Skeptical

BTW, the reason I think this discussion is important and the reason I started a new thread dedicated to this topic is that it seems that many of the arguments raised by Vander relate not to the science behind evolutionary theories, but because of beliefs he has acquired through other disciplines. What I have been trying to demonstrate is that one cannot use non-empirical disciplines such as philosophy and theology to critique empirical disciplines such as biology, geology, etc.

I would also like to point out for Vander's sake that the converse argument also holds. That is, empirical disciplines cannot invalidate theology no more than it can validate it. To be sure, when theology makes certain empirical claims, those can be validated or invalidated. However, one can always accept the findings of the empirical sciences and say "that's just the way God chose to do it". If one has a committed belief in theism, it _is_ reconcilable with the findings of the empirical sciences. Where theology gets into trouble is when it chooses to make truth claims that _are_ susceptible to proof or disproof by empirical means. IMO, theology would be much better off if it would defer to the empirical disciplines on empirical matters and stick to the non-empirical questions as its domain of study.

Clutch

Skeptical,

But you just falsified your own claim! You know pathological liars, you say. Well, how do you know they're liars, if this is absolutely undetectable?

The doctrine of the essential privacy of thoughts is, if not dead and buried, at least thoroughly disreputable. This is partly because it rules out a priori the possibility of establishing empirical correlations between neurological events and thoughts, but more importantly because it ignores the homely datum that you yourself illuminate: we actually have all manner of ways of telling what someone is thinking. Do some people have particularly good poker faces? Sure. But that's just the (surely uncontested) observation that it can be really, really hard to tell what someone is thinking. Which is very different from the claim that it is unknowable.

Skeptical

Perhaps you missed the last part of my comment:

"...even though empirical evidence would reveal falsehood"

By this I meant empirical methods other than the persons say so. For example, if they say such and such happened and you have other persons who are reliable that say it did not happen, you have empirical methods to demonstrate falsehood.

This has been my point all along. Without empirical methods, NE data and NEV explanations are indistinguishable from opinion and/or falsehood. Someone could be lying, telling the truth or just simply mistaken and there is no criteria other than empiricism to judge this.

Actually, I think you are missing my point. Let's take the pathological liar example. A true pathological liar is rare, but they do exist. The psychological phenomena is such that the PL actually _believes_ they are telling the truth. They will pass a lie detector and they will pass any body language tests since in their own heads they are telling the truth. To take another example, one can believe they have been told something by God or Satan, but this is completely unverifiable even in theory. If someone believes it, they'll pass any empirical tests you give them, but the source of the belief is no less verifiable.

Even if we could build a mind machine that told us unequivocally what was going on "in a person's head", we could _not_ know the source of those thoughts. One could always posit "God put the thought in my head" or "Satan put the thought in my head" and we cannot disprove this through any empirical means, which is the only mean we have.

Clutch

Maybe I am missing your broader point, since you seem to be arguing that not everything everyone says is true. Your specific claim -- that the people in question could pass any test -- is what I was addressing. That's false, or at least unargued. Liars who misdescribe even their own thoughts are in principle empirically discoverable. VZ's uninformed remarks about verificationism simply don't apply here.

Vanderzyden

Actually, my arguments focus on the philosophy that is presupposed--often uncritically--by naturalistic scientists. Many scientists claim that their work is religiously neutral. But, of course, it rarely is found to be so. What troubles me about evolution is not its possibility: I'm not afraid that my physical frame is perhaps derived directly from an ape prototype. No, what is difficult to swallow are the theories about HOW it took place. As myself and many others maintain, there is precious little evidence to support Darwinism. I continue to encounter people who are utterly shocked at the poor support that underlies macroevolution.

My problem is that methodological naturalism (MN)is the worldview of so many scientists, and they claim that it is science itself. I have indicated this repeatedly. MN systematically excludes any supernatural explanation as a cause for natural objects or phenomena. In practice, it is found to be exactly equivalent to metaphysical naturalism, which insists that nothing supernatural actually exists. The reason they are practically equivalent is that the naturalistic scientist refuses to set aside the methodology when faced with the admission of a design inference. The typical Darwinist rejects any evidence or inquiries from known theists, and this is because they either maintain atheistic beliefs or because they fear any sort of God-of-the-gaps thinking. They refuse to acknowledge that supernatural intelligent design is a reasonable explanation. That is because they have another meta-explanation that overrules all others: God didn't do it. In doing so, they force their science to be an impotent endeavor, lying dead and smashed upon the rocks of pride.

So, I am not attacking science, but rather the philosophy behind Darwinism. (You do know that Darwin was "angry" at God because his "good" little niece died--he could not believe in a God that could allow such a thing). My career and my training are founded squarely on the PROPER sciences. However, I could not do my work, nor enjoy many technological advances, if either was founded upon a crumbled edifice such as Darwinism.

I beg to differ. Christian theology would be completely invalidated if someone found the bones. If you read the gospel accounts, you will discover that this was a big problem for the Jewish leaders:

When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

--Matthew 28:12-15

So, producing the bones of Jesus would be empirical invalidation of the greatest movement in the entire history of the world.

You should realize that, on your view of objectivity, many of the truth claims of the Bible may be empirically examined. If you accept the historical account of Tacitus as generally correct, then you should seriously consider the truth claims of the New Testament, since it is far more reliable and verifiably authentic than anything else we have from the ancient world (by many assessments and many orders of magnitude).


Yes, that the primary aim, is it not? Let's agree, says the naturalist, to separate religious and metaphysical matters from science. Each has its own specific domain and its own set of truths. But, since "science" deals with what is empirical--i.e. that which can be seen or touched--it readily trumps any non-empirical discipline. Therefore, science is knowledge. Religion is not, and is therefore classified as "private" speculations and myths.

But, when we venture down this road, we encounter difficulty immediately. Take, for example, the value of human life. Is a man merely his body, or more than that? If we talk to scientists who maintain a naturalistic philosophy, they insist that a human body is nothing but the material constituents. However, if we all agree to live in a manner that is consistent with such a world view, we cannot condemn anyone for a crime committed more than 7 years ago, since the body completely recycles its cells in that period. Also, issues of motive would not be permissible in court. We should no longer trouble ourselves with issues of abortion, euthanasia, or capital punishment. In fact, the term murder is rendered meaningless.

No, I say. Truth simply IS. Science makes no exclusive claims to it. Innumerable truths were known well before the Enlightenment (and many misunderstandings persist today). Science encompasses far more than the naturalist will admit. This is partly because the training and work of many scientists is highly-specialized. There is little cross-disciplinary interaction. Their education in logic and liberal arts is often limited. And, because methodological naturalism is the only approach to truth to which young scientists are exposed, they come to see it as the only approach that is valid.

Comments?

Vanderzyden

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

scigirl

Vanderzyden,

Your last post had some interesting questions. However, I find your repeated use of the word "darwinist" and your assertion that evolutionary theory = atheism to be false logic, and I strongly encourage you to stop with the silliness there. Thank you.
I agree - obviously someone's religious (or a-religious) beliefs influence their lives in many ways.

However, could you give me an example of how a scientist could do good science, yet at the same time, use his/her religious beliefs to do the science? Specific examples would be excellent.

I'm not sure if this is correct. There is a lot of evidence to support evolution, both "circumstantially" by way of fossil similarities, etc, and "mechanistically," by way of chromosome fusions, gene duplications, genome duplications, inversions, actions of promotors, and all those other genetic things. However it seems that you don't accept this evidence. Your claim that this evidence does not exist is quite frankly, wrong. You just don't accept the evidence. There is a profound difference.

I would agree with you. Science cannot explore anything but observable, testable phenomenon.

So you seem to be saying a couple of things here: Science is limited to the natural, but also that scientists should not limit themselves to natural explanations. Is that a correct assessment of your opinions?

If so, then pray tell me, how is a scientist supposed to consider supernatural explanations when we both agree that science as a tool cannot consider supernatural explanations?

Please give me some concrete examples that you think scientists should be doing, in addition to their boring old naturalistic experiments.

For instance, should they consult tarot cards? Pray in the lab? If prayer, which prayers, and from which religions? Which supernatural explanations should they "test" - monotheistic god or polytheistic gods? What about goddesses?

What?? Please tell me what they should be doing so they don't "miss" anything. You want scientists to be open to religious explanations - OK let's hear it. How??

Huh? Again, what do you suppose the scientists use instead, when, say, analyzing the brachial plexus of the arm, or the alleged "infinitely complex" eye?

Do you recommend that scientists say, "Oh gee whiz, the eye is so complex. Praise God (or Allah or Vishnu or Voodoo), I can't figure it out. Well time to go home."??

Or do you recommend that scientists say, "Hmm, given the constraints of biological phenomenon, how and why did the eye develop? And how do these developments affect its function?

Please tell me how to add supernatural beliefs to the second scenario (which hopefully we can both agree is a more realistic scenario for a scientist), and also tell me how these supernatural beliefs further the cause of science as a valid tool for explaining the eye.
Again, you keep using the word "Darwinist" even though many of us have told you we do not see ourselves like that.

Darwinism is not the opposite of Christianity. And no one is a darwinist. They are simply scientists who use the theory of evolution, as well as many other theories to explain the world around us.

In addition, you keep equating evolution with atheism, despite our repeated claims that they are not the same thing. Just because you personally don't think that evolution-believers are True Christians (TM), doesn't mean they aren't Christians. Got it??

Yes you have whined about this many times, but yet you have not once answered this fundamental question:

How are scientists supposed to use supernatural beliefs in their analysis, and how are they supposed to determine which supernatural beliefs are valid explanations, and which ones are not?

Please give me specific examples of how a scientist, using intelligent design or some other supernatural theory, would enlighten the scientific community with new knowledge and explanations.

You have repeatedly stated that evolutionary theory hasn't done anything for us (which is patently false, but I started another thread for dealing with that). I ask you in return, what has intelligent design done, or what can it do, for say, curing cancer?

I don't mean, what has a christian scientist done using boring old science. I mean, what can a christian do, using his christian beliefs, in the science realm.

What are you talking about? What in the world is "Darwinism philosphy"? Do you honestly believe that scientists are all these cold, impersonal people who think life has no value or meaning? Get a clue, Vanderzyden!!

And once again, you fail to recognize that all sciences operate independently of supernatural explanations. Physics. Chemistry. Biology. All of it. I would say, "you could not do your work, nor enjoy many technological advances, if either was founded on superstition rather than careful methological science."

Scientists in the past have been of all different religious persuasions, and perhaps their religion guided them into the field of science. But the discoveries and advances themselves were only possible because of adherence to the scientific method, AND the a priori assumption that there IS a natural explanation for whatever facet they were studying, be it gravity or human creation. That's how science works in EVERY field - deal with it. You still haven't said why you pick on evolution, and not physics. Was Newton being ignorant when he looked for a scientific reason for gravity, rather than appealing to the gods?

Hmm, too bad you haven't actually talked to any real scientists. Here we are Vander - I find it funny that you are here telling us what we believe. You clearly don't have a freaking clue what we believe.

For one thing, I don't look to evolutionary prinicples for morality any more than I look to laws of thermodynamics for morality. I am not the one that sees evolution as way grander than all the other sciences, as you apparently do.

For a good description of what I believe in terms of morals, <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/affirmations.html" target="_blank">click here</a>. Instead of speculating (way incorrectly) about what we believe, get a clue and ASK US!!!!

I agree. However, even if this is true, this does not automatically make your religious worldview true. Do you understand that the validitiy of Christianity as a truth is independent of whether science is a valid truth?

To prove Christianity is a valid truth, you must focus on its claims, not on some faulty reasoning in science.

I think you are right, to a point. But the answer is, well let's cross-discipline ourselves. Not reject fundamental tenets of science. Right?

Sometimes this is true, unfortunately. And many people with degrees in philosphy know jack crap about the real world. All the more reason to improve our education system. I do not see how this relates to whether science itself is a valid way to ascertain truth.

Once again (is that the 50th time now?) I've heard this whine from you.

Please give me specific examples of how scientists can avoid this evil trap of methodological naturalism.

Here, I'll start one for you. I am currently studying the anatomy of the arm in medical school. Evolutionary theory is one tool that we analyze this structure (how it develops embryonically, how it is related to other limb structures in the animal kingdom). Another way is to correlate structure with function.

Please add to my studies, and understanding, of the human upper limb, with this supernatural naturalistic philosophy. Illuminate me, Vanderzyden. I'll be waiting. . .

scigirl

Doubting Didymus

Just out of interest, let us imagine a hypothetical sitution: Science abandons methodological naturalism. Religious explanations are now allowed in science.

Which religion do you think would be scientifically revealed as true and why? If science could prove that humans were designed, which god do you, personally, think would be found to be responsible? What evidence do you think would reveal this information?

Edited to note: this post was adressed to vaderzyden, not scigirl.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Its quite simple scigirl. With an unbiased critical mind, look for evidence of some designer god or other. Do you see any?

For the record, this precise link also exemplifies my own moral code. Secular humanists! Hooray!

Skeptical

I'm quite sure I have read from a reputable source that pathological liars routinely pass lie detector tests without even needing special instructions on how to do so. I don't remember where I saw it, so I'll have to beg off until I do some research to find it again.

Starboy

Vanderzeyden,

If you want to make an impact on this audience, you are going to have to speak to us on our terms. We are scientists, so you will have to present ID as a competing theory. You will have to present ID predictions that conflict with ToE predictions. You will have to present the results of experiments that test the predictions. The results must provide good support for ID. You will have to get other scientists to repeat the experiment producing similar results. This is the only way ID will get the attention of scientists. Put up or shut up. Stop your whining and produce some science, otherwise stick to philosophy and we will stick to science. I would really like to see you try, I suspect that if you did it would be a real eye opener.

Starboy