E_muse

One could only argue this if it can be shown that methodological naturalism can only support a metaphysical naturalist belief system.

No, I think you've missed my point. My post centred around the need for explanation.

If Metaphysical Naturalists thought that the natural world was in no need of an explanation full stop then it could not seek to promote methodological naturalism's approach to understanding the world and feel that it was being validated by such an approach.

Again, what this is saying is that an attempted explanation of the natural world is necessary somewhere in order for metaphysical naturalism to be validated. Therefore, metaphysical naturalists can never say that the natural world is in no need of explanation, as it gains justification for itself from a particular approach to explaining it.

The point is, although metaphysical naturalism believes that methodological naturalism is the best approach to understanding the world, it can never say that no explanation is needed in any absolute sense because in saying such a thing it pushes away methods of explanation that validate it.

Again... it is the opening statements of the SEC WEB that are be evaluated here, not theism.

The opening page of SEC WEB states that it seeks to promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that the natural world is in no need of an explanation.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Andrew_theist

To Vorkosigan or whatever name you are going by this week,

I suppose we can all play the your an idiot game. It’s a shame that the exchanges we had months ago end with you calling anyone opposing you're position an idiot or a liar. As I recollect you left my board like a coward. Is this the push button of intellectuals like you? You think because you say so I should go read a list of books then supposedly I would see the light and agree with what you say? Neither Metacrock nor Bede agree with what you say either so what difference would it make?

There are many people who come to my board and this board. Many are highly educated and others fail to graduate highschool. That doesn't mean they don't have an opinion or a right to think what they want. I have responded to thousands of people and I don't feel I have to stoop to holding such in contempt because of their level of education. I am happy you were able to get yourself an education of some sort (although I have asked what your credentials are you have never said).

However if you can only have a conversation by insulting others I can do that also. Here goes.

In the height of arrogance you seem to think your whining, insulting and complaining are the same as ‘nuking’ an argument. If you put down your mad magazine for a moment and actually read what I posted you might note this is not about some argument I am making, it is about the argument the founders of this website created.

There are those engaged in this very pursuit. However there are those trying to rule such out of court by saying such inquiry is unscientific.

ID IS unscientific. Propose a test of it, please.

Here is a brain fart substituting as intelligence. Please read some first grade primers before responding to me in the future. Somehow SETI, forensic scientists and cryptographers manage to discern between natural causes of apparent design against intelligent causes of actual design.

A completely bogus argument, Andrew. Are you saying that every single place where science has no explanation, godidit? That's ridiculous. You need to supply positive evidence that god made the universe before we'll accept it. There are plenty of creation possibilities that involve neither gods nor non-intelligent processes. For example, in many Chinese ideas, the universe emerges from the chi and everything appears as it is because each thing in the world has its own spontaneous order. No need for gods, but not naturalistic.

Are you really this stupid or is they’re a candid camera running somewhere? Again if you can work yourself out of the haze long enough and wipe the drool off your chin and put down your comic book you might realize this post is about ‘nature did it’ and nature is all there is claims. This post is about some folks belief that nature alone caused everything. Just because you have favorite lines of argument doesn’t mean you can blindly post them wherever you see fit.

Yes, that's why that being made 99.9999999% of it empty vacuum where no life can exist. And on a planet created for us, 80% of the surface is unusable. Great design, that; I wouldn't build a doghouse like that.

This only shows you haven’t bothered to read the list of books on anthropic principal. At the very least you would not say something this asinine.

I hope you enjoy being on the recieving end of a post that holds you in utter contempt and uses insults and insinuations as a form of argument.

Synaesthesia

The contention that theism is empirically equivalent to methodological naturalism is also known as the ‘hidden God’ doctrine. The essential problem is it's utter abandonment of parsimony. Nothing additional is explained, yet our ontology is complicated. Occams razor must swing into play and slice poor yahweh clean off our base of knowledge. He just doesn’t pull his infinite weight with an associated gain in explanatory power and conceptual.

Supernatural explanation, including Design by an omnipotent intelligence, is beset by a fundamental epistemic problem: No matter how much you explain, there will always be an explanatory deficit. This is a necessary consequence of an omnipotent and omniscient God.

If there will always be more assumption than explanation, can we really call it explanation at all? I do not think it would be meaningful to.

Proponents of Intelligent design are far from stupid. Quite the contrary, seldom in history have more sophisticated defenses of God’s relevance been attempted. However, all of them without exception fail to resolve the problem of explanatory deficit. Intelligence itself is not an unscientific concept, what is unscientific is transcendence. There is no purpose in having science if we can propose exceptions to physical laws ad hoc rather than having to revise and expand those laws!

It is worth noting that the methodological problems with God are almost precisely the same as those with the cartesian demon. Certainly an omnipotent demon (or god) could explain what we observe. The question, is whether we can afford to abandon hope of understanding for the sake of superficially resolving problems posed by the observable universe.

Regarding Fine Tuning:

If fine tuning is a valid means of establishing that the universe exists for the sake of what exists within it, hydrogen gas at thermal equilibrium seems to be it's primary purpose. Life is evidently only a secondary consequence of thermodynamical laws.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Ojuice5001

Intelligent design may well be true; however it is not scientific. The designer hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore not an object of scientific inquiry. The possibility of intelligent design should not be ruled out, but the attempt to prove it with science should. The appearance of success with this attempt has been superficial. Where this leaves the intelligent design theory in general, I don't know.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andrew_theist:
To Vorkosigan or whatever name you are going by this week,

I suppose we can all play the your an idiot game. It’s a shame that the exchanges we had months ago end with you calling anyone opposing you're position an idiot or a liar.

This did not occur. Dcoument, or apologize. I took Bede to task for his obvious lack of integrity regarding the Inquisition. He was the only person I called a "liar." I have never called you a liar; your problem is that you are in fact sincere.

In any case, if you are going to complain about being called an "idiot," please learn to spell "your" properly (you blew it twice in one paragraph), and use correct grammar, such as past tense for verbs like "end." Also, when using entire phrases like "you're-an-idiot" as modifiers, it is customary to put in hyphens.

As I recollect you left my board like a coward.

As I recall, I left your board because the level of discussion was so pathetic. You set the tone for the whole board.

Is this the push button of intellectuals like you? You think because you say so I should go read a list of books then supposedly I would see the light and agree with what you say? Neither Metacrock nor Bede agree with what you say either so what difference would it make?

As usual, your reading problems have lead you astray. The list of books I gave you was not intended to make you a "convert" but to give you a solid intellectual foundation for the discussions you hoped to foster. It included -- as Bede pointed out with a kind of wonder -- books I did not agree with, and books opposed to my personal position. It was my hope that you would learn enough to run the discussions, and upgrade your board. It is unfortunate but the level of discussion has remained low.

There are many people who come to my board and this board. Many are highly educated and others fail to graduate highschool. That doesn't mean they don't have an opinion or a right to think what they want. I have responded to thousands of people and I don't feel I have to stoop to holding such in contempt because of their level of education.

The issue is not their level of education, but your level of knowledge. You set the tone for the whole board. Since your level of understanding of the issues is low, the level of discussion of your board is limited. Metacrock and I gave you lists of books because we both felt your board could make a quantum leap if your level of understanding did. Why do you think you lost the debate with Max? You don't know enough. This does not mean that you are simple-minded or uneducated. It means that in this field, you are ignorant of the things you need to know.

Never have I held someone in contempt for being less educated than I. Please show me any post where I have done so.

I am happy you were able to get yourself an education of some sort (although I have asked what your credentials are you have never said).

Really? I was not aware. I am working on a doctorate in science and technology studies. My masters is in international affairs. My BA is a double-major, anthro and english.

Vork: ID IS unscientific. Propose a test of it, please.

Here is a brain fart substituting as intelligence. Please read some first grade primers before responding to me in the future. Somehow SETI, forensic scientists and cryptographers manage to discern between natural causes of apparent design against intelligent causes of actual design.

Somehow they do, Andrew, as we already discussed in our last conversation, because forensic scientists are working with the known behavior of a species they understand intimately. But even then, there are numerous cases of objects whose origin was/is controversial, such as tektites or the stone tools found at the Calico site. Tektites were not solved by some method of analysis that relied on Design, but by chemical assay.

Currently no method exists for determining Designed objects from unDesigned, except empirical experience with Designed objects. Have you ever done any archaeological fieldwork? Just wait until you make your first big pile of stone tools, and call your prof over, and she laughs and explains that these are all geofacts, not artifacts, and tosses'em back in the dirt pile. It takes years of experience to tell a worked rock from a river-carved one consistently. And that's with something as simple as a stone tool.

Additionally, as I pointed out to you last time, SETI has no methodology for distinguishing an alien transmission. If you doubt that, find me the methodology they are using.

There is simply no way to determine whether the universe is an artifact, because there is no data set about the Designer.

Either propose a scientific test of ID, or stop complaining.

Vork:....spontaneous order. No need for gods, but not naturalistic.

Are you really this stupid or is they’re a candid camera running somewhere? Again if you can work yourself out of the haze long enough and wipe the drool off your chin and put down your comic book you might realize this post is about ‘nature did it’ and nature is all there is claims. This post is about some folks belief that nature alone caused everything. Just because you have favorite lines of argument doesn’t mean you can blindly post them wherever you see fit.

You gave your tired "theism vs. atheism" argument, ignoring, as usual, the presence of non-naturalistic systems that are also atheistic. I can't help it if you keep repeating arguments that were refuted months ago, but it would be nice if you would learn something once in a while.

But if you are tired of the Chinese example, I'll give you another -- there are, after all, thousands of systems that are atheistic but non-naturalistic.

Yes, that's why that being made 99.9999999% of it empty vacuum where no life can exist. And on a planet created for us, 80% of the surface is unusable. Great design, that; I wouldn't build a doghouse like that.

This only shows you haven’t bothered to read the list of books on anthropic principal. At the very least you would not say something this asinine.

I am well aware of what the anthropic principle says; but it is entirely subjective. There is no reason to think the universe was created for life or human beings.

I hope you enjoy being on the recieving end of a post that holds you in utter contempt and uses insults and insinuations as a form of argument.


Why should it bother me? It doesn't reflect on me, after all.

Vorkosigan

Andrew_theist

This did not occur. Dcoument, or apologize. I took Bede to task for his obvious lack of integrity regarding the Inquisition. He was the only person I called a "liar." I have never called you a liar; your problem is that you are in fact sincere.

I won’t apologize I will explain. I don’t know if you called anyone idiot per se. You employ a method of arguing that is character assassination. You call into question the competence or integrity of at least myself and you admit to calling Bede a liar. I can’t say I have seen how you treat others in discussion I can only hope this is not indicative. If you wish to underscore my ignorance or lack of understanding in an area you do so by scoring points, making salient analogies, clever quips and anecdotes. Then you can let the readers decide for themselves the merit of a position. Instead I post a question about the statement found on this board and the next thing I know you are calling me on the carpet once again about some books you think I should read and other insinuations as if it had any relevancy to the question at hand. The fact is there are people far more learned than I, as or more educated than yourself who concur with my point of view and disagree with yours. I don’t care if you agree with my point of view. I do care about the disdain you show for anyone whose opinion differs from yours and this disdain becomes part of your argument.

I have had many heated discussions with many people but none so loathsome as a person who wears his arrogance on his sleeve as you do. I haven’t claimed to be an expert or authority on issues such as discussed here. Most of the opinions I express on this board or my own board are those of others that I agree with. Those people are far more educated than you or I. But I have observed you hold the same disdain and contempt for those people also if they disagree with your view.

You left my board because to you it was pathetic. Again this shows you’re contempt and disdain for people. There are about 50 people who post regularly on my board. About half of them are atheists. But in your opinion the board is pathetic and not worthy of your presence. Yet before you left other people who you now claim to have respect for were questioning your statements. Some of them along the same lines of inquiry I was asking you. Bede was also asking about your insinuation that he lied about something.

Additionally, as I pointed out to you last time, SETI has no methodology for distinguishing an alien transmission. If you doubt that, find me the methodology they are using.

A 2-minute search was adequate.

The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e. how much room on the radio dial do they take up? Any signal less than about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced. Such narrow-band signals are what all SETI experiments look for. Other tell-tale characteristics include a signal that is completely polarized or the existence of coded information on the signal.

This I snatched from the SETI home page. However I also recollect watching Carl Sagan chat about this. In their opinion any advanced civilization no matter how culturally different than we are will have no technological cultural difference. In other words certain laws like Ohms law or the inverse properties of gravity or the value of PI won’t differ due to a different culture. Just like scientists on this planet have a common language of science even though there cultures differ. They also assume technologically advanced aliens might be sending a signal as we do.

Now here is the difference between you and I. I could use this lapse of simple information as a tool to you and call into question your competence and integrity. Six months from now if I see you post somewhere about something completely unrelated I can call you on the carpet and question your competence for not knowing something about how SETI is detecting intelligence. By the way are you suggesting SETI is using millions of taxpayers dollars to listen to signals yet have no methodology for determining if its significance?

Yes, that's why that being made 99.9999999% of it empty vacuum where no life can exist. And on a planet created for us, 80% of the surface is unusable. Great design, that; I wouldn't build a doghouse like that.

This serves to underscore the difficulty in bothering to have a discussion with you. It is not as if you are a passive disengaged reviewer of the facts with no axe to grind. You are an outspoken apologist for a naturalist/materialist worldview. At least in your mind this conclusion is obvious and anyone who holds contrary is the object of disdain regardless of what books they may have written.

There are many palaces, cathedrals and other examples of beautiful architecture that from efficiency stand point leave much to be desired. This doesn’t mean natural forces created them. Secondly there are a lot of designs that appear to be inefficient or poorly constructed until someone comes along and attempts to duplicate the effort. Then they realize there are tradeoffs between optimizing and comfort or practicality.

Now since you have stated for all to see that you Vorkosigan hold the design of the universe in such contempt that you could build a doghouse better then do so. This will be an opportunity to showcase your considerable intelligence and much learning and save the Sec Web from the possible fate of becoming pathetic. Now it would be easy to construct a doghouse that is 50% livable. Give us your blueprints and plans for making a universe that is 50% livable and a planet that is 50% livable. Now you have made this bold audacious claim in front of your home audience. I hope you don’t dismiss it by holding me in contempt and making some disparaging remark which is your usual modus operandi.

I am well aware of what the anthropic principle says; but it is entirely subjective. There is no reason to think the universe was created for life or human beings.

This is a classic demonstration that your point of view is fundamental; held immovably in advance so that any evidence to the contrary must be ‘subjective’ and wrong. To the surprise of no one you hold your point of view as ‘objective’.

tergiversant

I second all of the above. I was perpetually frustrated by the discussion on Andrew's board for precisely the same reasons (not to mention the constant attempts to shift the burden of proof to the unbeliever).

Andrew does a fine job of promoting his board, but it could be far more than it is now. Metacrock seemed to have run off just as his presuppositionalist arguments were picked apart.

tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

<a href="http://www.OklahomaAtheists.org" target="_blank">OKLAHOMA ATHEISTS</a>

Vorkosigan

I won’t apologize I will explain. I don’t know if you called anyone idiot per se. You employ a method of arguing that is character assassination. You call into question the competence or integrity of at least myself and you admit to calling Bede a liar.

First, I'd like to thank you for the length and honesty of your reply.

Once again, I have not called into question your competence per se, I have stated that you lack the knowledge to do what you want to do well.

Of course I admit to calling into question Bede's integrity. I did it in public on your board!

.....merit of a position. Instead I post a question about the statement found on this board and the next thing I know you are calling me on the carpet once again about some books you think I should read and other insinuations as if it had any relevancy to the question at hand. The fact is there are people far more learned than I, as or more educated than yourself who concur with my point of view and disagree with yours. I don’t care if you agree with my point of view. I do care about the disdain you show for anyone whose opinion differs from yours and this disdain becomes part of your argument.

Entirely untrue. When you first appeared here I treated you with respect. But you are still making the same claims you made months ago, as if they had never been decisively refuted, both in informal discussion and in formal debate, again and again.

Your "it's theism vs. atheism" claim is a good example. We get tired of pointing out that there are several major views of the universe -- Plump DJ just identified nine in a post in the philosophy forum -- but you reduce this to just two. Metaphysical naturalism is one claim among thousands. So is your brand of "theism."

I have had many heated discussions with many people but none so loathsome as a person who wears his arrogance on his sleeve as you do. I haven’t claimed to be an expert or authority on issues such as discussed here.

Neither have I.

Most of the opinions I express on this board or my own board are those of others that I agree with. Those people are far more educated than you or I. But I have observed you hold the same disdain and contempt for those people also if they disagree with your view.

That is not correct. There are many theists whom I hold in respect. Here at Infidels, I can name Kenny, Haran, Rev Joshua, Polycarp, Baalthazaq, and several others. However, the theists who posted on your board, at least when I was there, were people whose arguments were of extremely low quality.

You left my board because to you it was pathetic. Again this shows you’re contempt and disdain for people. There are about 50 people who post regularly on my board. About half of them are atheists. But in your opinion the board is pathetic and not worthy of your presence. Yet before you left other people who you now claim to have respect for were questioning your statements.

Who would that be? When I was posting regularly on your board, the last conversation I had was with Louis Booth, a man who had clearly never been near a book.

Some of them along the same lines of inquiry I was asking you. Bede was also asking about your insinuation that he lied about something.

Bede should review that conversation about the Inquisition we had.

The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e. how much room on the radio dial do they take up? Any signal less than about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced. Such narrow-band signals are what all SETI experiments look for. Other tell-tale characteristics include a signal that is completely polarized or the existence of coded information on the signal.


intelligence. By the way are you suggesting SETI is using millions of taxpayers dollars to listen to signals yet have no methodology for determining if its significance?

Andrew, this is not a methodology, but a series of unsupported assumptions. That is what I mean when I said that they have no methodology -- something useful and reliable in detecting the effect they want to detect. They assume that they will be able to detect a coded signal and understand that it is coded (how?). They assume that there are no natural signals in the 300 megaherz range -- because they haven't discovered any yet (but assuming they find one, how will they prove it is intelligent in origin??). Unfortunately, these are intelligent guesses. They are not a methodology. A methodology would include an a priori method for determining whether a signal is coded. Do they have that? No. They are hoping it will be obvious.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that aliens, even knowing the same invariant laws of the universe, will use technology the same way we do. Not even humans do that. There are some excellent books on The Social Construction of Technology that discuss this uncontroversial principle.

I suspect it is entirely possible for the aliens to broadcast in some uncontroversial way, like sending out lists of prime numbers, or constants like pi and e. But maybe they are not. Maybe they have a completely different view of what is important. Maybe they will broadcast a chant for their great god Glop, and we will not be able to tell it from background noise. There are a lot of very iffy assumptions in the SETI view.

Artificial design is devilishly difficult to detect. We can do it with our fellow humans because we have experience of humans. We do not have experience of aliens. Ergo, we don't have a methodology.

Note that I am not suggesting that this is a waste of money. I think SETI is a great idea. I just don't have any illusions about their chances.

This serves to underscore the difficulty in bothering to have a discussion with you. It is not as if you are a passive disengaged reviewer of the facts with no axe to grind. You are an outspoken apologist for a naturalist/materialist worldview.

Correct.

At least in your mind this conclusion is obvious and anyone who holds contrary is the object of disdain regardless of what books they may have written.

It depends who they are.

There are many palaces, cathedrals and other examples of beautiful architecture that from efficiency stand point leave much to be desired.

Quite true.

This doesn’t mean natural forces created them. Secondly there are a lot of designs that appear to be inefficient or poorly constructed until someone comes along and attempts to duplicate the effort. Then they realize there are tradeoffs between optimizing and comfort or practicality.

But you put your finger on the issue right here. You don't believe in a Designer of limited power. So there is no need to trade-off between different constraints, because your Designer faces NO constraints. Designers of Palaces and Cathedrals have to trade off between engineering costs and gravity, or between material availability and the desire for beauty, etc. Your deity doesn't.

This will be an opportunity to showcase your considerable intelligence and much learning and save the Sec Web from the possible fate of becoming pathetic. Now it would be easy to construct a doghouse that is 50% livable. Give us your blueprints and plans for making a universe that is 50% livable and a planet that is 50% livable.

No problem. I create a world like Larry Niven's Ringworld, and light it from above by magic fiat, and limit the universe to only that Ringworld. Really, Andrew, that is almost too easy. Remember? I have unlimited power.

It is not difficult to imagine possibilities, Andrew. Science Fiction is full of them.

I am well aware of what the anthropic principle says; but it is entirely subjective. There is no reason to think the universe was created for life or human beings.

This is a classic demonstration that your point of view is fundamental; held immovably in advance so that any evidence to the contrary must be ‘subjective’ and wrong. To the surprise of no one you hold your point of view as ‘objective’.

Wrong again, Andrew. The difference between us is that I do not hold that my subjective perceptions are the basis for an entire philosophy. Your perception is that the entire universe was constructed for the benefit of one insignificant ape living on a small planet of a nondescript star in a galaxy that is fundamentally like other galaxies. You are welcome to that point of view, but there is no evidence to support that view. In point of fact, if any single person held that view about themselves, we would lock them up for insanity. But apparently what is insane individually is sane collectively. Go figure.

Metaphysical naturalism is based on methodological naturalism, whose success is well known. I base my worldview on that because it is successful at producing useful and reliable knowledge about the world. Note that this is a subjective preference. Others might not think reliable and useful are important values to hold, or may define them differently.

The difference between my subjectivity and yours is that criterion of reliability and usefulness. Your position tells us nothing about the universe that can be demonstrated, nor does it provide useful information for the understanding of the universe or the formulation of new knowledge and technologies, nor does it provide reliable information -- even in your view, not everything is Designed, and no one on your side posesses a methodology for determining Design from unDesign. Thus, your view may be comforting to you, but it is worthless for human purposes.

Note that I wrote those two paragraphs without mentioning the word "objective." The real distinction isn't between "objective" and "subjective," but between "effective" and "ineffective."

However, I am profoundly moved by your sincere anger at me. There is truth in what you say. I promise I will treat you better in the future.

Vorkosigan

Philosoft

Of course, I can't force you to be sensible but this line of reasoning has 'pointless' written all over it. What is it, do you think, that the opening statement means if not 'the universe needs no existential explanation'? It is demonstrably untrue that metaphysical naturalism insists the universe needs no mechanistic explanation.


<strong> I really don't know what you seek to accomplish here. It should be painfully obvious what this site's proprietors mean when they use the word 'explanation' in the manner discussed.


<strong> *shrug*

This implication should be obvious to anyone save the deliberately obtuse. Anyway, you might want to take it up with management.

<strong> Yup. Also, deciding which of those 'why' questions are meaningful.

Philosoft

Of course. What does methodological naturalism logically entail? It seems to me that any assumption of order or regularity when invoking a supernatural explanation is seriously ad hoc, not to mention woefully unparsimonius.


<strong> Only if you continute to equivocate meanings of 'explanation.'

<strong> Look, metaphysical naturalism can and does assert that the universe needs no existential explanation. That is, the question, "For what purpose does the universe exist" has as its answer "none." Further, I don't see where you have given a reason why this is an unreasonable position. Why do you think we need even consider this question meaningful?

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>