Jason Rosenhouse has been following an exchange between Micheal Behe and Theistic Evolutionist Creationist Ken Miller [In Which I Agree With Michael Behe Over Ken Miller]. Miller is upset because Behe's intelligent designer made malaria.
Miller doesn't think this fits with his idea of a loving God so he criticizes Behe in a recent review published in a Catholic magazine. Behe responds and here's what Jason says,
Bingo! That's exactly right, and it nicely punctures the sophistry offered up by theistic evolutionists.I agree with Jason. This is a fight between two Intelligent Design Creationists even though one of them (Ken Miller) pretends that he's not a creationist. What I like about this exchange is that Behe is honest and forthright about the implications of his belief in a designer. The Theistic Evolutionist Creationists on the other hand, aren't.
49 comments :
Hmmm ... and just why should I or anyone else consider Jason's or your theological beliefs ... you do know theodicy is theology, don't you? ... as any more convincing than Miller's or Behe's?
And do you really need to equivocate over the term "creationist" to make whatever point you think you're making? That's stooping to the level Discovery Institute, IMO.
As much as I love the term "Intelligent Design Creationist," calling Ken Miller a "Theistic Evolutionist Creationist" doesn't seem fair to me. Unless I misunderstand him, he does not believe that god intervened during the course of evolution. How he squares that off with his religious beliefs doesn't matter to me at all, because it appears to have absolutely no effect on his scientific position.
It's hard to imagine a christian being more friendly to evolution than Ken Miller is. Do we really want to treat all christians as creationists? I don't think we do.
[Theistic Evolutionist Creationists]
Well said from a Dawkins Darwinist Evolutionist. I mean, there aren't any other evolutionists, are they ?
As much as I love the term "Intelligent Design Creationist," calling Ken Miller a "Theistic Evolutionist Creationist" doesn't seem fair to me. Unless I misunderstand him, he does not believe that god intervened during the course of evolution.
I think the term theistic evolutionist just means a belief that evolution is compatible with god's creation or whatever. (Maybe I'm wrong.)
Anyway, Mr. Miller can't help it if his god created the universe, and neither can Mr. Behe help it if his god created the universe too. Just like Mr. Miller can't help if his god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and throws people in hell, and Mr. Behe can't help it if his god has to tinker with evolution stuff all the time.
They're both just going with the evidence at hand. They're just goin with the flow, dude...
Both of their gods are tinker gods by the way. Mr. Behe's god tinkers with evolution while Mr. Miller's god tinkers with people's souls and with miracles and wiping out evil cities and with feeding the multitudes breads and fishes and whatnot. Behe's god is a bigger tinker god, that's all. :P
Any God that intervenes with the physical universe and causes miracles to occur is breaking the first law of thermodynamics, whether its pushing a few nucleotides around to produce a flagellum component gene or causing a human who has been dead for three days to suddenly come back to life.
Both Behe and Miller believe in the miracles associated with Jesus in the Gospels. They face the same dilemma that Francis Collins faced when he was asked to explain why you could not use a 'divine miracle' as an explanation for a scientific experiment - say you get ten resistant bacterial colonies growing on a plate rather than the expected one. As an evolutionist you accept that we are no more 'evolved' than any other organism - we just fit into a different environmental niche. If you think that God could intervene to affect one organism, mankind, then why not those bacteria on the plate?
Its the central problem faced by theistic evolutionists that is not faced by deists who don't accept an intervening God.
Theists cannot accept uniformitarianism and still remain faithful to their beliefs.
I tend to agree with MartinC that theists cannot be uniformitarianists, contra many of the folks in the Intelligent Design Creationism crowd who frequently claim that only christians can be uniformitarians.
Theists cannot accept uniformitarianism and still remain faithful to their beliefs.
I'm sure theists were waiting with bated breath for your theological insights.
But let's open up this uniformitarianism argument. What if we knew that God did screw around unpredictably with the universe in rare instances? Would we still do science? If not, why not? If we still would do science, how would we do it differently?
justin asks,
It's hard to imagine a christian being more friendly to evolution than Ken Miller is. Do we really want to treat all christians as creationists? I don't think we do.
Aren't they all creationists? A creationist believes in a god who created the universe. In Miller's case, he also believes in a god who endowed humans with a special ability to perceive and worship the creator.
I distinguish between several types of creationist ranging from Young Earth Creationists through Intelligent Design Creationists to Theistic Evolutionist Creationists. What's wrong with that? The thing they have in common is that they believe in a creator god.
tsk asks,
Well said from a Dawkins Darwinist Evolutionist. I mean, there aren't any other evolutionists, are they ?
Sure there are. I happen to be a Gouldian Pluralist Evolutionist, for example. You haven't been paying attention. :-)
If you have a point you'll have to make it in a different manner 'cause I didn't get it the first time.
John Pieret asks,
But let's open up this uniformitarianism argument. What if we knew that God did screw around unpredictably with the universe in rare instances? Would we still do science? If not, why not? If we still would do science, how would we do it differently?
Of course we would still do science but it would be the kind of science Philip Johnson advocates and not the kind of science we do today.
The most pressing problem would be to determine just how much "screwing around" happens. Under the new form of science, debates like the Three Domain Hypothesis would become very messy because we would have to entertain the notion that naturalistic evolution isn't the answer. Perhaps God was just experimenting with different types of cells.
If we knew for a fact that God existed and meddled in things from time to time, it would be very frustrating to work on difficult problems in evolution. In the back of your mind you would know that you might be wasting your time. There might not be a naturalistic explanation.
This post is proof that atheist polemic has to move in the rarified air of theological concepts, although of course, in a counterfactual way. The department of theology concerned is called ‘theodicy’ – the reconciliation (or lack of it) between loving omnipotent, omniscient deity and a world suffering and ‘evil’. Atheist polemic then, is, of necessity, theological but with the signs reversed!
Now here’s another deep issue: Where does the tooth fairy put all the old teeth? why does she allow us to have decaying teeth in the first place? Why doesn’t she leave us a set of dentures under our pillows when we get old? Can you get me a serious atheist link on this subject Larry? Another question for Larry’s EXIT EXAM.?
"If we knew for a fact that God existed and meddled in things from time to time, it would be very frustrating to work on difficult problems in evolution. In the back of your mind you would know that you might be wasting your time. There might not be a naturalistic explanation."
So then you could, well, ask the Designer! It just depends on the Designer.
"Bobby, did you knock over the lamp in the rec room?"
And naturalists do have the same problem! positing aliens from outer space plopping life-seeds from other planets and so on...
... debates like the Three Domain Hypothesis would become very messy because we would have to entertain the notion that naturalistic evolution isn't the answer.
Really? How would you go about scientifically testing the notion that naturalistic evolution isn't the answer? As usual you are confusing the philosophical conclusions you want to draw from science with what science actually does. Scientists who don't confuse theology with science (like Miller, who knows that if he is doing one he can't do the other at the same time) would just proceed with methodological naturalism and assume that there are naturalistic explanations of the domains.
In any case, if you were right, then, empirically, Ken Miller can't be doing good science, Wes Elsberry can't be doing good science and Theodosius Dobzhansky never did good science. If that is your claim, then you are flying in the face of the facts every bit as much as Behe and the Discovery Institute do!
If we knew for a fact that God existed and meddled in things from time to time, it would be very frustrating to work on difficult problems in evolution.
But that's the point, Larry. We don't know, and can't know, scientifically. But even if we did know, methodlogical naturalism would still dictate proceeding as if God had not acted. Miller, unlike Behe knows and says that we can't know, so he proceeds in science as if God does not interfere. That is the difference between Miller and Behe that you are equivocating about, either stupidly or dishonestly.
And you are aware that your level of "frustration" is a matter of great indifference to the rest of the scientific community and the world at large, I hope.
Timothy V Reeves says,
This post is proof that atheist polemic has to move in the rarified air of theological concepts, although of course, in a counterfactual way. The department of theology concerned is called ‘theodicy’ – the reconciliation (or lack of it) between loving omnipotent, omniscient deity and a world suffering and ‘evil’. Atheist polemic then, is, of necessity, theological but with the signs reversed!
I'm not following your argument. Can you be more specific?
My position as an atheist is that there's no problem for theodicy to deal with. I don't have to reconcile the idea of a pleasant God with the existence of evil because there is no God to begin with.
Those who face the dilemma have come up with some pretty silly ideas. It's fun to mock them from time to time when I don't have anything better to do.
Now here’s another deep issue: Where does the tooth fairy put all the old teeth? why does she allow us to have decaying teeth in the first place? Why doesn’t she leave us a set of dentures under our pillows when we get old? Can you get me a serious atheist link on this subject Larry?
Are you serious? I don't believe in the tooth fairy so all those questions are silly, just like the questions about reconciling God and evil.
What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that we shouldn't make fun of all those theories about where the tooth fairy is hiding teeth unless we actually believe in the tooth fairy? That's no fun.
It's fun to mock them from time to time when I don't have anything better to do.
[Chuckle] And you quote Jason saying Miller is engaged in sophistry? You two are like Ann Coulter commenting on who was more right about the oppression of the proletariat, Lenin or Trotsky.
john pieret says,
Really? How would you go about scientifically testing the notion that naturalistic evolution isn't the answer? As usual you are confusing the philosophical conclusions you want to draw from science with what science actually does. Scientists who don't confuse theology with science (like Miller, who knows that if he is doing one he can't do the other at the same time) would just proceed with methodological naturalism and assume that there are naturalistic explanations of the domains.
Oops. You got confused by your own argument.
You asked,
What if we knew that God did screw around unpredictably with the universe in rare instances? Would we still do science?
I assume this meant that we had proof of the existence of God, and that She messed with things from time to time. Under those circumstances, the assumption of methodological naturalism is invalid. We also have to take into account possible supernatural explanations. It would be a new kind of science—one that incorporated the existence of omnipotent supernatural beings.
Or, did I misunderstand your question?
Miller, unlike Behe knows and says that we can't know, so he proceeds in science as if God does not interfere. That is the difference between Miller and Behe that you are equivocating about, either stupidly or dishonestly.
Have you read Miller's book? He gives lots of examples where, according to him, God interferes with natural phenomena. They're called miracles. Did you know that Miller believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God? I don't see a naturalistic explanation of this, do you?
Behe says he believes in God and there are evil things in the world. Thus, God may be evil.
Miller says he believes in God and there's evil in the world but God must be good and kind in spite of the fact that he's omnipotent. Have you read Miller's convoluted explanation of why God puts evil in the world?
Who's the better scientist on this question; the one who looks at the evidence and reaches the obvious conclusion or the one who engages in rambling excuse-making in order to justify a kind God? (The sort of God, by the way, that can't be found in the Old Testament. That God deliberately does evil things. Have you heard about the mass genocide and Noah?)
"The sort of God, by the way, that can't be found in the Old Testament. That God deliberately does evil things. Have you heard about the mass genocide and Noah?" (Larry Moran)
This I believe misses the point, we should consider that everyone dies, and this by God's decision, the timing then is not so much the issue, whether in one flood or not.
I might mention that life forever like it is now on earth would not be to my mind, a pleasant prospect.
You got confused by your own argument.
No Larry, as usual, you're not following along. What I asked was what you would do differently scientifically if you knew God was screwing around. You didn't answer that, you just said you'd be frustrated. I certainly wasn't asking what you'd fret about. You only took my question to suggest that there was scientific evidence for God because of your philosophical, not scientific, presuppositions.
Did you know that Miller believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God? I don't see a naturalistic explanation of this, do you?
That's why "theology" and "science" have different names ... and why anyone with a modicum of sense can tell them apart.
Who's the better scientist on this question; the one who looks at the evidence and reaches the obvious conclusion or the one who engages in rambling excuse-making in order to justify a kind God?
The one who knows what science can answer and what it can't. And do you really want to ask who the better scientist is when the name Theodosius Dobzhansky is in play, Larry?
But I must commend your wisdom in not trying to defend calling both Behe and Miller Intelligent Design Creationists.
Almost forgot this:
Under those circumstances, the assumption of methodological naturalism is invalid.
"Invalid"? Even though it would give you understanding of how the worls works almost all the time? My, my! Why do you do bother to do science at all, Larry, once you found out about quantum mechanics?
I have had the opportunity to hear Ken Miller speak and talk with him individually about his position. Essentially, Miller contends that evolutionism and creationism are ultimately reconcilable. His belief is that the story of the 7 days of creation in the Bible do not necessarily have to be interpreted literally, and says that evolution might be the way that God chose to create our current world.
michael, Millers talks on science and ID are one thing (and essentially contain nothing that the most atheistic evolutionist would have problems with). Its only when you hear him talk about his religious beliefs - and specifically his belief in the miracles of the gospels - that the problems arise. To believe in miracle means to disbelieve the laws of thermodynamics, or at least the universal application of these laws and the basis these laws provide for the scientific method.
Its only when you hear him talk about his religious beliefs - and specifically his belief in the miracles of the gospels - that the problems arise. To believe in miracle means to disbelieve the laws of thermodynamics, or at least the universal application of these laws and the basis these laws provide for the scientific method.
As a matter of empiric historical fact they don't provide for the scientific method. Newton, who did as much as anyone to establish nomic universals as the standard for the highest sort of science, did not believe that they were inviolable. He thought their source was God and that God was in control of them. He still managed to do a bit of good science now and then.
Science as a process has, as one of its aims, the limitation of the scope of the inquiry that counts as science, so that people of many different beliefs can share knowledge across cultures and faiths (or lack thereof). If you act like a scientist while you are actually engaged in science, you are a scientist, no matter what your larger beliefs are. That's why it is a "method" and not a "worldview".
: If you have a point you'll have to make it in a different manner 'cause I didn't get it the first time.
Sorry, I thought the subtle hint would suffice. I am well aware that you are very critical of Dawkins and the term "Darwinist"; I wanted to point out that you shouldn't misuse and misattribute words to people.
People are normally inclined that their specific position is acknowledged (even if not respected) and correctly presented. I presume that you wish that people know that you are a Gouldian pluralist and expect that they react accordingly. You *don't* wish to explain it again and again (never called a "Darwinist" ?) or worse, that your position is ignored or isn't accepted as valid.
You are using "ID Creationist" or "TE Creationist" in the same sloppy and wrong sense, so I deliberately labeled you as "Dawkins Darwinist Evolutionist" to give you a little hint about your use. Miller is *not* an ID Creationist, Behe is *not* a TE creationist. Besides, while technically TE is attached alongside creationism, "Creationism" itself has a much more pejorative meaning.
Redefining words or carelessness ("Creationists are all the same")
is not an excuse.
TSK, we're talking about someone's position with respect to the origin of the universe. It seems to me that there are two choices. Either you think God did it, in which case you are a creationist, or you think there are no gods and the origin is entirely due to natural events.
Which category do you put Ken Miller in?
Either you think God did it, in which case you are a creationist, or you think there are no gods and the origin is entirely due to natural events.
I don't know if Miller would object to the term "creationist." Dobzhansky didn't. Of course, context is everything.
When you called Miller an Intelligent Design Creationist (all caps), you were referring to a specific movement that Miller is definitely not a part of. That was either a really stupid mistake or a lie. Which was it, Larry?
John Pieret asks,
When you called Miller an Intelligent Design Creationist (all caps), you were referring to a specific movement that Miller is definitely not a part of. That was either a really stupid mistake or a lie. Which was it, Larry?
I dunno, maybe it was accurate. How do you define an Intelligent Design Creationist? Is Michael Denton one? How about Scott Minich?
I tend to think of them as people who believe in a creator god that designed the universe and meddled in it from time to time so that humans would come to have a special relationship with that god.
However, I agree with you that the term "Intelligent Design Creationist" has also come to mean a specific movement and Miller is opposed to that group. In that sense, my description of Miller as an Intelligent Design Creationist is partly a way of poking fun at the movement and Miller's hypocrisy in opposing something that he's pretty close to philosophically.
As you well know, there's a pretty smooth continuum between Intelligent Design Creationism and the Theistic Evolution form of creationism. I'm not the only one who has trouble locating Ken Miller on that continuum [Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground].
In that sense, my description of Miller as an Intelligent Design Creationist is partly a way of poking fun at the movement and Miller's hypocrisy in opposing something that he's pretty close to philosophically.
In other words, it was an intentional lie in aid of cheap rhetoric. There is nothing morally to distinguish you from the Discovery Institute and their use of "Darwinist" for similar rhetorical effect. There's no reason to take anything you say as anymore trustworthy than the DI's crap.
I really would like to think better of you, Larry, but I can't.
As for you're "continuum," Larry, you've never been able to see this issue in anything but black and white. You literally are continuum-blind.
John Pieret says,
In other words, it was an intentional lie in aid of cheap rhetoric. There is nothing morally to distinguish you from the Discovery Institute and their use of "Darwinist" for similar rhetorical effect. There's no reason to take anything you say as anymore trustworthy than the DI's crap.
I really would like to think better of you, Larry, but I can't.
John, I'm trying to be as honest with you as I possibly can but nothing seems to work. You are so convinced that you are right that you'll go to any length to insult me.
We've been arguing about this for several years now. Maybe it's time to quit.
As for you're "continuum," Larry, you've never been able to see this issue in anything but black and white. You literally are continuum-blind.
That's not the way I see it. The way I see it is that it's you who divides the world into two camps: good guys and bad guys. Once you've decided that someone is a good guy you can't stand to see any of their viewpoints challenged.
I, on the other hand, recognize that everyone has a variety of different positions on different topics. Sometimes I agree with those positions and sometimes I don't.
Like it or not, there are a whole range of religious positions on accepting evolution and science. It's a continuum and not a divide. It's not black and white as you would have us believe.
On the other hand, there is a sharp divide between believing in supernatural beings and not believing in those beings. As a militant agnostic, you are dedicated to refuting the existence of that sharp divide. Best of luck to you.
I enjoyed the John Pieret- larry Moran exchange! I think you’ve got some unfinished business there Larry!
Just to answer your questions to me Larry:
The counterfactual (counterfactual from your point of view) I had in mind has this general form: “If God existed then the world would not be as it is”. A more specific form relevant to the subject of theodicy is: “If a loving God exists then the world would not have the suffering we observe”. Reading (atheist) Jason’s article it is clear that he is handling this latter conditional, and is therefore engaged in theology.
Presumably you don’t believe in God because your conception of God entails perceptions that you don’t perceive. Ergo, you have some notion of theology in that you have a concept of God and what the existence of such an entity should entail for our world.
No I’m not serious about the tooth fairy: that was just to show by way of contrast that our social milieu has put theism firmly on the existential agenda in way that the tooth fairy is not. There isn’t issue parity between the tooth fairy and theism, if only because the human propensity for theism demands some kind of explanation of it.
... you'll go to any length to insult me.
Oh, excuse me! You can accuse someone, who has done far more than you have ever done, or ever will do, to fight ID creationism and promote good science education, of actually being an "IDiot" and I'm insulting you by pointing out how cheap and dishonest that is?
Riiighhht!
That's not the way I see it. The way I see it is that it's you who divides the world into two camps: good guys and bad guys. Once you've decided that someone is a good guy you can't stand to see any of their viewpoints challenged.
That's crap. I don't care if you want dispute Miller's theology (though I'll laugh at you!) or Wilkins' species concepts or Dawkins' adaptionism . But you of all people should know that the entirety of a scientist's assests is his/her reputation. Do you suppose that, if some of your fellow scientists believed Miller is an IDer, it wouldn't hurt his reputation? Seeing that kind of irresponsibility tends to piss me off.
Sometimes I agree with those positions and sometimes I don't.
And when you don't, you think it's fair to smear the people who you disagree with?
Like it or not, there are a whole range of religious positions on accepting evolution and science.
You're the one who says there is a black and white "acceptance" test in order to be a scientist.
It's a continuum and not a divide. It's not black and white as you would have us believe.
That's right ... people can have a continuum of beliefs while still being good scientists. It is the requirements needed to do good science that are clear.
On the other hand, there is a sharp divide between believing in supernatural beings and not believing in those beings.
Ah! ... weren't you just saying a month or two ago, when it suited your purposes, that atheists don't have to assert that God definitely doesn't exist? It's sharp when you want it to be and not when you don't.
lol^
Take my advice Larry: If it ever comes to a court case with John P, don't bother!
Larry: Under those circumstances [interventionist God known to exist], the assumption of methodological naturalism is invalid.
John Pieret: "Invalid"? Even though it would give you understanding of how the worls works almost all the time?
Whoops! Looks like NOMA is out the window, since you feel confident to make scientific assumptions on how the hypothetical god will behave! How did you arrive at this conclusion? How many % is "almost all?"
My, my! Why do you do bother to do science at all, Larry, once you found out about quantum mechanics?
QM violates methodological naturalism?? That was a new one...
Seriously, there are very good scientific explanations (but we should probably get a physicist to explain them) as for why we should expect macroscopic phenomena to behave classically "almost all the time". What is the equivalent theory that allows us to rely on MN in our hypothetical situation? "Divine decoherence"?
I read the linked essay "Theistic Evolution : The Fallacy of the Middle Ground".
Are you the same Laurence A. Moran given as author of the essay ?! If yes, I am asking myself seriously if you are taking me and others for a ride.
You give an overview of the whole spectrum of beliefs concerning theistic evolution, even with charts from Ted Peters (His version, including Miller, is very near to my position) ! So while you reject it, you very well know this distinction. But you stuff everything together in the sack and apply the bludgeon. While Ted is talking about applying God with evolution, you change it silently into a general (and IMO sloppy) science/non-science distinction which is a whole different thing.
According to your own distinction:
History -> Non-Science ! BAM !
Humanism -> Non-Science ! BAM !
Psychology -> Non-Science ! BAM !
Worse, in contrast to supernatural forces many of the "non-science" entries can be scientifically examined (astrology, homeopathy, flat earth), you are using prior knowledge of their failure to dismiss them as unscientifically.
Citation:
"In fact, scientific Creationism—with an upper-case "C"—is an oxymoron since the very word "Creationism" describes an anti-science point of view.
As I see nice big "C"s in your main article, Miller is
"anti-scientific", isn't it ?
I don't know...are you amusing yourself with the angry reaction of me and John or are you serious ?
Nice long weekend party!
Yes, TE as creationism is empirically as bad as IDC. Properly managed by their handlers both movements (as they were) are proposing unfalsifiable ideas.
it was an intentional in aid of cheap rhetoric.
You can't claim that after Larry points out the distinction between intelligent design implicit in creationism and IDC, and that he is using it to point out Millers precarious position.
If we were constantly referring to TE's as IDC, that would be analogous to the lie when evolutionary biologists being constantly referred to as Darwinists. But that wasn't the case.
This post is proof that atheist polemic has to move in the rarified air of theological concepts, although of course, in a counterfactual way.
No individual post is a proof, but of course you know that. More to the point, atheists aren't making the polemics here, two creationists are.
Additionally many atheists are consistent with empiricism and provide positive evidence. (Parsimony respectively improbability of gods.)
Take my advice Larry: If it ever comes to a court case with John P, don't bother!
Well, we don't expect John P to go into a lab with Larry either. More to the point, where do you see any problems with Larry's replies? John has many accusations but provide little support.
John Pieret:
Why do you do bother to do science at all, Larry, once you found out about quantum mechanics?
Look out, a quantum woo meister and naturalism denialist visits the house!
Please explain carefully what you propose. QM is a deterministic theory where state propagates causally and computable probability distributions describe observational outcomes.
Moreover, as windy points out, all theories must obey the correspondence principle with macroscopic descriptions. If you have problems with this, you don't need quantum mechanics to find improbable but expected violations, it is enough with statistical physics. Compare the ensemble definition of 2LOT with the classical - the first is an absolute law, the second can be violated. For everyday sized systems it will happen on the order of several magnitudes of the lifetime of the universe.
Where is your gap, how do you fit your microscopic gods in it, and how do they interact to destroy our expected observations?
As I see nice big "C"s in your main article, Miller is "anti-scientific", isn't it ?
It goes without saying that his TE is, as it proposes an unfalsifiable description of empirical facts.
Why do you expect differently?
"It goes without saying that his TE is, as it proposes an unfalsifiable description
of empirical facts."
Nope. I see the problem that people tend to hopelessly intermingle avowals based on personal beliefs against statements and arguments for intersubjective insights.
An analogy. Imagine you are a police officer who is interrogating a female suspect in a murder case. You may think that she is thoroughly evil and guilty.
You may think that she is innocent because she licked a glowing iron without apparent harm. That is your personal opinion.
But as long as you stick to the facts of the case and present only the evidence and the conclusions of it during the trial, you are not doing anything wrong even if you held the most ridiculous beliefs !
If Miller says that *he* believes that Jesus is God's son, but acknowledges that it is his personal belief unsupported by science, he is free to do so. It is not "anti-science".
It is an error of people if they unconsciously assume that everything that Miller wrote must follow a strict scientific standard (Dawkins and other authors have no trouble to mix personal opinions and science in her books, too). You may complain that your expectations were not fulfilled because you wanted only science,science and science, and got this book with his personal insights. But you can't label him anti-scientific as long as you can tell apart his scientific findings from his personal convictions.
The problem with ID and creationists is not that they (following the criminal analogy) believe in licking irons for innocence, they want to introduce it into the trial as *evidence*. *That* is the real problem, not personal beliefs, even if they sound ridiculous.
Look out, a quantum woo meister and naturalism denialist visits the house!
No, you guys are missing the point. Larry is saying that any doubt about naturalism renders the methodological assumption of science invalid. If you want to claim that you have a perfect theory of quantum mechanics with no doubts about what is going on, it doesn't bother me or my argument because I know you can't establish causation empirically anyway (it's a philosophical question).
Whoops! Looks like NOMA is out the window, since you feel confident to make scientific assumptions on how the hypothetical god will behave! How did you arrive at this conclusion? How many % is "almost all?"
Gee. I don't know. How often would the world have to act by other than "natural" regularities before it became REAL dangerous? If you couldn't tell whether two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom were going to result in a water-like substance or a sulfuric acid-like substance, might we notice? We live in a world that acts, at least most of the time in a regular fashion. That's why we noticed the regularities in the first place and started calling them "laws." The question here is whether the philosophical assumption that it ALWAYS works by regularities is needed in order to do science. That question is separate and apart from the validity of any such assumption and even separate and apart from the question of where those regularities come from.
TE as creationism is empirically as bad as IDC. Properly managed by their handlers both movements (as they were) are proposing unfalsifiable ideas.
GASP! Theology produces unfalsifiable ideas? Who knew? Maybe you guys can get back to me when you get some idea what the argument is about?
martinc: ...the same dilemma that Francis Collins faced when he was asked to explain why you could not use a 'divine miracle' as an explanation for a scientific experiment - say you get ten resistant bacterial colonies growing on a plate rather than the expected one. As an evolutionist you accept that we are no more 'evolved' than any other organism - we just fit into a different environmental niche. If you think that God could intervene to affect one organism, mankind, then why not those bacteria on the plate?
A perfect example, thanks.
JP: Gee. I don't know. How often would the world have to act by other than "natural" regularities before it became REAL dangerous?
We can assume that "natural" macroscopic irregularities don't occur too often or we'd be dead. You can't use that reasoning if you assume the irregularities come from God, since he/she could presumably avoid killing off humanity while pulling off all manner of weird tricks.
The question here is whether the philosophical assumption that it ALWAYS works by regularities is needed in order to do science.
No, that's not it. The question is why methodological naturalism would be the preferred method if we assume an interventionist god is even probable. Just because it works? Well, then you are using evidence to conclude that God doesn't mess with nature that often. You have abandoned NOMA.
We can assume that "natural" macroscopic irregularities don't occur too often or we'd be dead. You can't use that reasoning if you assume the irregularities come from God, since he/she could presumably avoid killing off humanity while pulling off all manner of weird tricks.
Follow along: We're not talking about fourty-story flaming crosses appearing in Times Square here. (And it was only an example anyway.) Still, if some "act of god" doesn't surprise us, it would appear to be "natural" because it would be consistent with what we expected of "natural" regularities. If god just makes us not notice, no strategy will make it yield to science anyway and we might as well ignore it. If it isn't regular, it would have to be dangerous enough to notice unless it was rare. Thus we can reasonably conclude that god's action, if any, is either regular enough to treat as "natural" or rare enough that it doesn't render methodological naturalism useless.
The question is why methodological naturalism would be the preferred method if we assume an interventionist god is even probable. Just because it works?
Do you have a better reason for choosing a "preferred method"? ... because you or Larry don't want to believe in a god? I don't think so.
Well, then you are using evidence to conclude that God doesn't mess with nature that often. You have abandoned NOMA.
No, you're still not getting it. First of all, I don't think you are properly defining NOMA, which does not prevent us from observing that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Similarly, we can observe that the universe has at least apparent regularities. Nor am I committed to strict NOMA in any case.
Also, it could be the case (which is more-or-less standard Catholic theology) that god is doing everything, just regularly enough that we call it "natural." There is no other definition of "natural." The source of the regularities is unimportant to the practice of science. And, given our observation of regularities in the world, methodological naturalism is a worthwhile strategy to pursue, even if we cannot be certain that it will be perfectly successful.
Still, if some "act of god" doesn't surprise us, it would appear to be "natural" because it would be consistent with what we expected of "natural" regularities.
Hm...lets imagine we had a world so that every uttered curse towards the sky would be followed by an lightning strike hitting the delinquent. Contrary to our interpretation as supernatural and the cause of an angry god, the people in that particular world would according to your interpretation simply explain that as "Curses attract lightning, yes. There's nothing supernatural in this" ? We see almost all things as supernatural when they don't happen regularly in our world ?
...lets imagine we had a world so that every uttered curse towards the sky would be followed by an lightning strike hitting the delinquent. Contrary to our interpretation as supernatural and the cause of an angry god, the people in that particular world would according to your interpretation simply explain that as "Curses attract lightning, yes.
The real question here is what would scientists do. While yours is an extreme example, you bet there would be an attempt at some "natural" explanation (perhaps expanding the present understanding of the word, as was done when "vitalism" was suggested to fill in the gaps in our understanding of biology). There'd doubtless be discussion of brain waves attacting lightning differentially depending on the thought the person had or emotional auras being triggers for local strikes and a sudden interest in Kirlian photography or some such. Some explanation would be proposed that is more-or-less credible (like the planet Vulcan that was invented when we couldn't explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and the problem would languish until, if ever, a "natural" regularity could be associated with the phenomenon.
On broader grounds, yes, we'd treat it as if it was natural and avoid cursing at the sky just as we avoid stepping in front of a speeding bus which we also know will likely result in harm (but for reasons most people don't truly understand either). It would be just another fact of life.
P.S. Of course, some people would try to construct and/or justify a religion around the phenomenon and other people would resist furiously. In other words, business as usual.
Do you have a better reason for choosing a "preferred method"? ... because you or Larry don't want to believe in a god? I don't think so.
Don't "want" to believe in a god? Where the heck do you get off making this conclusion? "Want" doesn't enter into it, hon.
No, you're still not getting it.
...which is not an argument, sorry. Maybe we get it but don't agree with you.
Also, it could be the case (which is more-or-less standard Catholic theology) that god is doing everything, just regularly enough that we call it "natural."
That's pantheism. Not really a problem unless you add the intentional personal God thing, like Catholicism does.
(If those who curse were zapped with lightning)
...the problem would languish until, if ever, a "natural" regularity could be associated with the phenomenon.
What if a scientist on that world explained it in terms of the god Zmyrz punishing blasphemers, and would be able to explain it more succesfully than the "naturalists"? Why would there be successively better natural explanations if the phenomenon really were supernatural?
The trick, as I see it, is retrospective coronation of theology as untouchable by science. On our world they say "well of course science can disprove the old man with the beard who answers prayers, but it can't touch the god who is like natural laws". On the lightning world, they would say "of course science can disprove a god who doesn't perform miracles, but science can't touch the old man on the cloud with the lightning!"
(true in the sense of "disprove", but demonstrating that theology is an explanation for the world as any other)
Where the heck do you get off making this conclusion?
Since when is a question a conclusion? The point was and is that extraneous issues such as beliefs are not a better reason to choose a "preferred method" than the practical one that the method works. I was, perhaps, unjustified to lump you in with atheists like Larry but the point is the same if put as "... because you or Larry do or don't want to believe in a god?"
...which is not an argument, sorry. Maybe we get it but don't agree with you.
Nor was it meant as an argument, it was an observation based on a misstatement of my position. You're free to disagree but disagree with what I'm arguing not some strawman.
That's pantheism.
Tell it to the Pope. They do not, however, identify god with the material universe, but merely hold that the material universe is "sustained" from instant to instant by god. But I'm sure the Pope would be deeply interested in your evaluation of the "problems" with his theology.
Why would there be successively better natural explanations if the phenomenon really were supernatural?
There wouldn't be a better explanation. There is, after all, no guarantee that science can explain everything. (Scientism is a philosophy, not science.) Methodological naturalism rules out the supernatural explanation (by which I mean, all the scientists who don't believe in Zmyrz would refuse to accept him/her/it as an explanation and many of the ones who did believe in Zmyrz would still say that the method of science cannot be used to establish that Zmyrz is the cause -- just like the situation we have with ID today).
On our world they say "well of course science can disprove the old man with the beard who answers prayers, but it can't touch the god who is like natural laws".
There are two separate problems you're mixing up here. Whether the Earth is 6,000 years old is a question of how the universe is. It might not be that way, the Earth could be 6,000 years old. On the lightning world, lightning following cursing is how the universe is. Why the universe is shaped the way it is the issue when it comes to gods. Science assumes there is a "natural" regularity that explains it for the good practical reason that the scientific method can only work on "natural" regularities.
FWIW, catching up on old threads:
@ TSK:
"Nope."
And?
@ John:
"If you want to claim that you have a perfect theory of quantum mechanics with no doubts about what is going on"
Nobody claims full knowledge - and science works anyway. So how come your "doubt", your gap, about?
This is quantum woo: "QM allows me to imagine fairies in my backyard".
"Tell it to the Pope."
And? I must agree with windy, your quantum woo is at least pantheism, but really a gap god.
"Methodological naturalism"
Philosophy alert. Empiricism sees no gods, ergo they are improbable.
* All in all, unsubstantiated naturalism denial.
I'm confused. Isn't it fairly well-established that there is no way to prove that there is or isn't a God if said God doesn't show himself? Ergo, neither hypothesis (that there is or isn't a God) is falsifiable; ergo, the question of whether there is or isn't a God isn't a scientific question; ergo, one's personal belief in God or atheism should have no effect on how one does science. Of course, since science is an inherently naturalistic endeavor (some here have described it as "methodological naturalism"), we already knew this.
Larry:
"there is a sharp divide between believing in supernatural beings and not believing in those beings."
That belief should not have an effect on one's ability to determine natural laws through repeated experimentation and propose theories to explain those laws. You seem to believe that it is inevitable for one's belief in supernatural beings to intrude on one's science, but why is this the case? One could merely believe that the naturalistic explanations at one level are explained by the supernatural explanations at a deeper level. For example, one could believe that God causes every random mutation (since he's omniscient, he can simulate randomness exactly) without compromising one's belief that mutation is an inherently random process.
Note: this is an academic argument to me, as I'm an atheist. But the logic seems to support John's position rather than yours, Larry.
math_mage says,
I'm confused. Isn't it fairly well-established that there is no way to prove that there is or isn't a God if said God doesn't show himself?
Don't be confused. What you say is perfectly correct. There's also no way to prove that there is or isn't a tooth fairy is she choses not to show herself. The same thing applies to UFO's and bigfoot.
You seem to believe that it is inevitable for one's belief in supernatural beings to intrude on one's science, but why is this the case?
Because there aren't very many people who believe in a supernatural being who is completely undetectable and has no effect on the natural world.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
Post a Comment