argued before. His use of the term "impersonal" as a modifier lays a theological constraint on the word "laws". "Impersonal laws" is a metaphysical assertion. Tell me exactly how he has demonstrated that the laws are "impersonal"?
"we are not the playthings of supernatural intervention"
Again how does one demonstrate through the proximate causes of the physical universe that something supernatural is not using us as a plaything?
Again how does one demonstrate through the proximate causes of the physical universe that something supernatural is not using us as a plaything?PMFJI, but that's the same kind of challenge that Fatalis is making above.
Remember: Which side is making the positive claim, and which is making the negative claim? And therefore who has the obligation to come up with some kind of positive evidence for their claim and who doesn't?
It's reasonable for our side to ask for some evidence for your positive claim. Is it reasonable for you to ask us for positive evidence for our negative claim?
On the other side Weinberg claims that the physical evidence demonstrates the metaphysical proposition that laws are "impersonal". We all agree that the laws exist. The only question is whether they are personal (in some way) or impersonal. I can believe that he has faith that the laws are impersonal but unless he can demonstrate the presence or absence of the personal, he's not standing on a better platform of evidence than I am and I'm not claiming my metaphysical assertions are science, he is.But as snarks_when_bored has argued, the assumption that there's a person of some kind pulling our (physical law) strings from beyond the universe is hardly in a privileged position after 400 years of science. The existence of this supernatural personality that's supposedly behind all this natural regularity is the positive assertion that needs to show its positive evidence.
So far as I know, only one "pro-design" person on FR has ever consented to play "general_re's" "Design Inference Game" in which he offers up several images of objects and asks the contestant to decide whether the item is the result of natural processes or "intelligent design," and provide the reasoning behind their choice.
The reality is despite much posturing and boasting, nobody seems to be able to come up with a very reliable mechanism by which to distinguish design from nature in the absence the context of the object under discussion. Mere "observation" doesn't seem to work very well.
This is the danger I have been trying to convince the Creationists about. Once they insist on starting the argument about whether Evolution is valid or not, what happens if they lose? Or at least lose the argument in the mind of one person?
Christianitys stated goal is to bring people to accept Christ. If a Creationist insists that to believe in God/Christ, you have to believe in a 6 day creation, then some people will reject God. Because they physical evidence just isn't there.
If on the other hand religious people merely decide to interpret the few words in Genesis dealing with the subject wide enough to allow for Evolution to exist. Then the problem is gone.
Religion and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, except in the mind of Creationists.
In fact, if I were of a mind to discredit religion, the best way I could imagine to do so would be to start a Creationism/Evolution fight, and then lose it. Taking with me the belief of all who've participated.
Christians should be avoiding this argument, and instead they're pushing it. That's double stupid.
Well jennyp, you're on dangerous ground when you start attributing motive aren't you?
Before I respond, let me see if I can repeat your statement in a way that you'd agree with.
You think ignorant believers are sneaking their God into your universe, falsely bolstering their faith by attributing to their God the evidence of design we all find in nature?
You seem to forget your hypothesis is based upon missing evidence. Since I don't offer the Bible as scientific evidence, your argument has no merit. Before I can present my evidence it would help if you took some logic classes at the graduate level, history of science (pay particular attention to Mendel's Law). It would help too if you count the number of times your Biology textbooks unnecessarily use the word Evolution so that when I start explaining how brainwashing works you'll grasp the fact that you were brainwashed by religious fanatics which I'll happily prove to you. But first go read Aristotle and Plato. I've read Darwin's works as well as Einstein's works and found them logically unsound.
It's probably not a good idea to make assumptions about what one's fellow FReepers have read or not read. I try to avoid it. However, since you don't, I'll just say that the likelihood that you know more than I do about, say, Plato's thought is infinitesimally small.
That aside, if you're not using the Bible as scientific evidence, and if you reject Darwinism, perhaps you'd be willing to reveal how you yourself account for the phenomena that thousands of biologists and paleontologists around the world have sought to understand using evolution. And surely you've written about this somewhere; have you published your views?
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.