Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

But I digress. At the very heart of the idea of complementarity is this: The two sides of the complementarity are only mutually-exclusive in an experimental situation, as conceived by an observer. This is not a question begging for a “true–false,” “yes–no” answer, á la Aristotle’s Third Law. For complementarity regards both “sides” as potentially true — under the given experimental conditions. Though you can’t have “both at once,” you need both to describe the total system which they together comprise.

So that’s why I suggested a while back, dear tacticalogic, that although machines and computers may thrive on maximal “computability” — which Aristotle’s Third definitely maximally promotes — this may not be a good model for biology.
----------------------------------------------

This discussion/dialog/symposium(thread) is like a convo between A BORG and a member of the Federation....

Both coming for two very different positions of "reality"...

One from the "HIVE"(collective) and one from an open society..

The Borg appreciate the beauty of the "machine"...

The other appreciating the beauty of raw random inspiration..

AND since all participants HERE are human one is playing an unnatural role.. wearing a mask of un natural efficiency..

To which to all I offer THIS as entertainment..
----ENJOY--

I understand what you're saying, but I do not understand what you expect everyone to do about it.

The scientific method requires and relies on empiricism, and there are no known metrics for supernatural causes.

If you want everyone to scrap the scientific method in favor of something else, show us the "something else". If you know how to observe and measure or classify supernatural causes, tell us how to do that. If you have a better method, show me.

betty boop (#1,237): "Well I suppose it's easier for you to redirect me to the reexamination of our past back-and-forth statements than it is to simply answer a simple question: What is the foundation of science itself?"

But that was not the question you asked in post #1,210 and to which in #1,214 I referred you back to a previous answer in #1,196.

betty boop (#1,237): "Then there is the problem of: What "allegations" have I made?
Can you recite them back to me?"

One example was posted right there, in #1,214, along with my response referring you to previous answers.

"Whatever the case, BroJoeK keeps intoning the official mantra of Neo-Darwinism: All explanations of Nature must be predicated on "natural causes."
It doesn't ever seem to occur to him that "natural causes" can be downstream from a Cause that is not "natural" in the sense BroJoeK and his like-minded friends do not and cannot recognize, given their prior commitment — their epistemically prior commitment — to the theory of universal, reductionist materialism."

So here is the actual quote from my post #1,196:

Precisely how God accomplished (and accomplishes) all His miracles, we don't know, but science has suggested a very small number of theories.
By that I mean: the ratio of what we think we know versus what we don't know is still similar to that which Sir Isaac Newton reported 300 years ago when he said:
'I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.' "

betty boop (#1,237): "What is the foundation of science itself?"

Natural explanations for natural processes, period.

betty boop (#1,237): "As ever, I would like to know: WHO defined "science" in this way?
(Would you just tell me???)"

Here is one question of which you, Ms boop, can be 100% epistemically and ontologically certain: it's not you.
You personally get no say, no vote, no influence or suggestions on the subject.
You can't define "science", you can't touch it, it's not yours.
Natural-science belongs to somebody else.
Who does it belong to?
Well, natural-scientists, of course -- people who understand that the word "science" means: natural explanations for natural processes.

Since you, Ms. boop, don't understand that, or won't accept it, you get no say in what science is, or where it's going.
In that sense, you have the same relationship to science that, say, an atheist has to Christian theology.
Your opinions are irrelevant.

betty boop (#1,237): "Certainly we can't blame Thomas Aquinas, Saint and Doctor of the universal Church.
He never artificially divided the spiritual from the natural world; it was not he who proposed them as somehow mutually exclusive categories, such that "science" has to choose between them in order to do its business."

But of course, it was Aquinas who first drew our attention to the, ahem, difference, distinction, contrast or division between theology based on the Bible and "natural-philosophy" based on inputs from our senses.
As I posted in #275, my understanding of Aquinas comes, in part, from here:

"Aquinas was a Christian theologian, but he was also an Aristotelian and an Empiricist, and he substantially influenced these two streams of Western thought.

He believed that truth becomes known through both natural revelation (certain truths are available to all people through their human nature and through correct human reasoning) and supernatural revelation (faith-based knowledge revealed through scripture), and he was careful to separate these two elements, which he saw as complementary rather than contradictory in nature."

As I said from the beginning of this thread: after Aquinas, the "complementary nature" of theology and natural-science became increasingly disputed.
Do you not "get" that?

betty boop (#1,237): "Thomas never indicated the two realms were mutually exclusive.
Why do you, dear BroJoeK?"

FRiend, boop, across many posts here, I've been consistent from the beginning in pointing out what you've just said: that Aquinas himself did not consider theology and natural-science to be in conflict, but that since Aquinas in historical fact they often have been, at times resulting in bloody violence.
Aquinas showed us the difference between them, others changed difference to violent dichotomy.
Do you not remember that discussion?

betty boop (#1,237): "And I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the universe and everything in it "evolves."
What else could you possibly expect a cosmic-scale spatio-temporal process to do?"

Sure, the term "evolution" is used in any number of highly informal & imprecise senses such that virtually any change can be said to "evolve".
But the precise scientific definition of "evolution" is simply: speciation through 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Science itself says that evolution is teleologically "purposeless" which only means that if we see a purpose in evolution, then that purpose is supplied from a non-scientific realm, i.e.: theology.

betty boop (#1,237): "When you asked me, 'So please tell us how such a simple concept can be so difficult for you to grasp?'
I definitely got the impression that you were trying to stage me as some kind of stoopid religious fanatic who, being "religious," is necessarily "stoopid."

Of course, you refused to answer my question, and instead changed the subject.
Does that make you "smart" or "stooped", FRiend?

Why not just give the answer to my question: simple, straight forward and to the point?

betty boop to tacticalogic: "You may be asking different questions than I ask; but in the end, you still have the problem of qualifying and validating the answers you receive, just as I do.
You cannot divorce science from Truth — of which God, not man, is the Measure."

Science itself insists on the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
Both mean "natural explanations for natural processes", but while philosophical naturalism denies the existence of anything outside the scientific realm, methodological naturalism allows scientists to take off their "science hat" when they leave the laboratory, and put on their "believe in the super-natural hat" at home.

Methodological naturalism allows scientists to understand that science itself is not the be-all or end-all of reality.
It allows us to look at science itself as just another tool-box, capable of performing certain specific tasks, but incapable on many others.

Is that distinction something you can't grasp, Ms boop?

betty boop to tacticalogic: "What is striking about your and BroJoeK’s arguments is the evident agreement between you regarding the absolute separability of the “super-natural” from the “natural” world.
You see these “worlds” as mutually-exclusive domains according to the logic of Aristotle’s Third Law, and classical (i.e., Newtonian) physics.
Then you maintain that science has to pick one and reject the other in order to do its work.
So the “super-natural” gets dumped, never to be seen again...."

To Ms boop: as first pointed out by Aquinas, the super-natural realm is different from the natural realm in that our understandings of super-natural begin with the Bible, while those of nature begin with input from our senses.

Natural-science is simply the study of nature.
If you then decide to "dump" the super-natural, that is your choice, but it's not required by science itself.

betty boop to tacticalogic: "The idea of complementarity arises from Niels Bohr’s uncertainty principle.
I honor Bohr as one of the greatest epistemologists of all time IMHO and as founding father of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics."

The Uncertainty Principle was formulated by Bohr's student, Werner Heisenberg working at Bohr's institute in 1926.
That's why it's called the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."

It is often said that Isaac Newton's ordered universe of precise mathematical formulas was overturned by Einstein's relativity, Bohr's quantums, Heisenberg's uncertainty, and chaos theory with its strange attractors and butterfly effects to the point where today it's more true than ever -- Haldane's words from 1927:

"The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. "

betty boop to tacticalogic: "Well I suppose to you, dear friend, this thread has been about the defense of Darwin and of modern science itself.
For me, it’s been a plea for the restoration of sanity to modern science."

Science itself is merely a tool, which by its nature can be neither "sane" nor "insane", except as directed by the hands of those wielding it.
Tools either work, or don't work, a working tool is applied appropriately or inappropriately.
The tool itself doesn't care what you do with it.

If you build an alter to your tools, and worship them as God, then the tools themselves are not insane -- only you are insane.
Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp, Ms. boop?

The Uncertainty Principle was formulated by Bohr's student, Werner Heisenberg working at Bohr's institute in 1926.... That's why it's called the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."

I 'm already aware of this, dear BroJoeK. Unlike his friend Einstein, who mainly worked as a loner (and didn't take much interest in professional scientific journals), Bohr loved collaboration, and surrounded himself with brilliant younger thinkers, such as Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli. (Also a young physicist by the name of Abraham Pais was part of this charmed, dynamic circle. It was he who wrote the magisterial biographies of both Einstein and Bohr. From which one can learn a great deal of physics, indeed.)

The Copenhagen Interpretation was a group effort. The "uncertainty" principle was Heisenberg's great contribution. (Which caused Schrödinger to run for the exits.) And my account of Bohr's reservation WRT the term "uncertainty principle" is still correct.

To recap Bohr's critical insight, quoting from Post 1240. (In what follows, I'm inserting [bracketed material] to try to further elucidate my meaning):

Bohr himself did not like the term, “uncertainty principle.” He reasoned: A condition of “uncertainty” could be resolved by the acquisition of further relevant knowledge.

But that would not describe what Bohr found: The “condition” we are trying to describe here cannot in principle be resolved by any further acquisition of knowledge. We are speaking of a limitation on human perception (and thus apperception) itself. Bohr thought the problem is not one of “uncertainty”; it is a problem of [absolute] undecidability. [A sort of "cosmic censorship" principle seems to be at work here....]
An insight further supported by Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem….
A condition of “undecidability” is one in which no matter how much additional knowledge of the world one acquires, one will never be able to answer an “undecidable” question.
So Bohr preferred the term, “undecidability principle.” It did not stick.

You wrote:

...[A]s first pointed out by Aquinas, the super-natural realm is different from the natural realm in that our understandings of super-natural begin with the Bible, while those of nature begin with input from our senses.

I'm just not buying that, BroJoeK. I reason: Our understandings of the "super-natural" arise, not principally from Holy Scripture, but from movements of the apperceptive mind (which may or may not be inspired or influenced by the texts of Holy Scripture). It is considered virtually certain that neither Plato nor Aristotle ever read the Holy Scriptures, or were in cultural contact with Israel or Christianity (the latter did not exist in their time).

And yet Plato's cosmology describes one single, integrated, eternally living cosmos "possessing nous" whose generative cause is the Unknown God "beyond" the cosmos. In other words, the physical (natural world) has a metaphysical (super-natural) origin. Possibly to Plato's mind, it would exhibit a spectacularly beautiful piece of geometry.... [See: Max Tegmark's "Parallel Universes", and check out the section on the Level IV Parallel Universe — which should give you a very good idea about the shelf-life of the Platonist mathematical approach to describing cosmic reality unto this day.]

Aristotle speaks of a Prime Mover, the first uncaused cause of everything that exists in the natural world.

Consider these lines from Eric Voegelin ("On Debate and Existence," 1967):

...There is talk about a first mover of the universe — who must be assumed to be an intellect — from whom emanates somehow an order of being that is at the same time an order of truth. Why should we be concerned with a prime mover and his properties? — you will ask. And does the matter really improve when Aquinas identifies the prime mover with the God of revelation and uses the Aristotelian argument for the prime mover as a demonstration of the existence of God? At the risk of arousing the indignation of convinced Aristotelians and Thomists I must say that I consider such questions quite pertinent. The questions must be raised, for we do no longer live, as did Aristotle and even Aquinas, at the center of a cosmos, moved with all its content by a prime mover, with a chain of aitia, of causes, extending from existent to existent down to the most lowly ones. The symbolism of a closed cosmos, which informs the fundamental concepts of classic and scholastic metaphysics [and also, arguably, Newtonian physics], has been superseded by the universe of modern physics and astronomy.

Nevertheless, if we admit all this, does it follow that Aristotelian and Thomist metaphysics must be thrown on the scrap heap of symbolisms that once had their moment of truth but now have become useless?
You will have anticipated that the answer will be negative. To be sure, a large part of the symbolism has become obsolete, but there is solid core of truth in it that can be, and must be salvaged by means of some surgery.... [I]f we remove from it everything that smacks of cosmological symbolism, there remains as a pièce de résistance the argument that a universe which contains intelligent beings cannot originate with a prima causa that is less than intelligent....
Human existence, it appears, is not opaque to itself, but illuminated by intellect (Aquinas) or nous (Aristotle). This intellect is as much a part of human existence as it is the instrument of its interpretation. In the exegesis of existence intellect discovers itself in the structure of existence; ontologically speaking, human existence has a noetic structure. The intellect discovers itself, furthermore, as a force transcending its own existence; by virtue of the intellect, existence not only is not opaque, but actually reaches out beyond itself in various directions in search of knowledge. Aristotle opens his Metaphysics with the sentence: "All men by nature desire to know."...
With regard to things, the desire to know raises the questions of their origin, both with regard to their existence (I include under this title both the hyletic and kinetic arguments) and their essence (the eidetic argument). In both respects, Aristotle's etiological demonstration arrives ultimately at the eternal, immaterial prima causa as the origin of existent things. [I added some bolds there.]

I just don't see how you can "separate" mind — itself somehow "super-natural" — and sense perception — which seems "natural" enough — the way you seem to want to do. Among other things, mind is the "mill," to which sense perception delivers the "grist."

You act as if you did not know that you yourself are a very model or example of a super-natural/natural composite. Plato knew that the human being is a natural composite of physical (material) body and (noetic) eternal soul. Of death itself, he said: "Death is but the separation of body and soul; nothing more."

Plato believed in physical death right enough. He just also believed that souls are immortal.

Do you really you want me to accept that "super-natural entities" are irrelevant to the conduct of "science?" — science as historically understood, as a process promulgating, pursuing, and fulfilling the natural desire to know of natural human beings?

Must leave it for there for the moment, dear BroJoeK. Thank you so very much for writing!

At the risk of arousing the indignation of convinced Aristotelians and Thomists I must say that I consider such questions quite pertinent.

The problem arises not because you consider it "quite pertinent", but that you demand everyone do likewise, to the exclusion of all else.

So, I see, Bohr decided that undecidability was decidable?...
AND after deciding that.................. was uncertain about how to label it?..
because the data was incomplete!....

Thats enough to make Schrödinger’s Cat turn sideways puff up, growl and spit..

Then you got my philosophy that earth is a maze made for human rats to be tested..
some rats (like me) hole up in a Cul D’Sac and watch the other rats run around like
you know............ RATS.. i.e. embrace the maze..

Who is the smartest Rat?... is a moot point (imo)... their RATS!.. metaphorically..

Then you got my philosophy that earth is a maze made for human rats to be tested.. some rats (like me) hole up in a Cul D’Sac and watch the other rats run around like you know............ RATS.. i.e. embrace the maze..

Who is the smartest Rat?... is a moot point (imo)... their RATS!.. metaphorically..

So running the maze is beneath you, but you're quite willing to take advantage and enjoy the benefits of what the other "rats" have learned by running it.

The problem arises not because you consider it "quite pertinent", but that you demand everyone do likewise, to the exclusion of all else.

I do not demand that "everybody" agree with me.

That is the very last thing I want or expect.

Plus, I do not "demonize" people who disagree with me.

It is not my job to tell people what to think. It is only my job to show people where to look, if they want answers to certain questions.

If, then, the people who actually took up my suggestion to "go look" for themselves; which people later got back to me, and said: "Well, I went and looked, and didn't see anything"; well then, I really don't know what further to say to such people. Except perhaps: You cannot see what you are unwilling to look for.

Dear tacticalogic, thank you so very much for writing — and for being such a good friend over so many years.

It is only my job to show people where to look, if they want answers to certain questions.

How did you get this job?

How did you get this job?

Pay is low, but the perqs are great. And the coffee is all-you-can-drink.

It is only my job to show people where to look, if they want answers to certain questions.

And who is deciding which questions you're going to put constaints on where they can look to find answers?

So running the maze is beneath you, but you’re quite willing to take advantage and enjoy the benefits of what the other “rats” have learned by running it.

Yeah... thats pretty much “IT”.. Some rats are lazy... live wid it..

Yeah... thats pretty much “IT”.. Some rats are lazy... live wid it..

Always has been some lazy ones. I guess it gives the predators something to pick off.

No loss.. rats were made to be eaten...

We’d miss you.

betty: You cannot see what you are unwilling to look for.

Spirited: The natural condition of man is self-centeredness. Philosophically this is the idea of the Absolute One Substance, or monism. Since all that exists is the One Substance then everything else, including all human beings, are but aspects of the One Substance.

Pride (self-centeredness and covetousness) is the beginning of all sin, said Augustine. Self-centered men will covet against God (i.e., Nimrod, Buddha, Marx, Nietzsche, Teilhard), against mother and father, against brother and sister, against neighbor.

Operating beneath the politics and science of destruction-—socialism, communism, evolutionary atheism and adjuncts such as reductionism, naturalism, empiricism, redistribution of wealth, universal health care, depopulation schemes, Agenda 21,sustainable growth initiatives, and global change is selfishness and covetousness together with lust for power, greed, gluttony, envy:

“Pride is seldom delicate, it will please itself with very mean advantages; and envy feels not its own happiness, but when it may be compared with the misery of others.” (Samuel Johnson, British poet, critic, writer, 1709-1784)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” (Winston Churchill, British orator, author and Prime Minister during World War II, 1874-1965)

“When I say that Marxism is based on envy, I mean that the glorious revolution of the proletariat...was really a promise to put a final end to all the conditions that make for envy.” (Joseph Epstein, author and former editor of The American Scholar, from Truths about Socialism, Coral Ridge Ministries, p. 66)

Self-centeredness/covetousness (envy)is the principle of negation (of truth, spiritual virtues, etc) and rebellion (against moral law, manners, authority, rules, etc)in the fallen soul of every man and woman and has played a part in human dynamics ever since the envy-bitten Cain murdered his brother Abel.

From the time of Adam and Eve men have been denying the existence of “self” (soul/spirit) in order to negate free will (it’s not my fault) and conscience (how was I to know?) even while expecting applause and approval for whatever “great thing” has been said or done.

Against natural man’s tendency to selfishness and covetousness His Creator commands man to,

“....love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself.” Luke 10:27

The end of the commandment is selfless charity from a pure heart, a good conscience and unfeigned faith. (1 Thess. 1:5) He that loves his neighbor fulfills the law for he does not covet, negate truth by way of lies, nor try to spiritually murder brother by way of false witness, slander, gossip, libel, etc., which today is known as the politics of personal destruction.

Charity works no evil. It is not perversely puffed up with pride. It is not ambitious, does not serve ‘self,’ thinks no evil, does not covet, resent and envy and neither rejoices in another man’s misery nor derides, mocks, scoffs, and contends against truth and virtue as the envious do:

“When men are full of envy, they disparage everything, whether it be good or bad.” (Publius Cornelius Tacitus)

“Nothing sharpens sight like envy.” (Thomas Fuller, British clergyman and writer, 1608-1661)

The proud, covetous man is a hypocrite whose sharpened sight sees no evil in himself but sees it very clearly in others.

Pride, covetousness and hypocrisy (the principle of negation and rebellion) are at epidemic levels here in America: in the whole body of the Church, the White House, Congress, Hollywood, academia, science, etc.

Where ‘self’ is primary a culture of subjectivism and slander of other is the norm since ‘self’ deserves everything it can get, no matter the cost to other people and society.

In “Death by Envy,” Fr. George R.A. Aquaro points out that Christ’s earthly ministry centered on convicting the world of idolatry by provoking people (represented by the Pharisees) to envy and then murder. By becoming the scapegoat, Jesus Christ allows mankind to place their sins upon Him so that we might repent at the sight of His blood. (p. 101)

Pride (self-centeredness and covetousness) is the beginning of all sin, said Augustine. Self-centered men will covet against God (i.e., Nimrod, Buddha, Marx, Nietzsche, Teilhard), against mother and father, against brother and sister, against neighbor.

Is that what's causing you to accuse other posters of being "humanist" if they don't follow exactly the same theological doctrines you do? Pride in your own religiousity?

betty boop: "You act as if you did not know that you yourself are a very model or example of a super-natural/natural composite."

Dear Ms boop: Why do you act as if your reading comprehension were no greater than a small child's?
In fact, I've suggested no such misunderstanding.
I have merely reminded you ad nauseam that the word "science" refers to studies of the natural universe, and that anything outside nature -- anything super-natural, spiritual, teleological, theological, religious, metaphysical, etc. -- those are, by definition, simply non-scientific studies.
Of course, all of those studies have long and distinguished histories, shedding strong lights on truth and Truth.
But they are not natural-science, and should not be confused with science.

Indeed, that's the major point I've been hoping to make in all these hundreds of posts.

betty boop: "Do you really you want me to accept that "super-natural entities" are irrelevant to the conduct of "science?" — science as historically understood, as a process promulgating, pursuing, and fulfilling the natural desire to know of natural human beings?"

Relevant or irrelevant, vital or inconsequential, of all-consuming-importance or of no-importance -- it doesn't matter.
Whatever they are, they are not within the boundaries of natural-science and so cannot be studied as science.
Of course, anyone-anytime-anywhere is free to study and learn as much as they wish about such subjects, and to publish their considered opinions on them -- just so long as they don't call such opinions "science".

Seriously, is that hard for you to "get"?

spirited irish: "Pride (self-centeredness and covetousness) is the beginning of all sin, said Augustine...

Operating beneath the politics and science of destruction-—socialism, communism, evolutionary atheism and adjuncts such as reductionism, naturalism, empiricism, redistribution of wealth, universal health care, depopulation schemes, Agenda 21,sustainable growth initiatives, and global change is selfishness and covetousness together with lust for power, greed, gluttony, envy:"

I'm sure that by now everyone here understands your modus operandi is to take a high-powered vacuum cleaner to suck-up every conceivable "ism" you find distasteful, and when your dirt-bag is chock-full, you label it as some deadly-sin -- in this case "pride" -- which can be cleansed by the actions you are here to recommend.

I think tacticalogic was first to remark: this is not really "news/activism".
But while the rest of us have discussed various other subjects, our FRiend spirited irish has consistently continued to do just what she came to do.

And, after all, it is her thread...

;-)