Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
.JPG)
kindling ideas
Mean streets of Bradford
Recent Comments
Blogs
- Valley boy
- The Long Walk Home
- The Freethought Cafe
- The Dole Brothers
- Strawmen Cometh
- Stephen Law
- St Silas Women
- Ruth Gledhill, Times Religion
- novus lumen
- Musings of a strange mind
- musings of a restless bishop
- Maths teacher goes to the movies
- lost horizons
- jgc::digital scrapbook
- Gadgetvicar
- Faith on fire
- digital journal
- creative tails
- church marketing sucks
- Billy's blog
42 comments:
Cool... lets take a look.
4 pages!!!
I'll get a beer.
Lee
Hi Bruce,
Was there a reason you posted this article, a particular angle or point of debate you wish to discuss?
Values I take it?
Since I’m shooting in the dark for now… I’ll take some blind shots at the article.
The philosopher Colin McGinn has presented a set of categories which can be helpful in analysing difficult topics in philosophy.
So nothing to do with Physics that… phew – I thought you were going to give me an exam or something. It’s been 10 years since my last one.
Not very big on philosophy myself… some people can talk all day about things like “what is the moon is made of?” – when the best way to resolve the debate is with a large lump of rock from the moon thrown at the head (or dropped on the table to make a loud bang if you want to be more friendly).
Stops the debate either way.
But there are many others who strive to affirm a strictly physicalist account of existence
Has anyone proven another when I wasn’t looking? Maybe I missed it when I went to get a beer…
If pressed they may say that all this is what they are programmed to do by society, evolution or upbringing
Erm… sounds familiar doesn’t it?
Does this mean I am wrong?
But it is all a little phoney since they believe … that their values are without any foundation in objective terms.
Oh… if only I knew what this meant?
I can tell you which end of a telescope to look through if that helps?
All this in the end concerns what the philosophers are trying to achieve
Gives them something to talk about I guess?
Such a process will therefore imply that we must take seriously the possibility that physicalism may not be the correct philosophy of nature, and that nature is therefore more than just physics.
It happened again… I missed the argument and jumped to the chap’s conclusion which I do not understand how he got to?
The philosophy of science can be rather simple…
measure it; within science.
Can’t measure it; Not within science…
(Oh there are other stuff, but this is the root of it)
And we have agreed on this point…
So all we have to do is test the idea just proposed about the “philosophy of nature”?
What was it again? I missed it.
(I also missed the definition on what the heck the philosophy of nature actually is? Is it talking to the trees in your underpants?)
It is entirely reasonable to suppose there is something more than physics.
Prove it! Provide a test please… prove this "unknown thing" is of any use or value in everyday life or in answering how the universe works? Do we have any predicitions?
Without a test, we are certainly outside the scope of science and stuck in philosophy.
Good luck
I need another beer…. Cheers!
Lee
I'll post more later once I have more time, but basically, where is the evidence? Meerly accepting a category (m) does not validate it, and if we are limited in our ability to understand things (certainly not true for nature), then the theist still has no rational basis for his faith
Hi Billy,
I'll post more later once I have more time, but basically, where is the evidence?
It's philosophy... means you just talk about stuff without testing anything.
Something to do over a beer or coffee and conclude nothing.
You cannot ask for evidence? That's for science - you know, the one that gets results.
Lee
Just scanning your comment Lee: I've read PB's piece and think it has material relevant to interests here, even if loosely - and as he contributed briefly to my blog in Sept on the topic of morality and God, PB felt it was worth an airing (he knows I've published so I'm sure he'll drop by and respond a little himself).
And you really must get the 'Science and its limits' book; I've no doubt from what I've read of others in the series that it will make you think afresh about the scope of science and its relation to religious belief/faith. I will be tracking down books you guys mentioned.
Hi Bruce,
I went to a book shop today, but could not see it. (I also forgot the full title so could not order it)
In time... on the subject of time, it is late.
Lee
Bruce- I've actually ordered that book- have a look at a post I've done on my blog.
On philosophy/science, I disagree Lee, Billy. You're polarising here: 'evidence' v. 'no evidence just specualation'. This is a view shaped by your presuppositional framework if you'll excuse the jargon. I won't be debating this though until we've all done some book-reading (me included). Great to hear you're on the case J; I'll be looking at your blog.
On philosophy/science, I disagree Lee, Billy. You're polarising here: 'evidence' v. 'no evidence just specualation'. This is a view shaped by your presuppositional framework if you'll excuse the jargon.
No Bruce, science works! Please drop the pre-suppositional strawman. Provide evidence and we can consider it!
It is you who is pre-supposing something that has no evidence - supernaturalism. How can we possibly accept it without evidence?
This pre-suppositional argument is an evasion strategy. All I see from those who claim presuppositions is a lack of evidence and an accusation. Even if I held the view that naruralism is the only possibility, that does not invalidate naturalism, so we are still waiting for evidence for another possibility.
Billy, let's keep it calm, but this is what I regard as quite an aggressive demand to provide something that fits the criterion of your perspective, a perspective which I think can be reasonably, plausibly, cogently challenged. 'Accusation' is a strong word you've used before, and in this case at least I'd say is excessive. Notice I don't make demands like this. I ask, suggest... that we investigate material that may challenge our perspectives; and I've matched my request by a clear offer and interest no less to read something from the atheists' point of view. I'm pleasingly confident from the responses of others that it's an approach they're happy to try. I do wonder why it doesn't seem to appeal to you and why you insist in this way for a response to your demand in your way; what have you got to fear from us opening the box and our minds to reading material that might challenge our points of view? I'm happy to be diplomatic as far as possible but I do object to your demanding tone and request here. And please keep any response to this calm and non-aggressive or I may need to ask for it to be amended. Cheers.
Incidentally, the very reason I'm recommending a book like the one I'm saying ('Science and its limits' in the Contours of Christian Philosophy series for anyone else interested - just google it) is that my expectation is it and books like it might just challenge this perspective on evidence and how it relates to science and faith.
Just to take a little heat out of what I said Billy (you see why I sub-head this blog 'kindling ideas'), I see on Musings that you're ok with the idea of a book club, and I know you've read some of Evans so didn't mean to be accusatory myself. Just a bit piqued. If I recall, it's still the season of joy, peace and good will so I'll try and stay in that vein.
Bruce, I am calm!
I am asking you to demonstrate that your way of looking at things is valid
'Accusation' is a strong word you've used before, and in this case at least I'd say is excessive.
It is a valid usage that refers to the strawman that we have presuppositions that exclude the supernatural, whereas in reality, we see no evidence of it. You are the one that has to show that there is more than the observable framework. You have to prove what is essentially lack of evidence is actually evidence - you cant just say it is presuppositions, and as I said, even if it was, that provides zero evidence for supernaturalism
I do wonder why it doesn't seem to appeal to you and why you insist in this way for a response to your demand in your way;
Because reason places the burden of proof on you - it is not for the atheist to prove the supernatural does not exist, but logic dictates that you must provide the evidence that it does. We have been over this subjective "evidence" before, so so can you provide something more tangeble?
I can easily argue that you only exist in my mind, that the universe revolves around me - as can all of us, what would your response be to me claiming that your presuppositions prevent you from believing that I am infact god?
Infact, as an excercise in logic, consistency and probability vs possibility, lets debate that.
Why do you not believe that I am god?
what have you got to fear from us opening the box and our minds to reading material that might challenge our points of view?
If I were being cynical, I could call that an accusation. I fear nothing, I just dont think the use of the presupposition strawman is intellectualy honest. It is an attempt to equate supernaturalism with naturalism. It is like saying it is unreasonable to say that the sun will rise tomorrow when I cant conclusivly prove that it will.
Conceptually, it is true that I cant prove it will, but a whople load of physical and historical evidence tells me that it will. This is how dishonest the presuppositional pleading is. I hope that clarified my need for evidence and how saying what amounts to the fact that you cant rule out any possibility just does not cut it as an argument.
To reiterate, the burden of proof lies with the theist, and trying philosophical tricks does not credit your claim any more than it credits the claim that the sun will not rise tomorrow.
My tone is direct, not agressive, you appear to be reading in something that is not there.
If you think I am being unfair in saying that you have no evidence, you can always argue your case. I have however said why I think the presupposition argument is intellectually dishonest. Claiming that we have to adopt a different approach does not work, because in all our discussions so far, you have not justified your aproach (hence more requests for justification). The problen is that your approach rests on further unproven assumptions. You claim god is not testable, how do you know? You claim that god is eternal - how do you know? you claim that your god is just. How do you know? You claim your god is the first cause. How do you know? You claim your god is omnipresent. How do you know If you make such presuppositions for the sake of argument, then surely a limited, unjust physical god is a possibility too!
In fact, it is only a string of presuppositions that hold your view together.
I often find that christians start off with an image of their god, then use the presuppositional argument to basically say "well you cant disprove it". The real question is can you prove it?
OK, Read the article now. Again, it makes the basic philosophers error; it does not consider experimental evidence.Experimaental evidence can tell us what is considered moral, and it largly appears to be a matter of taste. If it is a matter of taste, we are not plugged into some universal law giver, and I certainly do not consider the god of the bible to be particularly moral - from my relative view - if you disagree, you have demonstated moral relativism. So the question of do we get our morals from god evaporates and you are still left with no evidence that god is moral (hypothetically speaking, as you have not demonstrated his existence).
If you are trying to demonstrate his existence through moral values, you still fail, because I do not consider killing babies to be a moral act. So where is the demonstation of a moral law giver.
I have also pointed out previously on the morality threads that evolution explains the ability to behave morally and can select for it. This is backed up by exerimentals studies (look up game theory). This possibility of physically derived laws is not considered here - (I believe it to be more of a framework that allows variation rather than an aboslute law, althoug it may give the appearance of absolutes.
My big gripe about philosophy is that it is not equipped to answer certain questions, and it allows people to protect themselves from challenges - you can just hide behind a framework. Testing on the other hand allows you to decide between options, and this aspect of morality seems to have been ignored here.
I basically see morality as a physically explicable phenomenon, that is seen in a variety of other species, and if you think otherwise, please provide evidence. Incredulity is not evidence
Cheers Billy, I'll read the comments properly later, just to say, I realise we all have 'presuppositions'; a key q to me is, how do I reach my presupps - (and no I don't mean twiglets), and how well can they themselves be defended when scrutinised. Religious belief doesn't necessarily start from the blind unquestioned assumption there is a God; indeed for most thinking Christians I'm sure it doesn't (didn't for me). Rather, when investigating Cnity, you can examine reasons and evidence (though plainly there's conflict at the moment in what we view as evidence and why, which needs further examination; I'm sure the books will help), but also the nature and place of these, and the validity or otherwise of a further possible faculty for apprehending truth, namely faith. Not blind faith, but faith springing from a recognition of the limits of reason and scientifically measurable data in understanding and relating to ultimate reality.
Religious belief doesn't necessarily start from the blind unquestioned assumption there is a God; indeed for most thinking Christians I'm sure it doesn't (didn't for me).
Were you not brought up a chistian?
but faith springing from a recognition of the limits of reason and scientifically measurable data in understanding and relating to ultimate reality.
Again, the problem is if you can not demonstrate that science can not explain certain phenomena, you have no foundation to start with. The other problem I keep highlighting is that you have no rational reason to believe there is anything else if you can not demonstrate that to someone. If find it bizarre that christians even have to discuss certain things given the fact they tout an interacting god.
If all you have is subjective experience for example, that is not evidence to anyone other than yourself, and so open to potential delusion. If I feel god loves me for example, it does not mean that god is there, or that he loves me. People have actually made me think they loved me in the past, but it turned out that they didn't - see how unreliable subjective experience is?
Hi Billy,
Thanks for writing that… you wrote what I was thinking, but could not put into words. You’ve saved me having to write an essay on the subject (won’t stop me writing an essay on some other nonsense though)
More later I hope.
Lee
Cheers Lee,
You have done the same for me on many occasions too, so thanks for that too
I'll need to come back to the long comments here when I've time. Just to fill in Peter's profile a little, he's a Cambridge-educated physicist who's been in university teaching in Glasgow since the 70s. He has expressed - understandably I'd say - reluctance to enter into any discussion until the heat's died down a bit; even then I wouldn't hope for a Ryanesque level of exchange, as the last time I heard, uni teaching staff are pretty busy people. He has emailed one observation though that I don't think is out of place to share right now, that some of you 'ignore the fact that all evidence needs interpretation, otherwise
it is just data. Interpretation requires a system of meaning, which clearly is beyond "evidence".' In view of your interest in evidence, worth pondering I'd say, and likely expanded on in the science book I've recommended. Sparked by this and also partly by J's 'Sherlock' comment yesterday, I've been thinking a bit more about evidence. I'd suggest the concept needs breaking open a little beyond the confines you've set up. Consider for starters a situation outwith scientific experiment where 'evidence' is relevant: a crime scene. Clearly here, data is examined and then interpreted within a framework of meaning which includes the possibilities of human activity and motive, to point to a possible crime. Is this idea of a 'system of meaning' within which data needs to be interpreted to accrue meaning and value, not worth some reflection? The q then arises of from whence and on what grounds we acquire a system of meaning.
Bruce,
what I think you and Peter perhaps fail to grasp is that we can justify interpretation for physical things. We interact with the physical world, we can make ppredictions and test whether they hold true.
The problem for supernaturalisms is that you have no framework to base any interpretation on. In otherwords, you cant interpret, since if you do, you have no framework to test it against.
We could suggest examples to test - like prayer, but then christians go from untangeble claims to apologetics - in other words they resort to circular reasoning - for example you say that god cant be be tested because the bible says so, and that protects your belief in the supernatural. However, one does not logically follow from the oyher. What you have done is inserted a massive and unjustifiable presupposition of your own.
My friend Dave who is a forensic scientist would probably disagree with you on your crime analogy - for example, it is a fact whether someone has 10 kilo of cocaine on their possession or not.
PS Biochemists are busy too - it's just the genes we look at take several hours to switch on - that's why I've not gone home till after 8 the last couple of nights. I've also thought about these things, so I can easily write a couple of responses in a 30 min coffee break
"Interpretation requires a system of meaning, which clearly is beyond "evidence"."
But don't we interpret and deduce meaning based on the evidence we have before us?
"Sparked by this and also partly by J's 'Sherlock' comment yesterday, I've been thinking a bit more about evidence".
That was a joke! I hope you're not reading too much into it.
"Not blind faith, but faith springing from a recognition of the limits of reason and scientifically measurable data in understanding and relating to ultimate reality".
"Ultimate reality" is an interesting phrase. I'll hold off on the limits until I read the book Bruce keeps recommending.
The place I bought it from gave a delivery date of between 20th December and 4th January. Helpful.
Peter here,
I've scanned through the the comments above. The question of values at one time seemed to be a sticking point, which is why I wrote about it. Note that there was
little mention of God in the article because I wanted to try to establish some kind of foundation of common understanding first. It seems there's a long way to go.
I'd like also to say that I really am too busy with my academic activities to spend time "blog bickering" and so you won't hear from me very often. Bruce has asked me to respond however.
A few things then:
1) I cannot see that science has anything to say about values, since nothing like this appears in the vocabulary of physics.
"Morality" is something slightly different from values if it just means conventional social behaviour. It seems that Billy's views fall into the "D" or "E" category of McGinn, I'm not sure which. There are however some extensive issues here, and I don't know whether this what people really want to discuss right now.
2) More about "what isn't physics?"
Well, conscious awareness isn't part of physics, and believe me, I'm a physicist and I ought to know. There's been a huge amount of academic discourse on this topic in recent years, and I have a substantial library on it. If people want to discuss this topic I will prepare a discussion essay. However be aware that this is a very difficult issue. The DNA discover Francis Crick (a firm atheist) admitted that how the brain acts to make possible our conscious experience is a "complete mystery"( T Metzinger ed., Neural Correlates of Consciousness Experience, MIT Press 2000). Nothing much has changed since he wrote that. The standard work on the subject these days is "The Conscious Mind, in search of a fundamental theory", by David J Chalmers, who runs a consciousness study institute in Australia, I believe. This would be a worthy topic of discussion, but seen below.
Evidence. Now the problem here is that if the only evidence that is to be considered is that provided by scientific experiments that agree or don't agree with a theoretical prediction, then that automatically excludes anything that science does not or cannot deal with. It seems to me that a "comfort zone" is being defined here. So the question is how to establish some way of discussing
more abstract questions.
For better or worse, philosophers do try to deal with this kind of thing - it is really a littie
simple-minded to dismiss the entire subject of philosophy because it isn't experimental science. Again, suppose just for the sake of argument, that there are mental or spiritual qualities which include values. What kind of evidence would one look for here?
It is a highly relevant question. To say that values are of no practical use in our lives is obviously nonsense because people act by values all the time. If evidence is being asked for, what kind of evidence would suffice? If the answer is "none" then it seems that the question has been answered on the highly metaphysical ground, "It's only real if I can do a scientific experiment". This rules out a lot of things people find important and leads to the endpoint, I believe, that we dehumanise ourselves. However this box is too small to discuss the subject properly and I would have
to develop this in another article.
Basically, I'm happy to discuss in depth but not to engage in superficialities or deal too many subjects at once, which inevitably gets superficial. For a start, I will get this book "Science and its limits" by Del Ratzsch and when we have read it maybe the conversation will become more substantial.
I wrote the following before seeing Peter’s post (which I have not read) but since I spent a long time yesterday and today writing this, I’m posting it anyway.
Sorry also… I’ve split it into two posts
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Bruce,
I've read PB's piece and think it has material relevant to interests here, even if loosely
Oh it’s interesting to me… you can tell because I read the 4 pages you supplied and commented.
What I didn’t know (and still don’t) is what is being debated here?
It is where do values come from? What do values mean? Does God provide mankind values?
I suppose what I am waiting for then is a response from yourself to the article itself (or the author).
And you really must get the 'Science and its limits' book; I've no doubt from what I've read of others in the series that it will make you think afresh about the scope of science and its relation to religious belief/faith.
Happy to “refresh” my ideas, but I already know there are limits to science, freely admit this, though the theist might disagree on where I draw the line (since I also feel that if anyone makes a claim that God interacts with the world today, then these interacts should be testable – if not, why not?)
Maybe this book could explain a god is outside science, but the one in the bible – don’t think so, a deistic god perhaps is OK… though the principle of parsimony (and Occram’s razor) means I should doubt even that (though I will give you this is faith in philosophy. Just prove to me I am wrong to do so.)
This might seem I am “closed minded” on the subject, I am not – I really need showing why I should my change my opinion on these well established principles of science?
Is this the book to teach me the errors of my ways?
You know what… I really do hope so, I would love such a life changing moment, the time could be right – I mean this - so I’m will to give it a go, but only when you yourself read the book. Since until then, how can I be certain it is not just “another” theistic book from someone who does not understand science or just wishes to keep their personal religion out of science?
What I am therefore asking/requesting is for you to read the book first (even just a few chapters) review it with just a few lines on your blog – does this sound reasonable to you?
I really cannot afford to buy too many books – they are expensive here and my “money tree” is not growing as well as I like (maybe due to the lack of water here). If you still personally recommend the book after reading it, and you are willing to debate the views and opinions from it – then I will read it with pleasure.
This could be something to look forward to in the New Year.
I won't be debating this though until we've all done some book-reading (me included)
I’ve done lots of reading thanks… and I don’t let my ignorance get in the way of my commenting. If I am wrong, someone here can tell me where. No problems.
You wrote:
Billy, let's keep it calm, but this is what I regard as quite an aggressive demand to provide something that fits the criterion of your perspective, a perspective which I think can be reasonably, plausibly, cogently challenged.
Billy wrote:
My tone is direct, not aggressive, you appear to be reading in something that is not there.
I personally don’t see any aggressive from Billy, but maybe that is just me… I do not mind a fiery debate, so long as there are no personal attacks
(God does not count. God, if He exists, can defend Himself when He wants to judge me – remember God could step in at anytime to correct the errors of my logic and reasoning with simple evidence.)
And not wishing to sound rude, but the “aggressive claim” you are making here in this debate seems more like a cry from someone who cannot defend their position. I hope also, this comment of mine is taken in a friendly curious manner it was meant. It is not an attack – merely trying to understand what forms an “aggressive” statement and a “questioning” statement.
However, I will endeavour to be polite (if you can forgive my previous comment) and hope not to offend anyone here.
Cheers
Lee
Hi Bruce,
Just to fill in Peter's profile a little, he's a Cambridge-educated physicist who's been in university teaching in Glasgow since the 70s.
Eek… I’m worried – I hope when I do make mistakes on science and physics Peter can correct me and put me on the right track without me having to put on the “I’m Mr Stupid Hat” and standing in the corner like “the good old days of school”?
He has expressed - understandably I'd say - reluctance to enter into any discussion until the heat's died down a bit
Heated? This is far from what I would call a “heated debate” (you should see me talk about something important, like football. You’re living in Glasgow? So does that mean Rangers or Celtic?)
Of course Peter can choose when to enter the debate or not.
I look forward to any comments though
Bruce wrote:
He has emailed one observation though that I don't think is out of place to share right now, that some of you .'ignore the fact that all evidence needs interpretation, otherwise it is just data. Interpretation requires a system of meaning, which clearly is beyond "evidence".'
How is it ‘clearly beyond “evidence”’? And what is a “system of meaning” anyway?
I do not see how a “system of meaning” comes into it anywhere – and who says the universe owes us any “meaning” and “why”? Do you have written contract from the universe?
Of course “evidence” (data/observations) requires interpreting – I don’t object to that point. I do not ignore it.
A hypothesis is made, evidence is collected and interpreted, and a new hypothesis is made. Repeat…
This is how we interpret the data. This is how data proves meaning.
Our interpretations are based on the evidence. Our meaning comes from the evidence.
When are hypothesis is capable of explaining the observations, and are able to make valid predictions that are later confirmed by experimentation (which also allows for falsification of the hypothesis) our humble hypothesis might get to “grow up to be” a theory.
If the theory is useful, the model is useful for predicting outcomes of experiments and has not been proven wrong… why doesn’t this make it a useful model/theory to have?
However I really would need the following statement expanding upon ‘Interpretation requires a system of meaning, which clearly is beyond "evidence"’
The “meaning” or interpretation of the evidence is dependent on the current evidence or measurements that we have to hand.
Our meaning and interpretation will change as more evidence or data is collected.
As Jonathan wrote:
don't we interpret and deduce meaning based on the evidence we have before us?
Yes, I think we do. Many examples of this can be taken from the “history of science”. Let’s just take one.
How about the idea of the ”non-movable Earth with all “heavenly bodies” (sun, moon, planets, stars) orbiting the static and flat Earth at the centre”?
This made “perfect” sense based on the data to hand at the time.
It had “meaning” to people at the time as well.
(Just read the bible if you do not believe me of the importance of this “meaning” – Remember it took him over 350 years for the pope to say sorry to Galileo – that is a strong believe in the “meaning”)
However (skipping to the end missing out the intermediate stages of knowledge development) it could not explain certain key observations (e.g. circular shadow of Earth for the lunar eclipses, phases of Venus, parallax of nearby stars) and so the “meaning” had to change to explain the new data.
This new “meaning” still upsets some religious people (and there really are people out there who still go for the Geocentric model of the universe – it has “meaning” to them. Rather similar to the rejection of evolution, their “meaning” is too strong so they reject the evidence. This is not the case for science.)
To date, modern science has (and is) performing rather well giving “meaning” to the observations. (The theory of Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, the “Big Bang” etc etc give very good “meaning” to the data)
So it is not just data, our interpretation gives it “meaning”.
If data could be found for miracles or God interactions in the world then science would again change it’s “meaning” based on such observations. However, no evidence has been seen for God so our “meaning” is the best we have with the available data.
I've been thinking a bit more about evidence. I'd suggest the concept needs breaking open a little beyond the confines you've set up.
We have been “confining” the evidence? OK… if you say so.
Consider for starters a situation out with scientific experiment where 'evidence' is relevant: a crime scene.
Cue: “Murder She Wrote” music…
Clearly here, data is examined and then interpreted within a framework of meaning which includes the possibilities of human activity and motive, to point to a possible crime.
The butler did it!
What is this “framework of meaning”?
Just having a “motive” does not convict anyone in a court of law… it is not evidence - you need real evidence for a conviction!
Haven’t you ever watched Perry Mason? (Cue: Ozzy Osbourne’s “Perry Mason” song)
It could be true that you might use evidence for a “motive” to focus your investigation for real evidence – but nothing more surely?
Is this idea of a 'system of meaning' within which data needs to be interpreted to accrue meaning and value, not worth some reflection?
I’ve just given an example above where interpreting the data gives “meaning”. The more evidence, the better the meaning seems to be what we find in history.
The problem comes when the “meaning” is more important than the data and people “refuse” to change their meaning. Sticking to their dogma.
We seem to be entering the territory of “words” though now and I’ve not been very good at that… so please go slowly on me.
The q then arises of from whence and on what grounds we acquire a system of meaning.
The data…? Where do you get’s yours?
I still catching up on what “system of meaning” actually mean? I need a dictionary.
Cheers
Lee
Hi Peter,
Now just starting to look at your post.
Thanks for adding to the debate.
I hope to learn something. I'm not sure if I will have time to give a full response tonight (I live in Oz BTW and it’s gone 9 o’clock) or whether I'm up to your standard of thought - but I'll give it a go and probably make a fool of myself.
Looking forward to it myself.
Lee
Hi Peter
1) I cannot see that science has anything to say about values, since nothing like this appears in the vocabulary of physics.
Is this not a strawnan? From observation we can tell what values (in a human sense are). As I have mentioned before, I see experimental evidence to suggest an evolutionary bvasis to morality. The foundations of that are testable, predictions are made and hold true - hence confidence in interpretation.
For those who subscribe to (M), I have to sak what predictive powers it has and what is the foundation of reality that you can compare it to? Without knowlegde of the supernatural, these arguments fail at the first hurdle, because you have not demonstrated a functional framework of "reality" to build upon and test. The logical conclusion is that you have no reasonable basis upon which to claim god is the source of "ultimate values". Even if you want to claim that my view does not contain a "system of meaning" (although I have argued that it does), that does not change the fact that you don't have one either, and you are the one who bears the burden of proof. The logical extention of this philosophy is that you can't know one way or the other, so again, this claim must fail to produce a rational argument.
2) More about "what isn't physics?"
Well, conscious awareness isn't part of physics, and believe me, I'm a physicist and I ought to know.
How do you know? This sounds like an argument from incredulity? I can alter your consciousness and perception with a variety of drugs - caffiene, LSD, Dopamine, pentabarbitol etc. Specific brain lesions alter a persons moral compass. The evidence of a physical basis is good.
The DNA discover Francis Crick (a firm atheist) admitted that how the brain acts to make possible our conscious experience is a "complete mystery"( T Metzinger ed., Neural Correlates of Consciousness Experience, MIT Press 2000).
In other words he doesn't know. But that does not mean that it is unknowable. It is also not his area of expertise - perhaps someone like suzanne Blackshaw would have had something more relevant to say.
There is a clear danger in this type of thinking. Darwin said in the origin of soecies that his theory would be stronger if only there were more transitional fossils. 2 years later, Archaeopteryx lithographica was described.
On Jonathan's blog, Jimmy said he would have more faith in science if it could make people grow a new limb. I introduced him to this:
http://www.bigshinything.com/supermice
100 years ago, this idea would have seemed bonkers.
Evidence. Now the problem here is that if the only evidence that is to be considered is that provided by scientific experiments that agree or don't agree with a theoretical prediction, then that automatically excludes anything that science does not or cannot deal with.
If you want to argue that, you have to conclude that your position suffers from that - and more - since you are postulating something that has not been seen, and many claim can not be tested. Again, you are the cone making the claim, you have to provide the rational framework.
it is really a littie
simple-minded to dismiss the entire subject of philosophy because it isn't experimental science.
Dont think that's what I said, and was not what I meant. I mean that philosophers like clear distinctions and often overlook the experimental evidence. Philosophy is clearly limited because it does not do experiments. Philosophy wont tell me if DNA is a double or triple helix for example. Testing does. Philosophy is also like a defence lawyer - it can use logic to deny rationality. For example, I know a story of a guy who was caught with 9 bricks of white powder. The lab tested 3 and they were all cocaine. The defence (he supports a team in blue - if that gives you a clue as to who)argued the rest could have been something else, and the criminal got a reduced sentence - I often see philosophers in this light when their philosophies are attacked.
If evidence is being asked for, what kind of evidence would suffice? If the answer is "none"
Amputees growing a new limb after prayer God talking to us, god appearing to us... Real evidence.I fear that this is where the rtheist slips out of philosophy and into apologetics to deny the possibility of this evidence. The error also becomes that to use the bible , you are presupposing that it is your god, and such an approach is intellecually inconsistent, so perhaps we should then drop philosophy and discuss the problems with the bible. Can you argue against this demand for evidence with out the bible? If so, then your god becomes only one of a myriad of philosopical possibilities - including the possibility that you are god - not a very helpful way in seeking truth - is it?
It is a highly relevant question. To say that values are of no practical use in our lives is obviously nonsense because people act by values all the time.
This is another strawman. Values do exist, I dont think anyone here said otherwise, but they are often relative. Stealing food is not going to get you far socially after all. We see the punishment for such behaviour in chimp societies - lower social standing and less chance of mating - an evolutionary model for values - if you look back a few months, I argued how it makes evolutionary sence to be concerned about the welfare of others. This approach makes testable predictions, does theology?
"It's only real if I can do a scientific experiment".
Another strawman. I dont think anyone here is denying the possibility of the supernatural, but using some of your arguments against yourself, you can't demonstrate reality outwith the physical world - that is why we are atheists
This rules out a lot of things people find important and leads to the endpoint, I believe, that we dehumanise ourselves.
Could you elaborate? The term dehumanise to me assumes we are something special. We are just talking apes. Our lives may be important to us, but so is a mudskippers to it.
I am also confused by what it means to be humanised. The history of our species is pretty violent and borders and religious advancemet are determined in blood.
maybe the conversation will become more substantial
"Interesting" comment!
Science may have limits, but does not mean there is a different realm of understanding
Cheers
Billy
Beaten again by Billy... (I was posting on Jonathan's blog and mucking around in facebook - I've still not worked out what the point is)
I'll give Peter's comment another read and try and write something up tomorrow if there are any points left to respond to.
See ya
Lee
Hi folks, have just scanned through comments; reading detail of the actual discussion will still need to wait, but just to respond to a couple of queries addressed to me specifically.
Lee, as already said I will indeed read the book I've recommended, and indeed do my best to get hold of at least one for starters of the atheists' recommendations. I'm pleased about the mutual willingness to give this a go: as both Peter and myself have expressed, I don't think we'll be engaging in much further debate on science and faith until at least some of us have had a chance to look at the Ratzsch book (and I re-emphasise I at least will look at an atheist one too). This will help introduce at least a partial freeze on the discussion and give us all a chance to come back with fresh, more informed perspectives; it'll also give me a chance to catch up on comments a bit.
The charge that I'm perhaps sometimes evasive or not able/willing to defend my position has been a repeated one since this blog discussion has been going, so I'll try again to clarify my take on it. The intellectual underpinning of my faith has been formed over many years, including through quite a lot of reading on the matter, especially as I was growing up. To amend a point I made earlier: you're right Billy I was brought up in a Christian home - we all start somewhere - I shd have said that the faith I started out with went through a process of questioning and testing as I matured (a process that's not finished!). So there is far more to the intellectual basis of my faith than I've so far expressed via blog; there's also a lot I still have to learn.
There is an issue I've mentioned several times before of wise use of time and effort here. You guys raise a lot of points and qs that, even from the tip of the ice berg of reading and surveying books that I've done, I know have been tackled by intelligent people who've invested time in thinking and writing about them. So it often seems more resource-economical to me to point to one of these, that I have some basis for recommending (in the case of Ratzsch I've read and respect two in the series). I've been prepared to match that with an offer to read an atheist recommendation. There is a simple point here about life priorities and wise investment of time and energy, that Peter too has acknowledged. I'd humbly admit that concentration and time management are issues that sometimes slow me down and I need to work on (I'm also aware of my abilities so not doing myself down). The reality is as I write I have C'mas cards to write, gifts to buy, admin, clearing out to do, progress to make on my career path and a busy social life (out every night this week except Mon).
I hope this puts the 'Bruce's response' issue in better perspective, and also perhaps gives a human slant!
Within the framework of these realities, I'll continue to try and do my best to facilitate fruitful discussion here.
Cheers for now.
Hi Bruce,
People may indeed have sddressed some of our questions - and some of us have looked at the responses and are not satisfied with them. The point is that we are in discussion with you, so the questions are more of a challenge to you - usually in areas that we feel there is no suitable answer
PS,
I could lend you breaking the spell - although I haven't read it all myself yet - it may prompt me to do so
Billy, if you want to think about it in terms of being in discussion with me, then from my side,a key part of my response in the discussion is to offer pointers to material that I think seriously engages with your qs. Not only saves me covering ground covered by others, but I'd expect will take you a lot further than I could (I'm not a trained scientist remember). Economy of time, resources, knowledge, talent. The thing I'm best at and most want to do on my blog (golly have I said this before?) is creatively express my own original thoughts (though often on topics that will interest you including the key ones so far). I'll be sticking to that goal.
Incidentally, I'd be interested, and perhaps others would be, in hearing specifically which sources - books in particular - you've looked at thoroughly for responses. I'm interested at what level you've been looking, whether at the kind of level I or Peter wd regard as serious eg the Contours series - (even it is only ntroductory) Surely the science one interests you, good to see it does Jonathan... or one of the books Peter recommended above (you've expressed interest in consciousness in the past). As you were looking at Evans Philosophy of Religion book in Contours series, did you BTW manage to read pps 123-6(in my version anyway), 'Do the natural sciences undermine religious belief?' in section 6?
Bruce, off the top of my head, I have read some srobel, yancy, mcDowel, Lewis, Robertsons anti Dawkins piece, various bits and pieces in the theology section of the university library, a variety of aplogetic sites on the web, including front line apologetics - and many dreadful sites (but to be honest, they all say the same thing).
However, that is not important, it is the arguments that are.
I feel you have to recognise the possibility that you could be wrong. that does not come across when you say things like serious academics believe x, y and z.
It is worth noting that serious academics defent the Koran too, but does that mean it is true?
I have just re-read the pages you mentioned (I keep the book in my rucsac). They are a strawman argument- the opening paragraph tells a lie "many of the greatest natural sceintists believe in god", if you actually check the figures, few of the greatest actually do - you should find the figures in TGD It does not validate belief in the supernatural.
His first point is very weak - that you can not rule out the supernatural - a mixture of arguments from authority, incredulity and you cant prove otherwise.
He then goes on to state that the size of the universe then goes on to argue for the greatness of the creator - no it doesn't all it says is that the universe is big - this is not an argument for god's greatness, and a measure of greatness is also relative - I dont think a creator who could create such a wasteful and hostile universe to interact with one species 14 billion years after its greation is particularly great (and this is only paragraph 2)
I could go into more detail if you want, but I actually have the chance to go home early today
In my opinion chapters one to three of 1st Corinthians are a good accompaniment to philosophical thought and discussion.
Jimmy - why?
Everyone else - I assume Bruce's point is to suggest that there are limits to philosophies - which is of course true. I hope doesn't think that by tarring all possible views with the same brush provides evidence for his case.
However, he is the only one who can say
Billy wrote to Bruce
I could lend you breaking the spell - although I haven't read it all myself yet - it may prompt me to do so
This could be the best book for Bruce to read (if only one “atheist” book is being read) – being a philosopher, Dan Dennett asks the questions rather well.
Maybe Bruce will understand the reasons for our questioning and that they are valid questions to ask.
There are no real answers in this book, merely “maybe, maybe not” responses, but don’t let that put anyone off.
The book I suggested was as Bruce requested, the book that “best” relates to my personal opinion.
That is, the question about the theist god of the bible can be tested using framework of science.
Maybe it is best to read this book after Dan Dennett's, especially if “science type” questioning is unfamiliar to the reader.
I don't think we'll be engaging in much further debate on science and faith until at least some of us have had a chance to look at the Ratzsch book (and I re-emphasise I at least will look at an atheist one too).
I went into my “local” bookshop in Melbourne yesterday (one for that caters for the more “intellectual” reader)… they have never stocked the book. They can order it from the US for a price ($27)… but it will not be in until the New Year.
As I said Bruce, if you purchase the book and wish to debate it – then I will order it for my education.
However, living in the “arse end of the Earth” (not my words, but those of the former PM of Australia Paul Keating) it can take some time for the order to come in. This is no me avoiding the debate or this book.
Maybe a miracle will happen and Father Christmas will bring it for me on Christmas Day? I've been good this year... honest.
On that note, Merry Christmas. to one and all.
I'll be in and out of these debates when I can - however much of my writing is done at work but I'm off now until the New Year.
This means my posts "should" be shorter... no promises.
Lee
Hi folks, to clarify, I posted Peter's essay having 'sat on it' a month or two until I'd read it myself. It is indeed more related to the Sept/Oct discussion on morality. But I also wanted to bring Peter, if only briefly, just to provide an example of someone who both combines and (as I
think his comment goes some way to showing) integrates scientific expertise and religious - in his as my case specifically Christian - faith. ie challenging Billy and Lee's suggestion that scientists who believe just leave their science behind at that point. Clearly Peter may well be willing to re-enter the discussion at some point.
Just responding for the moment to JC and Lee's latter comments:
JC, in light of the above, don't worry, I wasn't reading more into Peter's piece than it discusses.
'Physicalism may, rather than being entirely inappropriate, be incomplete.' - fair point that cd b discussed further.
Lee, thanks for trying to find the book, I also need to get hold of it. I'll ask my sister to post the copy I did have from France, and look for another meanwhile (good libraries in Glasgow). Billy, once you've done with 'Spell' I'll happily borrow it.
More soon.
Hi Bruce,
challenging Billy and Lee's suggestion that scientists who believe just leave their science behind at that point.
Could you point out the challenge please?
I’ve just re-read Peter’s post and all I saw, in summary, was a theist making a statement that science cannot measure god?
Which, if I recall correctly, is what Billy and I said a theist scientist needs to do… push God outside science.
No challenge then… actually confirmation of our claim?
Or have I just misunderstood what was written… please correct me where I am wrong. Just point me to the statements that contradicts my position?
Let’s just take a look at one comment for now..
Peter wrote:
Evidence. Now the problem here is that if the only evidence that is to be considered is that provided by scientific experiments that agree or don't agree with a theoretical prediction, then that automatically excludes anything that science does not or cannot deal with.
Why does it “automatically exclude”?
I say science doesn’t and I can point to a history of experiments.
Experiments have been conducted when the outcome was a complete surprise – results which, at the time, science could not “deal with”. The current theories were “blown away”. Michelson–Morley, Rutherford’s gold leaf, the photoelectric effect experiments, Hubble’s measurement of the red shift for galaxies are just a few that spring to mind.
So sorry – with the greatest respect… I think Peter is very wrong on this statement, and is merely “wishfully” hoping it to be true.
If I am wrong, then please explain how? I have just given examples where science did NOT automatically exclude something it could not deal it.
So where have I missed understood the statement here?
Interestingly, Peter then goes on to say:
It seems to me that a "comfort zone" is being defined here.
Very interesting… by whom?
Can someone please tell me why God’s interactions cannot be tested? Does God not interact any more with mankind? Then why pray to God?
If God’s interactions cannot be tested, then please tell me why?
I’m happy to move outside my comfort zone… can the theist? Can the theist accept that God can be tested?
Lee
Hi Bruce,
I dont think Peter's article actually justifies a role for scientific thinking in faith. It seems that he just happens to be a scientist who believes.
Maybe Peter could say in his own words why the scientific method is faith friendly - if that is what you are trying to apply(BTW I know a few christian scientists, and the philosophies are incompatible)
I think we need to clarify things here too. I Think it is a bit of a digression to discuss the merits of science over faith in the god question. The point is that we dont see any evidence for your claim.
Lee I think it is wise to wait until Bruce has commented on his book. I am mot impressed at all with the one he recommended to me - the author even calls theology a theory (in the same sentence as a scientific theory) - it is nothing of the sort - it has not been tested.
Any way, happy holidays to those who wont be about
Hi all,
I just wish to tidy up a statement I made last night, to the following comment from Peter:
Evidence. Now the problem here is that if the only evidence that is to be considered is that provided by scientific experiments that agree or don't agree with a theoretical prediction, then that automatically excludes anything that science does not or cannot deal with.
I made several comments, but one regarding specific scientific experiments. Well, it was late when I posted my reply. Of course I realise Peter will be more than aware of the experiments I mentioned (and a lot more as well I am sure) but I just wonder why they are ignored when Peter made his statement that science “excludes anything that science does not or cannot deal with”
Hope that explains my comment a little better.
Cheers
Lee
Nobel prizes are given for things that dont fit, so I wonder what Peter's point was
Billy wrote:
Nobel prizes are given for things that dont fit, so I wonder what Peter's point was
Yep... A long list could be provided when this has happened in the past. Also, if you could provide evidence for God in the science lab (something strange, breaking the known laws), I think you would get a Noble AND Templeton prize... you would be RICH I say, RICH!!!
So, I to am wondering what the point was... surely I have misunderstood (at best)
Lee
Hi Bruce,
Just to pass on information… I was looking for mp3’s to download for my regular train journeys to work.
By chance, I found this link of under the heading of “cosmology”… interestingly most of them are from the Christian perspective? (Who would of thought it?)
http://www.listeningtowords.com/tag.php?id=147
I’ve just downloaded all that I can, not sure what I will learn but on my commute I have to listen to something – so why not a Christian physicist eh?
I’m sure you will like what you hear, John Polkinghorne I think is a former professor of physics and a vicar? So give some a listen, if you think they raise “good” questions, point out the lecture and the question and I will give it a listen myself.
See ya
Lee
Post a Comment