Albert Cipriani

Dear Joe,
Yes, I'm a Baltimore catechumen. No, I'm not an old Baltimore catechumen, for the Truth is ageless... while I am not (turning 50 puts me over the hill), alas.



That's like saying the White House was responsible for illegal bombings, when the White House can only be guilty of standing or falling. The people within those unholy halls are responsible for heinous and (vis a vis Monica) penis behavior.

But using your jargon, today's new Vatican is far worse than "the same old Vatican" you complain about. Proving once again that people will be people, which is to say, the effects of Original Sin reign in houses of all colors including the Vatican.

The Church is not the people within Her. The Church is, to borrow your phrase "an authoritarian empire of knowledge." (I like that.) Knowledge does not act, responsibly or irresponsibly. Rather, the custodians of that knowledge, the people within the Vatican, act responsibly or irresponsibly depending upon whether or not they allow themselves to be guided by that knowledge.



Since knowledge is the metaphysical essence of the Catholic Church, and knowledge necessarily requires our free will to grasp it, I reject the charge that "free thought is curbed or suppressed" by the Church.

You seem to be confusing free thought with the freedom to choose erroneous thought. Freedom, as defined by the Church, is only freedom to choose the truth and thereby obtain the good of freedom more abundently (n.b. “The Truth will set you free.”). It is not the false freedom idolized by consumerist democracies of having the right to be ensnared by the Father of Lies in the bondage of evil. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

ex-preacher

This reminds me of one of the last chapel speeches I heard before leaving my teaching post at a Christian university. The president of the university proclaimed that only in a Christian school (this does not include Catholicism, BTW) did true academic freedom exist since one was set free by the truth of the gospel. Unfortunately for me, the truth I discovered only set me free to find new employment.

lpetrich

However, an important question is whether one can deduce the metaphysical version from the methodological version, or at least show that it is the best fit.

This is because of the "brain in a box" conundrum, such as the world one experiences in The Matrix; how can one be sure that one is not being fed cleverly-designed fake sensory inputs? Philip Gosse's Omphalos hypothesis is closely related, being a young-earth-creationist variant.

So could some Universe-designer have carefully set up its designs and interventions so as to produce the appearance of natural law? It is not impossible, but to me, that hypothesis seems like what the Gosse hypothesis seems like to many people: divine fraudulence.

And the first ones to do that were at least nominal followers of a religion that Andrew rejects: Hellenic paganism. Let's see if Andrew is willing to "think out of the box" and to consider becoming a Hellenic pagan. If he becomes one and Hellenic paganism is true, he could have a happy life after death in the Isles of the Blessed. If not, then he loses nothing. But if Hellenic paganism is true and he rejects it, he might spend all of eternity suffering in the depths of Tartarus, and I'm sure that he won't enjoy that. Just something for him to think about if he has to justify his conduct before King Minos, judge of the dead.

To which I think that we can add the work of every other well-documented scientific revolutionary there ever was. As Dr. Isaac Asimov has pointed out, essentially every big discovery was made by an "endoheretic" -- someone who knows his field inside and out -- rather than by an "exoheretic". For example, Charles Darwin had been very familiar with the typical views of his day; for example, he discussed in Origin of Species views like the view that vestigial features are present to fill out the "plan of creation"; he noted that some are more vestigial than others.

Not at all. It was for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. Around 1900, Max Planck had devised an extremely ad hoc hypothesis for the cause of the blackbody (perfect-radiator) spectrum: he proposed that light energy can only come in multiples of some constant times its frequency. However, it successfully fit. Einstein's great success was how it accounted for the kinetic energies of electrons ejected from metals as a result of the photoelectric effect: those energies were (constant times frequency) - (some sort of binding energy). This accounted for how electrons could be stopped by applying some backwards voltage that was independent of the light intensity -- a very unexpected experimental result. And that constant turned out to be the same as for the blackbody spectrum. Planck's and Einstein's work was thus the start of work on quantum mechanics.

Good point. I wonder if Andrew is willing to live in a house without a lightning rod and trust God not to strike the house of one of his faithful worshippers. Otherwise would indicate a lack of faith in the God that he professes to believe in.

And will he accept that his favorite religion is full of stuff contrary to common sense? Not to mention lots of just-so stories.

Counterevidence: the hypothesis of genetic engineering by extraterrestrial visitors, understood as fellow inhabitants of the physical context of this Universe. I'm sure that Andrew will like this hypothesis, since it features intelligent design.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

lpetrich

I think that the hypothesis of a Universe-controlling superbeing (or superbeings -- there could be more than one of them!) is all that's really "necessary".

First off, I wonder if Andrew_theist is willing to think outside of the box of his beliefs.

And I know some rather advanced physics, so I know what Einstein had accomplished. He:

Used Planck's ad-hoc quantization hypothesis to explain a very odd feature of the photoelectric effect. This success led to further applications of it, thus producing quantum mechanics.

Resolved a paradox that had been baffling physicists a century ago: Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism and Newtonian mechanics were both great successes, but they did not fit each other very well, and experiments like Michelson-Morley agreed with Maxwell rather than Newton. More specifically, according to Maxwell, the speed of light in a vacuum is always constant, while according to Newton, one can always catch up to a moving object. Physicists were groping for solutions, and if Einstein had never existed, someone would have independently rediscovered Einstein's solution. Which is to modify Newtonian mechanics to fit Maxwell's Equations, thus creating Special Relativity.

Constructed a theory of gravity that is consistent with SR in the zero-gravity limit, which Newtonian gravity is not; this is General Relativity.

I wonder why Andrew_theist has not used lightning as an example. To use his approach, he would ask why the scientific community insists on pushing Ben Franklin's giant-electric-spark theory instead of the essentially universal view that lightning is caused by some deity -- the Biblical God, Zeus, Thor, Indra, whoever. He would ask why the scientific community is so closed-minded in its insistence that lightning rods are the only reasonable way to protect against lightning, as opposed to the power of prayer and the ringing of church bells, especially church bells baptized for lightning-repellent duty.

I wonder how Hellenic paganism might fit into that definition, because it features Universe-controlling superbeings that nevertheless had not created the Universe.

The usual answer to this conundrum is to change the rules of the game, it must be said. And even those who claim that they are not doing so often end up claiming borderline cases such as seemingly-mysterious recoveries from disease.

But it is interesting that the miracles proposed for 20th-century saints are much weaker than those that many earlier saints had allegedly performed; consider:

In 520 A.D.  an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that.  In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead.  No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin.

By comparison, the Vatican is nowadays scraping the bottom of the barrel.

One counterargument is that promises of great success have not been kept, such as the failure to construct human-level AI. However, how much success has any religion ever had in turning everybody into saints? Let alone banish disease with miraculous cures (yes, banish). Or such things as Jesus Christ making his Second Coming.

Vorkosigan

In other words, since Kung refuses to represent Catholicism as Catholicism is defined, it is silly for someone (you) to criticise the Church for making that known.

That's my point, Donner. The Church defines what Catholicism is, and everyone must march in lockstep. If not, you get the boot. Kung was lucky he was writing in the modern age and only lost his job, and not 200 or 300 years ago, when punishments were heavier.

As for the Pope's recent calls for Internet censorship, it was all over the papers and was discussed in several threads here. You can run the search yourself for the threads at Infidels.
Here is a report from CNN:
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/01/22/pope.internet.reut/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/01/22/pope.internet.reut/</a>

Just the other day the pontiff was pontificating about how the Internet was a terrible threat because it allowed pick-and-choose religious belief. Oh, the horror!

Yes, you're right, Ip. Einstein got the Nobel in 1921, but was not awarded until 1922, for photoelectric effect. The press release is at the Nobel site.

<a href="http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1921/press.html" target="_blank">http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1921/press.html</a>

Michael

HRG

Let's not forget his theory of Brownian motion - which came out in 1905, almost simultaneously with SR and photons. Three Nobel-worthy accomplishments in three quite different fields of physics. What a year!

The best reference for Einstein as a scientist is "Subtle is the Lord ..." by A.Pais.

Regards,
HRG.

Mike Montgomery

I view myself as a rationalist. My opinion of the debate is primarily based on whether the arguments were self-consistent and consistent with sound logical reasoning, which I think should be the primary criteria for judging a formal debate.

From this standpoint, I think Andrew clearly won. Many of his arguments he couched in terms of stating and defending his assumptions, with logical conclusions following (assuming one bought into his assumptions). He defends his positions by frequently citing authorities in the fields, citing references from accepted standards, etc.

On the other hand, MadMax rarely cites any authority. I suppose he must expect that his own unsupported statements are authoritative. In my college debate team, we filled shoeboxes with reference to draw from for rebuttal. Depending solely upon your reason without any authorities to back up your assumptions would be a recipe for disaster. "My opponent has failed to provide any support for the validity of his assumptions" is one argument we did not want to hear. For if it was true, no matter how great your logic is, you lose the point.

The initial four deductions by MadMax are not supported by a chain of logic. If he wanted to call them postulates, fine, but deductions indicates that he thinks that follow directly from his logic. I don't see this at all.

MadMax says "While there are obviously phenomena that has so far evaded naturalistic explanation, this does not in any way constitute evidence that actually supports the supernatural." Then what would? This must at least be accepted as evidence that a supernatural explanation should be considered among other theories. He goes on to say "naturalism can be refuted if evidence can be presented that demonstrates that supernatural entities or forces actually exist." First, Andrew is not trying to refute naturalism, just to show that theism encompasses naturalism and adds further explanatory value, such as explaining the "phenomena that has so far evaded naturalistic explanation". Second, how can "evidence be presented that demonstrates supernatural" if such evidence is always dismissed as "phenomena that has so far evaded naturalistic explanation"? All of this seems totally illogical.

MadMax states: "Is it just a coincidence that this large anti-evolutionary stance exists primarily in the United States where creationist and biblical fundamentalism are more prevalent?" Andrew objects that this is argument by insinuation, which it is. Such insinuations have no place in a formal debate.

MadMax states: "What Drew needs to do is give us a reason to elevate any super naturalistic possibilities he would suggest as more likely than the naturalistic answers we have achieved so far." That is not what Andrew is suggesting at all. Andrew agrees that naturalistic explanations are more likely in the vast majority of cases. But what he is suggesting is for those few cases where the naturalist explanation is not a good fit, why not discard the naturalist presupposition and see what happens? Naturalist know they have some problems with apparent design, so why not see if the evidence fits better with intelligent design? Why reject the theory based on philosophical bias before even trying it?

Andrew pegged it correctly when he said he would probably not get a fair hearing due to the nature of this board. I see a lot more smears than I do logical arguments: "embarrassingly bad, doesn't have the background, has never done science, etc." He is criticised soundly for statements which are simply quotes (from a self proclaimed naturalist). And what is all of this stuff about Catholicism? Neither debater brought up this subject at all. Move it elsewhere.

I see Andrew arguments subjected to intense scrutiny, while MadMax largely gets a pass. MadMax resorts to personal attacks such as "Drew was ill-equipped" and "His understanding ... is far too limited" and is not called on it. Such statements are not necessary; it is either obvious from the nature of the debate, or it is wrong. Either way it is an attempt to undermine credibility by personal attack rather than by reasoned argument, which has no place in a formal debate.

In my judgement, the position held by MadMax is not the mainstream view of naturalism. If it were, the debate would be largely unnecessary, based on motivations espoused by Andrew. One of his stated motivations was to make science more open minded to the possibility of intelligent design being evaluated along with apparent design as workable theories. And for the theories to be evaluated strictly based on the evidence, rather than intelligent design being discarded by a priori naturalistic assumptions.

But based on the position held by MadMax, an intelligent designer could be naturally occurring and falls within the scope of naturalism. So naturalism should not result in the a priori decision to reject intelligent design as a possible explanation. This is not the case in mainstream science. The vast majority of scientists consider intelligent design to be non-science, showing that the view of naturalism held by MadMax is not the mainstream working view.

MadMax refused to accept quotations Andrew supplied from naturalists, saying that he did not hold to that view of naturalism. I supposed Andrew could have simply rejected the arguments by MadMax, saying he did not hold to those particular views of theism. For this reason, this whole aspect of the debate strike me as sort of a bait-and-switch. For future debates, we need to find candidates that will agree to defend the mainstream viewpoints of their respective positions.

Mike Montgomery

Did you happen to notice that this is a quote from a self proclaimed naturalist, Richard Lewontin? That all of this bashing of Andrew should actually be redirected to Richard Lewontin, the source of the quotation?

Mike Montgomery

Well, Einstein should have been awarded the Nobel prize for relatively as confirm by the light deflection experiment. But the embarressing truth is that no Nobel prize was ever given to Einstien for relativity.

He later received a Nobel prize for work on the photoelectric effect. Luckily, the work was worthy of the prize. I think at this point the committee was feeling the pressure of not having given a Nobel prize to someone with the outstanding contributions of Einstein.

Reminds me of Asimov and science fiction Hugo awards. They introduced a new award for best trilogy so that Asimov could finally get his well deserved Hugo award for his Foundation series.

madmax2976

<strong> It is true that I didn't cite many authorities, however in this case I'm not sure it was all that crucial. In an area such as this I am not certain that anyone can be qualified as an "authority". There are no degree programs in naturalism or theism that I am aware of.

<strong> Arguments from authority can be fallacious unless they meet certain standards. The Nizkor site: <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html" target="_blank">http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html</a> lists some commonly accepted standards. I think it is questionable whether the areas of theism or naturalism can satisfy these criteria.

In any case, I suppose as a matter of propriety, citations should be added where feasible and appropriate. If nothing else it "looks good". Thus I will keep this in mind in the future. I just wish there had been more space to actually add them in and still adequately address the points that Andrew brought up.

<strong> I'm marginally inclined to agree here. (Andrew didn?t present any chain of logic either of course.) I'm not sure how much "chaining" would have been necessary as I think the deductions are pretty straight forward, but still I wished I had elaborated more on the various evidences that I believe support naturalism and why I think they do. Again, the space limitation was a real hindrance. Something I'll have to be more cognizant of in the future.

<strong> This is not my problem. Providing evidence to support the supernatural and explaining why it should be considered evidence would have been Drew's task.

<strong> Not exactly. It means that the supernatural is possible. However, technologically advanced aliens are also possible. Magic fairies from planet Xegor are possible. What we need are reasons to consider it as a viable solution to the problems we encounter. The evidence I presented gives us good reason to believe such answers are not viable solutions.

<strong> If naturalism holds that the supernatural does not exist, how can supernaturalism "encompass" it?

<strong> What I find totally illogical is the leap to supernatural conclusions or assumptions when faced with a mystery. Please provide your "chain" of logic that argues for such a position. If all your saying is that mysteries allow for the possibility of the supernatural, you've only stated the same thing that I did. If your saying that supernatural speculations should be entertained as real solutions to a problem, your going to have to explain yourself a great deal.

<strong> This I completely disagree with. Andrew provided poll data and then made a conclusion based upon that poll data. I pointed out some very real weaknesses in his accumulation of the data and in his analysis of that data's weaknesses that would logically have to resolved before his conclusion could stand up to scrutiny. As a researcher, it would be his job to plug up these holes so that his conclusion can be considered valid. If he can't, he has no business offering it.

<strong> First the evidence against supernatural explanations as being viable solutions to problems is overwhelming. Secondly, Andrew never demonstrates that naturalistic explanations are not a "good fit", but only that there are currently no natural explanations for certain phenomena, which is a trivial point. Thirdly, he needs to actually support his case that supernaturalism is a "good fit" and that it can actually explain the phenomena. His position does not win by default, nor by mere assertion. Speculation is not explanation.

<strong> I'll assume by intelligent design here that you mean "supernatural design" and are not referring to alien technology capable of creating planets and such.

Why not just demonstrate that it does have a "better fit" and thus it will be unncessary to ask naturalists for anything? While your at it, please specify what it is about intelligent design that would necessarily qualify it as "unnatural".

I'll also repeat the same challenge to you that I put in front of Andrew. Please describe, as precisely as you can, what you see scientists doing in such a sitation. How will this "fit" be measured? What tests will be conducted? Are they any tests that can be conducted? How will the results be verified? Is verification even possible? What "evidence" are you referrring to? What reasons will you offer that will counter the more than ample evidence we have to assume that supernaturalistic answers have no explanatory power? Should science also consider magical wizards, channelers, mediums, tarot card readers, Zeus, Odin, sky fairies, leprechauns, sorcerers, talisman's, and aliens as having the potential for a "better fit" when faced with "problems"? Or is an arbitrary dividing line to be drawn so that they should just consider the biblical deity?

Science requires more than speculations to go on. It requires the ability to test theories, accumulate data, and to verify or falsify possible answers. I'm not sure how I'd qualify what it is you want science to do, but it sure doesn't sound like science.

<strong> [quote]
Why reject the theory based on philosophical bias before even trying it?
</strong>[/quote

Is there someone stopping you or other theists from doing so? Theists have vast resources. Many scientists are also theists. Why don't they just do it instead of whining about what naturalists will or will not do? They can then use their findings to convince all the close minded scientists that incorporating the supernatural is just fine. In the interest of being impartial we can then have science look at witchcraft as the possible cause of some diseases, and reincarnation as the cause of deja vu. After all, it just may "fit" better.

<strong>I don't think so. Those are my assessments based on the arguments he presented. They are not personal attacks. A personal attack would be to argue that his arguments are bad because he wears funny clothes or doesn't brush his teeth often enough. If his arguments show a general lack of exposure to naturalists and their various positions then it is entirely appropriate for me to point that out.

<strong> I agreed to defend my view of naturalism, whether it falls into the "mainstream" or not. I offered Andrew the opportunity to flesh out the details of our respective positions prior to the debate but he declined.

As far as your describing intelligent design as "being discarded by a priori naturalistic assumptions", this is just more indication of the poor understanding of naturalism. Naturalists do not discount the supernatural "a priori", but rather "a posterori", if anything. It is based upon the experience of the last four hundred years that scientists have learned to assume the ineffectiveness of supernatural methodology.

<strong> Here's hoping you don't lapse into the fallacious argument from popularity. Is it too late?

One major crux of this debate which I briefly alluded to was the very description of what "natural" and "unnatural" even mean. It is hardly a simple matter to resolve.

I design software every day. I don't consider the process unnatural by any means. Whether it should be considered intelligent is up to my boss.

<strong> Who or what determines what is "mainstream"? Shall we take a vote prior to any debates? Are naturalists not allowed to disagree as theists do? Theists will disagee on the number of deities, on the nature and characteristics of deities, on what deities supposedly have done or not done, on what they will or will not do, on how they interact with humans (if at all), on how they interact with nature, etc. Theists are all over the map, yet naturalists are required to hold to some "mainstream" position.

To me, mainstream just means more people believe it to be that way. I far more interested in why people believe a certain way and whether it makes any sense in light of the evidence.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>