"Everything in this world -- including science -- comes from God. The greatest rabbis in history were skilled mathematicians, doctors, scientists and they did not view their secular studies to be incompatible with the Torah. Rather, they saw everything in existence as having its roots in religious text. "
*sigh* But this line of thinking is designed to be irrefutable.
To say "Everything in this world -- including science -- comes from the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is equally valid and irrefutable. Constructing truisms like this and then using them to support a cause is really not a very compelling display of intellect by the editorialist.
You're right, it is irrefutable. So is the idea that ideas need to be refutable. So is the idea that the universe is chaotic or random. Did you ever see the link I did to Karl Poppper on Wikkipedia?
The reason I choose to highlight this writer is not because she's proven her faith (which not quite the same as mine), but because she's made an extremely basic point that I agree with. Our most basic points are unprovable and can only be assented to or denied. That isn't a huge display of IQ, but neither is it nothing. Most imporantly, IMHO, it's simply honest. That is why differences need to be respected as much as they can be.
Popper knew his ideas about testing and falsifying didn't hold outside of the lab, and didn't apply to mental, metaphysical constructs. To do so is to turn it into a dogma and dull its lustre.
On a very different note, I'm glad you popped in. I haven't yet added CanConv to the template for each post. I've been lazy and Rebecca's been busy. In any case if you can show me where the code goes, I might be able to have it done this weekend.
Happy thanksgiving to you and to Pete as well.
I just happened to bump into another on line essay that makes my point. The writer is Edward Fesser at The Conservative Philosopher:
http://
conservativephilosopher.p...128587631.shtml
There are many theories out there; too many to teach so how do we decide which ones we will teach in schools?
We decide to teach those theories that are most supported by the observations we have made. In other words we teach prevailing scientific theories.
If you teach ID in schools then you must teach children about the flying spaghetti monster
Of course teach what you observe. No one ever saw a chaotic material universe, or a God made one. One questions like that public schools need to be neutral.
Curt,
Email me your blog template and I'll add in the part for CanConv - it's probably easiest that way.
------
"Our most basic points are unprovable and can only be assented to or denied. That isn't a huge display of IQ, but neither is it nothing. Most imporantly, IMHO, it's simply honest. That is why differences need to be respected as much as they can be."
That our most basic points are (currently) unprovable is true, however thinking like "there is a God, and He is the God" goes beyond a basic truth. That's a complex assertion that relies on many other truths as support, any of which may or may not be true. (If you claim that the existance of a God is a basic truth, then we'll have to allow all sorts of complex claims to also be "basic"... like, for example, evolution.)
When you peel back the layers of belief that lead to people making statements like "Everything in this world -- including science -- comes from God." it usually amounts to one of two things:
a) Blind faith (I was taught this, the says it, thus it must be true.)
b) Aestetics (The world would be incomprehensible/unbearable to me if it wasn't this way.)
But neither of those have much to do with "basic truth".... at least not IMO.
"Would it be so bad if kids learned that evolution wasn't the only possibility for how this wonderful, complex world was created?"
I think the same logic could be applied to synaogues and churches. Every Sunday or Sabbath, 10 to 15 minutes should be devoted to explaining the reasons for not believing in God. Would it be so bad for our kids to lean that religion does not have the only possible answer for expaining this wonderful, complex world we live in?
By the way, science doesn't pretend to have all the answers about how the world came to be. That is why theists, atheists, agnostics, etc. can all practice science with a clear conscience.
Hey guys, some good points here.
Andrew, I think most religious people will tell you that even those raised in a faith tradition have to come to accept it for themselves. Blind robotic faith, which has a very long history of being denigrated in Christianity as mere 'works' is not held in much by either Catholics or Protestants. B) is closer to the mark, and B) is not really reliant on much of anything. It either seems intriguing or not. As a convert I moved from having no interest in B) to finding that it described my maturing outlook better than any other view I'd seen.
Ahab, science pretends to be neutral and religion does not, so I don't think you're comparison of teaching materialism in a temple holds. It's apples and oranges. No one is compelled to attend a church service either, but kids do have to go to school.
Have a look at the Fesser article linked in the next post; I'm on the same page as he is.
Curt,
Not sure I understand what you mean by science being neutral. It explicitly seeks naturalistic explanations for events in this world we live in. At one time it was more open to what we would now refer to as supernaturalistic explanations, but it found through experence and experiments that those kinds of explanations are useless in helping us to understand natural phenomenon. That, I think, is the reason the vast majority of practicing scientists have not adopted ID theory.
Now if you mean that public education should be neutral in respect to people's varying religious beliefs, I agree. I think it extremely important that we keep religious beliefs out of science or social studies, or mathematics or automotive engineering, or physical education, etc. Seems to me to be the best way to respect the different religious beliefs we have.
It is the responsibility of the parents to provide whatever religious training they wish their children to have, not the public school system. Leastwise, in America that is the way it is.
We're agreed that public schools should be neutral but I think the issue is what kind of statement is scientific and what kind of statement is religious. "There is no such thing as a miracle" is in my mind religious because it is unfounded (ie. untestable; I try to stick with Popper on what is science in these debates).
On the other hand, saying that scientists must look to other kinds of explanations because that is all that they have to work with is fine. The first is too sweeping and can't help but have an impact on other areas and methods of thinking about the world.
By neutral I mean that science has dogmatic methods (sense experience, logic, math) but is not dogmatic about what it hopes to find with those mthods. Religious methods are more open to things that are not conclusive. I think we need both. I don't think either will suffice alone.
Andrew, isn't this an assertion of faith?
"our most basic points are (currently) unprovable"
Faith in human ability well into the future, as well as faith that ideals will someday in some way be materially tested? I think that second point is a category error; I have no trouble with the first, faith in human ability, even if I'm less optimistic.
The category error seems to be me to be more grave but I can't prove it to you because the whole point rests on the premise of different types of knowledge yeilding to different methods. One either sees that 'ought' does not follow from 'is' or one does not. If you do see it, then studying what 'is' will not get to any closer to proving an 'ought', no matter how far into the future you look.
Curt,
As to what is scientific or not - I guess I mainly feel that is best decided by practicing scientists. Obviously they are not in complete agreement either. Like anything else, there are always going to be grey areas. But there does seem to be overall agreement among those in the field of biology that ID is poor science. Untill (if ever) that changes, I don't see why we non-scientists should be pretending that ID is science by mandating its teaching in science classes.
Even as an atheistic naturalist, I recognize that science alone is not going to help a person to find meaning in her life. That is also why I feel the freedom of religious practice is so important.
By the way, I'm a big fan of Popper also. His two volume work "The Open Society and Its Enemies" is a masterpiece, in my opinion.
However, I have seen a number of biologists severely criticize his view of science.
Biology is funny that way. Of all the sciences it seems to be the one most hostile to faith issues (and yet it helped make me a Christian). Physics and Maths don't seem to have as much trouble.
I also think most of the ID theories I've seen are weak. There are logical, metaphysical arguments that I think are better.
In the end both our views have spots that appear weak to those looking in. Theists struggle with the problem of evil and naturalists have the problem of free will. Time will tell, I suppose. 
" Andrew, isn't this an assertion of faith?
"our most basic points are (currently) unprovable"
Not really - I'm not saying that we will ever be able to prove everything, however I don't discount that it might happen eventually.
The only absolute you'll be able to nail me down on is that we do not know everything there is to know right now. (For example: how is it that humans have consciousness, and how does it work?) I will neither discount that we will figure things like this out nor declare that they will absolutely be solved. Either answer would be pretentious.
One either sees that 'ought' does not follow from 'is' or one does not. If you do see it, then studying what 'is' will not get to any closer to proving an 'ought', no matter how far into the future you look.
'Ought' and 'is' are completely unrelated. (Which is why I have grave problems with attributing religion to aestetic beliefs about the nature of reality.)
"Theists struggle with the problem of evil and naturalists have the problem of free will."
Don't quite follow you here, Curt. I know the POE is a problem for theists. But why do you think naturalists have a problem with free will?
“Theists struggle with the problem of evil and naturalists have the problem of free will.”
Has religion worked out free-will, or merely rejected it? I know that Boethius tried to rectify free-will with divine Providence, but the equation is sloppy.
Those without an omnipotent god only have to worry about cause and effect—but historians have solved this with the doctrine of contingency, that is that anything could have happened and it is only the choices of individuals that made history shape the way it has. Human agency over all else.
Ahab, the naturalist problem arises because if all of life is mechanically evolved, then our thoughts are nothing more than a machine cranking through its processes and we don't attribute freedom to things like that. It might feel like we're free, but that has to be an illusion in a material world.
Pete, the free will issue depends on what religion we are talking about, and on what school. Catholic Chrisitans usually hold strongly that we are free, while other Christians might take another view. Some Calvinists, for example, hold to 'double predestination' which means that some are born to be saved and some are born to be dammed and nothing either does can alter it. Myself, I have serious problems with that. Outside Christianity I'm sure there's a lot more ground as well.
Curt,
There are machines and then there are machines.
Biological machines (which we are) are dramatically different from what we often think of when we call something (like a sewing machine) a machine.
So I would suspect that when you use the word 'machine' you are doing so in a way quite different from my use.
And we probably are using 'free will' quite a bit differently also.
When I say free will, I mean the ability to make a choice. We obviously can do that. In fact, I seriously doubt one could be capable of making a choice if they didn't have a 'mechanical' body like ours. So rather than making free will illusory, it is precisely because we have physical bodies obeying the laws of this physical universe that we find ourselves with the ability to make choices and act upon them.
I would think as a Catholic that you would have little trouble with that view. It places much more importance upon the physical (as evidenced by its sacramental theology) than other branches of Christianity.
Also, I'm guessing you are using free will in more of a libertarian sense. But that concept of free will is not only a problem for naturalists but also for super-naturalists. I've yet to see anyone give a coherent explanation for how libertarian free will could work.
Ahab, when I look at the naturalist's point of view it seems it cannot account for a free consciousness. If the shape of my brain and all the chemicals in it are ALL that there is to my consciousnes, and they are ENTIRELY formed by material bumping together acording to certain laws, then where does my real free will come from?
Naturalists will often say that the eye, for example, is not formed in an ideal way, as a human engineer would design it. And this is proof that there is no design, they say. But that argument also works against every organ, including the mind.
The ability to make a real choice, as opposed to being deluded about being able to make a choice is far from obvious. You might want to have a look at Descartes on that score. Lots of philosophers and theologians have worked on this problem, with no real winners.
Curt,
Descartes' views on machines and mechanics is sorely outdated. So I'm afraid that I don't think he would be very helpful for understadning how the brain is able to do what it does.
The brain is the most complex thing we know of that exists in this universe. We are just beginning to get some small glimpses at how it operates through relatively crude devices like fMRI. I know that a common response by those who don't believe the brain is capable of doing what it does is tho say "Look its just some pieces of matter bumping around in there." But that is grossly oversimplifying how the brain is organized and functions.
I think the ability to make choices (what you are calling free will) is only possible because there is a deterministic system like a brain that can process all the information coming into it through the senses and organize a response that is consistent with its desires or goals. How do you think we are able to make choices?
However, I do agree with your point that considering that the brain was formed through evolutionary forces it most likely is not always a dependable instrument - one would expect it to be capable of making serious errors of judgement and holding incredibly stupid beliefs. And guess what? that does seem to be the case. If brains functioned perfectly and never made any mistakes we would all be able to agree on what the truth is.
Also, I don't understand why you think the fact that we are capable of making mistakes somehow invalidates our ability to make choices. Doesn't Christian belief hold to the view that men can be deceived by demons? Does that invalidate free will in your eyes?
Descartes was a philosopher not a doctor, so I'm not sure that our medical knowledge has made him less relevant - unless he was pointing to something specific like the soul being in the pineal gland, which I think he may have done. Metaphysical questions like causation and substance and freedom are different sorts of issues, issues on which science builds but does not create.
More to the point, no ammount of material complexity can make a determined thing free.
Reflexes and breathing and so on are obviously not free, but how and where does that mechanical system break down and allow for a 'ghost in the machine' who is free to make choices? Does our choosing anything prove that the choice was authentic and not determined? Doesn't this idea break down into substance dualism?
Obvioulsy the universe must have regularity if we are to act on it, and so does our body. But if we are really free to choose anything there must be a break in that system in which we can act in ways that are not forced. How that is I don't know and I really don't think any amount of science can ever hope to answer it. It does not lend itself to testing and replication. Like yourself I do think we are free but I think that can't be proven, it is simply an assertion, a bit of faith.
If it is really possible to have true knowlegde then we need to be free.
By the way, Curt, thought I should add that I don't see why my views of free will, consciousness, etc. originating in the human brain should be construed as an attack on Christianity.
However, I do think that a Christian who bases his belief in God on his opinion that the brain is incapable of doing these things is building on very sandy ground.
In the same way, I think many Christians make their faith look foolish (and not in the good traditional sense of being fools for God) by pushing so hard for ID.
I'm running on here, but one more point. Ahab wrote: "If brains functioned perfectly and never made any mistakes we would all be able to agree on what the truth is." If that were to be true two things would need to happen. As you say, we would need to have all the facts needed at hand, and to make no errors in processing them logically. Having all the facts is impossible, however. We can't be in all places and times. Another often overlooked problem lies in correctly defining our terms, ie. in getting our metaphysics right. What is a substance, what is justice, what is time, etc. It does not follow that perfect brains would necessarily have a perfect metaphysics at hand, or be able to find one. They can't test for it, after all. This is one of the things Popper understood and it's why I admire him as a philosopher and scientist. He could see limitations inherent in his methods.
**
I haven't said making mistakes means we are not free, only that thinking a choice is free does not make it so. And I do think we are free.
"Obvioulsy the universe must have regularity if we are to act on it, and so does our body. But if we are really free to choose anything there must be a break in that system in which we can act in ways that are not forced."
Why are you equating determinism with being forced? If I don't have a determining reason for my actions, I don't think I can be held responsible for them.
If I choose to give a large sum of money to a charitable organization, there are determining reasons that enable me to make that choice. If I do so completely freely, without any reason, can my action be described as a responsible one?
I'm afraid I see little difference between your version of free will and pure randomness.
"How that is I don't know and I really don't think any amount of science can ever hope to answer it."
Then it seems you are agreeing that your particular interpretation of free will is as much a problem for the supernaturalist as the naturalist.
Personally, I think the libertarian concept of free will is deeply flawed and is unworkable irregardless of whether or not we happen to live in a deterministic or non-deterministic universe.
I don't think you're attacking my faith and I'm not trying to slander you. It's been a pretty good bit of sharing ideas, wouldn't you say? If you want to look at a good book on this subject, I'd recommend CS Lewis' Miracles. To say the least, it's much better organized than my ad libs in this thread. I can't say it'll convince you but if you want to know what kind of a case a good theist can make, that might be the book to pick up.
Curt,
Agreed, I think we've done a fair bit of good sharing here.
That is probably about the best that can be hoped for in such limited time and space.
Since you were kind enough to make a book recommendation, I would like to return the favor.
Perhaps you've already read it, since you think so highly of Popper, but if not, then you would, I hope, greatly enjoy his 2-volume work, "The Open Society and Its Enemies." He wrote it during WW2 and it is quite a stirring defense of democratic societies, but also touches on a number of interesting philosophical issues that I think you would be interested in.
Take care.
Curt,
There is a very intersting a good debate going on in here, but I'm afraid you, and the editorial writer for the Detroit Free Press, have missed the point. Ahab I think tried to make it earlier, but you missed it again.
Science is based on what is provable, not what is not provable. Through observation (direct or indirect) and experimentation. Evolution has been observed and shown experimentally for years. There is more scientific evidence backing up evolution that any other scientific theory (and please look up the semantic use of the word "theory" in the scientific context - it is not the same as the commonplace meaning). Science has rules. And based on those rules, evolution wins.
See:
http://www.americanscientist.org...7366?&
print=yes
Now, that is not to say "ID" should not be discussed in public schools. Just not in science class, because it isn't science, its philosophy. Talk about it in Philosophy class, Comparative Religions, Social Studies, even English. And be prepared to give it equal footing with other "theories" with an equal amount of scientific and tautalogical backing - Andrew's "Flying Spaghetti Monster" example is one that is on equal footing to ID in this regard.
The point of the issue in Dover, is that something that is NOT SCIENCE is trying to be forced to be taught in science classes, for religious reasons. Would you have us teach Numerology in Calculus class? Astrology in Astronomy? Mythology in History class?
I appreciate the philisophic arguments made but they are meaningless in the context of science. In a science class you teach science, by the rules of science and in the tradition of science. If its not science, it belongs in philosophy class.
Mike, you're new here, so I'll just tip you to a few things you've missed. I'm not advancing a pro ID stance. I'm not denying that evolution takes place.
My points are basically two, that biology is being hijakced to advance naturalist, materialist POV. What is the ultimate cause of genetic mutation? We don't know that any more than we know what caused the big bang. Since it is unknown, there is no harm in speculating, naturalists and non naturalists alike.
My second point is that "Science is based on what is provable, not what is not provable" is point blank false. When an experiment is done a lot of decisions go into how to set it up. Those decisions are are ultimately philosophical and metaphysical. Then the data has to be interpreted, again based on theory - which is also philosophical.
Please have a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%
...AFve_empiricism
I'm in not trying run down science, but it has its limits; it can be abused. Can't measure it? Can't count it? Science can't help you. But that does not mean things that can't be counted are of no value.
Curt,
Biology isn't being hijacked to advance the naturalist, materialist POV. At least no more than say geology is or meterology is.
Scinece limits itself to naturalistic explanations as part of its methodology.
What is an 'ultimate cause'? Seems to me you are tying to slip in some kind of metaphysical concept that science doesn't pretend to deal with.
" you are tying to slip in some kind of metaphysical concept that science doesn't pretend to deal with."
Ever read any Dawkins or Lewontin? Not all scientists to this - but then again many do want to use their lab coat to advance their pet causes.
Anonymous,
Sure I've read Dawkins. Though I have to confess to not reading Lewontin.
Dawkins is an atheist and he feels that evolution helps to give his atheism intellectual credibility. Well it does in the sense that it (evolution) allows the atheist to explain how we came to be without having to rely on some kind of god.
But I also know many theists who look at nature and proclaim that it testifies to the glory of God.
I think the theists and atheists are both justified in doing that.
I've not seen Dawkins claim that his atheistic belief is to be taught as science. Doe Lewontin do that?
Hey Ahab, that was me - I forgot to put my name in.
I'm glad to hear you say "the theists and atheists are both justified in doing that" because that was the reason for the post in the first place. It's unfair for someone like Dawkins to use his specialty (which I acknowledge; I like his books to a point) to advance a cause in which it is not relevant when someone in the same position, but a theist, cannot. That's been the whole point, all along.
A very good look at the mis-use of Darwin for pet causes is "Taking Darwin Seriously", by Micheal Ruse. Ruse is a naturalist who admits Darwinism gets roped into all kinds of places by all kinds of people. I posted a small excert a while back.
http://northwesternwinds.blogspo...-
darwinism.html
Readers are invited to have a look at a new post on this subject at the top of the page.
Commenting by HaloScan
