Theistic Evolution - Insight & Answers

[Moridin]

Quantum mechanics does not invoke the need for a conscious observer. This has been solved a long time ago by simply including the observer into the description. No, materialism does not deny consciousness. Daniel Dennet, for instance, who is a leading materialist philosopher has written the book "Consciousness Explained".

What you need to understand is that by not special, I am speaking biologically. Furthermore, culture is a mere social construction and cannot be used to argue against this position. We do have an explanation for our existence, it is called evolution. No, big bang does not state that the universe appeared in a puff of smoke 14 billion years ago. This also shows your fundamental lack of understanding about physics. No, arbitrarily asserting the existence of a creator is not an answer since it just leaves the question about the origin of the creator unanswered. If you claim that the creator just exists or does not need an explanation, then we are more than justified to do the same for the universe.

Christian theism is incompatible with our cognitive machinery as a product of evolution, since Christianity holds that the features of our cognitive machinery is actually a magical ghost soul.

Not at all. In fact, I have no ideology. I start with the evidence I have presented (whereas you have presented none), then draw the valid conclusion that the two are incompatible. Your posts contain erroneous scientific claims and a lot of hand waving, yet you have not been able to refute a single one of the arguments I have presented. Shame.

 

[Moridin]

A moderator has edited out a statement in the above post where I pointed out the inaccuracy in your description of quantum mechanics as it related to consciousnesses. Let it be known that I still hold this position despite the unfair censorship.

 

[madness]

Materialists deny the existence of anything other than the physical, maintaining that consciousness is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain - in this sense they deny its existence. I know that the role of consciousness in quantum physics is a philosophical one and I don't think it is central to the issue here.
You have to accept that we ultimately have no explanation of why anything exists rather than nothing at all. No, we don't have an explanation of how the big bang got there in the first place, if you think we do then it's your responsibility to offer a reference. Having nearly completed a masters degree in mathematical physics, I think I have a reasonable understanding of physics and I am currently taking a course in cosmology. It is true that one might reject the idea of a necessary being and simply accept that the universe has no explanation for its existence - this approach was taken by David Hume. This is irrelevant to my point that evolution is not incompatible with theism.
I would argue that our "cognitive machinery" is simply our mind or consciousness, which is synomymous with "soul".
It is really quite silly to think that you are an impartial observer and are the only one who has examined the facts correctly. Is it not possible that I have considered the same facts and come to a different conclusion? Furthermore, I do not accept that it is possible to have "no ideology". Science is an ideology as much as religion is. For every point you have made, I have offered a valid counterpoint. I feel like I am arguing with a religious zealot here. I am only arguing that evolution has not in itself disproved the existence of a creator.

 

[Moridin]

When materialists define consciousness as an emergent chemical process, the are affirming its existence, not denying it.

You have to accept that we ultimately have no explanation of why anything exists rather than nothing at all.

This is because the question itself is a fallacy, because it asserts that it is possible for the entity called "nothing" to exist, which is impossible by definition. As always, theists stand before the same problem, why does their god exist, rather than nothing? Victor Stenger explains it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, by E=mc2. So, if the universe started from "nothing," energy conservation would seem to have been violated by the creation of matter. Some energy from outside is apparently required.

However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe and the first law was not violated.

The second law of thermodynamics requires that the entropy, or disorder, of the universe must increase or at least stay constant with time. This would seem to imply that the universe started out in a greater state of order than it has today, and so must have been designed.

However, this argument holds only for a universe of constant volume. The maximum entropy of any object is that of a black hole of the same volume. In an expanding universe, the maximum allowable entropy of the universe is continually increasing, allowing more and more room for order to form as time goes by. If we extrapolate the big bang back to the earliest definable time, the so-called Planck time (10-43 second), we find that universe started out in a condition of maximum entropy -- total chaos. The universe had no order at the earliest definable instant. If there was a creator, it had nothing to create.

Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.

Furthermore, within the framework of Einstein's relativity, time is the fourth dimension of spacetime. Defining this fourth dimension as ict, where t is what you read on a clock, i = sqrt(-1), and c is the speed of light, the coordinates of time and space are interchangeable. In short, time is inextricably intertwined with space and came into being "when" or "where" (language is inadequate to mathematics here) spacetime came into being.

I have made the relevant parts of this quote bold. So it is clear that "before" the big bang or "cause" to the big bang are self-contradictory questions and therefore invalid points.

It is true that one might reject the idea of a necessary being and simply accept that the universe has no explanation for its existence - this approach was taken by David Hume. This is irrelevant to my point that evolution is not incompatible with theism.

Or one can simply point out that if you wish to postulate an arbitrary necessary being, you might as well hold that the universe is a necessary being -- we have at least seen that one. Yes, it has relevance for the incompatibility between evolution and theism, because it dethrones humanity in a cosmic perspective.

Is it not possible that I have considered the same facts and come to a different conclusion?

A lot of theists invoke this form of epistemological relativism when cornered. No, it is not possible that the same facts can lead to two different and incompatible conclusions.

Furthermore, I do not accept that it is possible to have "no ideology".

Also completely contradictory. If all statements and positions are skewed by the lens of personal ideology and therefore invalid, then this statement itself skewed by the lens of your personal ideology and therefore invalid. Invoking epistemological relativism will get you nowhere fast.

Science is an ideology as much as religion is.

This statement betrays a profound ignorance is why I doubt the validity of the credentials you claim you have. Science starts with the evidence, then uses logic, reason and empirical investigations to draw conclusions. Religion starts with their conclusions, then looks and see what evidence they can use to prop up their beliefs and which they have to deny in order to hold their beliefs as valid. This should be elementary with someone with a degree in mathematical physics.

For every point you have made, I have offered a valid counterpoint.

You have only stated that there are scientists who disagree, which is an appeal to authority.

I feel like I am arguing with a religious zealot here.

Likewise.

I am only arguing that evolution has not in itself disproved the existence of a creator.

But that is not what we mean by theism! By (Christian) theism (opposed to deism), we mean an active creator who has a significant influence and control over the process of evolution and the universe and who cares about humans as a central part of our world, who have infused humans with an immaterial soul that is their self with the common characteristics of being an intelligent designer, absolutely good and powerful and so on.

The unintelligent designs we find in nature, mass extinctions, the insignificance of humans from a biological, geological and cosmological perspective, the fact that consciousness is cognitive machinery and so on, refutes this idea. You are of course correct in that a watered down deism is fully compatible with ateleological evolution.

 

[Moridin]

Maybe this simply boils down to a discussion of semantics? What do you mean with "theism" in this context?

 

[madness]

I think it depends what you mean by materialist in this context - most materialists would deny the "hard problem" of consciousness exists.
I never asserted that "nothing" was a thing that could exist, but rather that it is concievable that there might not have been anything to exist.
We can only look back to the Planck time in our current theories of the Big Bang, we would need a theory of quantum gravity to look back any further. You have still not explained why the Big Bang was there at the Planck time.
Why does the fact that it is possible to consider the universe as a necessary being dethrone humanity? It only does this if you assume that the universe is a necessary being, ie if you assume there was no God. Either case is still possible.
It is certainly possible for the same facts to lead to different conclusions if there is not enough evidence to definitively constrain the answer either way, as is the case here. I'm not a theist and I'm not cornered here.
It is not inconsistent to say that everyone is speaking with a certain ideology, this statement is true within my own ideology, that is the point of relativism. I maintain that science is an ideology, even if it uses empirical evidence, "logic" and "reason". Note that different cultures have different ideas of logic (eg the law of excluded middle) and reason, ours being the western ideology. These problems are not "elementary" to anyone who has taken the time to read some philosphy and think things over properly. You can doubt my credentials all you like, the fact is I am soon to be starting a masters degree in mathematical physics and have done very well so far.
As for the end of your post (and the second one) I agree to an extent. Evolution is difficult (but not impossible) for a strict Christian to accept. I reject your arguments about cognitive machinery and the uniqueness of humans (I have given the reasons several times).
You are right there there may be semantic problems in that theism can be taken to mean a wide range of things, however I would say that they are mostly unaffected by the theory of evolution. The religious specifics (eg God made men in their final form) may disagree but I don't regard these particular points as central tenets of theism.

 

[Moridin]

- You misunderstand. It is the fact that we are just one planet in just one of billions of solar systems in billions of galaxies that dethrones humanity from a cosmological perspective. Why isn't the universe the way Aristotle or Aquinas thought it was? Just one solar system with the Earth in its center?
- No, it is not possible that the same facts can lead to different conclusions. A=A. Basic logic.
- You further advocate epistemological relativism by claiming that different cultures have different opinions. This is not at all relevant -- the holocaust has still occurred even if Nazis or Islamic extremists disagree.
- Your post oozes with contradictions. I will simply restate that if all statements and positions are skewed by the lens of personal ideology and therefore invalid, then your position is itself skewed by the lens of your personal ideology and therefore invalid. Your position is self-referentially incoherent and you are really just arguing with yourself.
- Again, science cannot be an ideology by definition, since it is based on evidence. As a mathematical physicist, this should hardly be news to you. Can you please describe the difference between science and religion as it pertains to this situation?

According to mainstream Abrahamic theism, our minds are not the same as our brain and our cognitive machinery is not who we are. According to that ideology, we are immaterial souls that can survive bodily death. I cannot phantom how you cannot see the contradiction here: either we are immaterial souls or material cognitive machinery. Also according to mainstream Abrahamic theism, humans have a unique supernatural origin separate from all other animals. This is not the case within the framework of evolution, where humans have a non-unique natural origin, that is not separate from other animals.

Maybe we should simply write this discussion off as semantic confusion.

 

[drankin]

Cannot the belief in only things that are supported by evidence be considered an idealogy in itself? I tend to believe than any "belief" system is an idealogy.

 

[robertm]

Cannot the belief in only things that are supported by evidence be considered an idealogy in itself? I tend to believe than any "belief" system is an idealogy.

Calling reality an ideology would be quite the feat of anthropomorphism.

Science is simply our best representation of objective reality, there is nothing ideological about it, just factual.

 

[drankin]

Calling reality an ideology would be quite the feat of anthropomorphism.

Science is simply our best representation of objective reality, there is nothing ideological about it, just factual.

Ok so if you believe that there is nothing outside of the "best representation of objective reality", then that would be an ideology. Science alone is not the ideology, the belief that there isn't anything outside of that context would be an ideology. Everyone has an ideology. If you were to tell me that you do not have an ideology because you only accept what is scientifically evident then you would be fooling yourself. That is your ideology.

 

[Moridin]

Ok so if you believe that there is nothing outside of the "best representation of objective reality", then that would be an ideology. Science alone is not the ideology, the belief that there isn't anything outside of that context would be an ideology. Everyone has an ideology. If you were to tell me that you do not have an ideology because you only accept what is scientifically evident then you would be fooling yourself. That is your ideology.

This is of course a straw man, since it is the case that our best representation of objective reality is incompatible with most forms of theism (apart from watered downed versions and deism). Rejecting these forms of theism would therefore not be an ideology but completely in line with the evidence.

 

[robertm]

Ok so if you believe that there is nothing outside of the "best representation of objective reality", then that would be an ideology. Science alone is not the ideology, the belief that there isn't anything outside of that context would be an ideology. Everyone has an ideology. If you were to tell me that you do not have an ideology because you only accept what is scientifically evident then you would be fooling yourself. That is your ideology.

If something is "outside the context of science" that simply means it has not been studied.

Science is the study of phenomenon, there are divisions of phenomenon but those are only superficial. If a phenomenon has no effect, then it does not exist, if it does have an effect, then it will be meticulously dissected and described and all attempts will be made to fully understand the implications of the phenomenon in the context of our wider understanding of the various other phenomenon. There is nothing "outside" of science by definition, you would only be fooling yourself to think otherwise.

I accept many things that are not properly verified by solid evidence, and so does everyone else, but that says nothing as to whether or not those things are 'in the realm of science.' Reality is the realm of science.

 

[madness]

Moridin, the reason humans are special is their ability to ask such philosophical questions, I have stated this several times.
It is of course possible that the same facts may lead to different conclusions if the people considering them are coming from different ideologies (science being one).
My post had no contadictions, and I too can simply repeat why you are mistaken: I am of the opinion that there are no facts outside of a belief system or ideology, and this fact holds within my own belief system or ideology, so there is no contradiction. What holds in one belief system might not hold in another, this is not a problem for a relativist.
Science is of course an ideology, it is the ideology that empirical data along with induction (which is a philosophical problem in science) and certain other assumptions about objectivism etc are the correct way to find "truth". It is easy to argue against many of these assumptions (eg induction, realism) but they are taken as axiomatic within the scientific ideology. As a mathematical physicist who has read some philosophy, it certainly would be news to me that science isn't a belief system/ideology.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, the reason humans are special is their ability to ask such philosophical questions, I have stated this several times.

Yes, but this is not what is mean by not being (biologically) special.

It is of course possible that the same facts may lead to different conclusions if the people considering them are coming from different ideologies (science being one).

I agree that people can think that the same facts can lead to different conclusions, but this is not an accurate representation of reality. An no, for the fifth time, science is not an ideology.

I am of the opinion that there are no facts outside of a belief system or ideology, and this fact holds within my own belief system or ideology, so there is no contradiction.

How is this not an obvious contradiction? You are basically saying that everything is relative, but at the same time saying that the position that everything is relative is not relative. It is the same basic contradiction all epistemological relativist stumble upon.

What holds in one belief system might not hold in another, this is not a problem for a relativist.

This is of course not an objective fact for a relativist either.

Science is of course an ideology, it is the ideology that empirical data along with induction (which is a philosophical problem in science) and certain other assumptions about objectivism etc are the correct way to find "truth".

Since science is based on evidence, and therefore not an ideology. Science uses deduction, not induction. Basic Popperian falsification.

As a mathematical physicist who has read some philosophy, it certainly would be news to me that science isn't a belief system/ideology.

You consider to inflate your credentials, but they do not correspond to the content of your arguments.

 

[drankin]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.

Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

 

[Condor77]

Greetings Madness!

First and foremost let me tell you that my post is not intended to discredit you in any way, shape or form. I am just curious about your so-called credentials; perhaps you can clarify the following for me:

In post number 53 you claim the following:

“Having nearly completed a masters degree in mathematical physics, I think I have a reasonable understanding of physics and I am currently taking a course in cosmology.”

Then in post number 56 you claim the following:

“You can doubt my credentials all you like, the fact is I am soon to be starting a masters degree in mathematical physics and have done very well so far.”

Finally in post number 63 you claim the following:

“As a mathematical physicist who has read some philosophy, it certainly would be news to me that science isn't a belief system/ideology.”

I am not entirely sure what to make out of the posts that I’ve quoted from you.

Regards,

 

[madness]

Condor, my degree is a 5 year undergraduate masters and I have finished the first 4, next year being the year involving the masters project. I am interested in philosophy and have read it in my spare time since before starting my degree in phyics. Hope that clears it up.

Moridin, I don't see why special should be taken to mean biologically special.
I'm not saying that the position that everything is relative is not relative, but that it holds in my own relative belief system. This is self consistent for a relativist, but not for an absolutist. This is why you think there is a contradiction.
In analogy to frames of reference in physics - we can't be sure that there is no absolute frame, but we have no way to pick one out as special and say "this is the absolute frame that all others are to be measured by", so we say (uniform) motion is relative. Similarly, since we can't prove certain things (like if the world exists independently of our senses, or whether God exists), I would say we have no reason to assume that any particular choice is the correct one. In science, the choices are that the world does exist independently etc. That is the "frame of reference".
Have you read any philosophy of science? It certainly does use induction. This is one of the central problems in the philosophy of science that many people work on. That's why it's called "the problem of induction" (worked on extensively by David Hume and Bertrand Russel among others). You mention Popperian falsifiability, this is an example of a belief system, to be contrasted with logical positivism.
In response to your final comment, I would have no need to "inflate my credentials" if I wasn't continually set upon for having "a profound misunderstanding of basic physics".

 

[Condor77]

Greetings Madness!

Thank you for your response, it is now clear to me.

By the way, the following book might be of some interest to you, as it pertains to the discussion that you and Moridin are having in this thread: Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism by Paul Boghossian.

Though, I feel that I must tell you that this book argues against some aspects of your position in this thread.

Regards,

 

[madness]

Thanks Condor, I'll be honest and say that I am not necessarily a relativist. As I stated in the analogy with reference frames in physics, there are certain things which cannot be proven, and I would say that whether there is an absolute truth is one of them. I cannot be sure that truth really is entirely relative, but I would have no reason to pick one set of rules over another. In order to make any valid deductions, we need a set of axioms (a framework or belief system). You could choose the minimal set (something like solipsism, although even "I think therefore I am" requires some assumptions), but then you are limited in the deductions you can make. Science seems to have chosen a certain set which has allowed us to make a lot of progress, and this may be an indication that it somehow represents "reality". I would like to point out that science is not merely based on observational evidence - there are certain steps taken between experiment and theory. Consider dropping many different masses and observing that they all fall at the same rate. In order to then say "all masses fall at the same rate in a gravitational field" we have to make a leap of faith. This is an example of scientific induction.

 

[ConradDJ]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.
Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

I would say instead:

1: Believing that certain things are facts, whether based on good evidence or not.

2: Believing in God, believing in yourself, believing in the power of faith, etc. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with facts -- it has to do with training yourself to live a certain way.

A friend of mine once said -- "I believe all those stories about Jesus are true, whether they happened or not." She wasn't being irrational. But learning how to live in the world is a lot more than getting the facts right.

Religion is myth. Story-telling. But some stories are a lot better to believe in than others. Some can even save people and turn their lives around. Religious "faith" should be a matter of consciously choosing what to "believe in" -- whether or not you think it's factual.

I find it very sad that so many people today seems to assume that "believing in God" is that same as having strong opinions about certain facts, i.e. "God really exists." I don't believe in facts about God -- that's not what's important.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, I don't see why special should be taken to mean biologically special.

Our genome is around 98% identical to chimps and we consist of the same basic molecular building blocks as all other living organisms. Ergo, we are not biologically special compared to other species.

I'm not saying that the position that everything is relative is not relative, but that it holds in my own relative belief system. This is self consistent for a relativist, but not for an absolutist. This is why you think there is a contradiction.

If it is your mere belief (rather than objective fact) that a position is correct, you have no justification for arguing it whatsoever, so you are still contradicting yourself. If we assume that your credentials are correct, you do not live your life as a relativist. You use mathematical physics rather than voodoo science to solve problems, which indicates that you are not a relativist.

Similarly, since we can't prove certain things (like if the world exists independently of our senses, or whether God exists), I would say we have no reason to assume that any particular choice is the correct one.

If I don't exist, who are you talking to? Furthermore, if there is no reason to assume that any particular choice is correct, then the position that "there is no reason to assume that any particular choice is correct" also has no reason at all for why it should be accepted as valid. You are positing the same fundamental contradiction in all relativist belief systems.

In science, the choices are that the world does exist independently etc. That is the "frame of reference".

This is not what we mean by frame of reference in physics.

Have you read any philosophy of science? It certainly does use induction.

Again, science relies on deduction, not induction.

This is one of the central problems in the philosophy of science that many people work on.

The "problem" of induction is really just a problem for supernaturalists, since they believe that the identity of objects can be violated at any time by a very powerful and unpredictable supernatural force.. Induction is perfectly consistent in a materialist worldview.

You mention Popperian falsifiability, this is an example of a belief system, to be contrasted with logical positivism.

It is not a belief system in the sense that it is accepted without reason.

In response to your final comment, I would have no need to "inflate my credentials" if I wasn't continually set upon for having "a profound misunderstanding of basic physics".

No, you try to prop up your "profound misunderstandings of basic physics" by inflating your credentials. This is clear because the content of your comments do not match what the would have been had you really had the credentials you claim you have.

 

[Moridin]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.

Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

Not at all, since we have reasons to accept 1, rather than 2.

 

[drankin]

Not at all, since we have reasons to accept 1, rather than 2.

And group 2 has reasons to accept 2, rather than 1. Regardless, having a reason isn't a requirement.

 

[WaveJumper]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.

Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

Not at all, since we have reasons to accept 1, rather than 2.

Where in Group 1 do you see explanation as to why the universe is fine tuned to make life possible? Would turning a blind eye to something so weird and profound make the problem disappear?

I am sure you know the fundamental constants appear to have exactly the right values. If they were slightly smaller or bigger, atoms, stars, planets and people simply wouldn’t exist. So if we were to dig a little deeper than the boring obvious, what could we say about the story behind the scenes, really?
This is a gnawing, unsettling question: Why? Why are all physical constants exactly the way they are? Every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. So what, or who, set the rules?

PS. I am not religious, I am merely seeking a deeper and fuller explanation than the blatantly obvious.

 

[robertm]

Where in Group 1 do you see explanation as to why the universe is fine tuned to make life possible? Would turning a blind eye to something so weird and profound make the problem disappear?

I am sure you know the fundamental constants appear to have exactly the right values. If they were slightly smaller or bigger, atoms, stars, planets and people simply wouldn’t exist. So if we were to dig a little deeper than the boring obvious, what could we say about the story behind the scenes, really?
This is a gnawing, unsettling question: Why? Why are all physical constants exactly the way they are? Every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. So what, or who, set the rules?

PS. I am not religious, I am merely seeking a deeper and fuller explanation than the blatantly obvious.

Well, you wouldn't expect to be asking that question if the universe wasn't fit to be inhabited by humans, you wouldn't be expecting anything at all. It couldn't be any other way.

Now as to the larger question of how and why the universe is the way it is, the science of cosmology is making valiant attempts at progress. Theorization, observation, experimentation, and the development of technology is the only practicle means to answer meaningful questions.

You get nowhere by referring the question 'upward', as I think you agree.

 

[WaveJumper]

Well, you wouldn't expect to be asking that question if the universe wasn't fit to be inhabited by humans, you wouldn't be expecting anything at all. It couldn't be any other way.

That's not an explanation at all. What if a cow jumped to the Moon? Would you use this "scientific" explanation to state that - "If there wasn't a cow that could jump to the Moon, we wouldn't have been able to talk about cows jumping to the Moon". In practice, you could thus provide an "explanation" for anything, incl. winning the lottery 722 times in row, because if someone hadn't won it 722 times in a row, we wouldn't have been able to talk about it now. I am sure you wouldn't tell your boss(if you have one) that you crashed the company car because... if you hadn't crashed it, you both wouldn't be talking about it at all. Right?

You get nowhere by referring the question 'upward', as I think you agree.

Well, if 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of all events and processes in the universe can have an explanation, I'd expect the other 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% to have one as well.

 

[madness]

Moridin, I will answer each point in turn:

- I will repeat why should special mean biologically special?
- Of course it is only a belief that truth is relative, just as it is only your belief that science is not a belief system.
- I study mathematical physics as an interesting subject, that does not mean I subscribe to it religiously, I still see it as a system of beliefs. I am not critisizing science in any way, I don't think it is possible to gain any knowledge without first laying down some foundational assumptions.
- I made it clear that I was making an analogy about frames of reference in physics, of course a system of beliefs is not a frame of reference in physics.
- I will repeat: science does use induction, I gave a concrete example in my last post, here is the wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction . If you think David Hume and Bertrand Russel were "supernaturalists" then induction is a problem for supernaturalists. The problem of induction has nothing to do with the supernatural.
- Whether it is reasonable to accept something depends on your belief system, for the logical positivists falsifiability was not acceptable. It really is a belief.
- The only times I have referred to my credentials were when you said "a mathematical physicist should know this" or commented on my "profound misunderstanding". I am really not trying to inflate them. Having a knowledge of physics does not exclude me from seeing things from a different point of view.

 

[madness]

Also, why do you think that having having "reason" to accept something means it is no longer a belief? I would argue that this is precisely what makes it a belief. Copernicus has reason to accept that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. This turned out to be false. Of course this is how science progresses, but it illustrates the point that science really is a system of beliefs.

 

[turbo]

I am sure you know the fundamental constants appear to have exactly the right values. If they were slightly smaller or bigger, atoms, stars, planets and people simply wouldn’t exist. So if we were to dig a little deeper than the boring obvious, what could we say about the story behind the scenes, really?
This is a gnawing, unsettling question: Why? Why are all physical constants exactly the way they are? Every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. So what, or who, set the rules?

We study the universe and we see patterns. With the patterns, we speculate about laws, and derive "constants" so we can make sense of the patterns. If you or I ceased to exist, the universe would still do what it does, and the loss of our appreciation of the patterns and our agreement on the values of the "constants" would not matter a bit.

I do not believe that every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. Certainly, those that subscribe to anthropic arguments can make that appeal, but that hardly includes all people with an interest in cosmology. It's similar to the rationalization of something unexpected (like seeing a car with your phone number on its license plate) and after the fact wondering "Wow! what are the odds of THAT?".

 

[madness]

I've always thought the anthropic principle was a bit of a copout. In any case the question can almost be rephrased as "why is the universe exactly the way it is?", with the obvious answer "if it wasn't it would be different". I also find it strange that we assume other universes would be so incredibly similar to ours that they would have a gravitational constant and plack's constant etc.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, I will answer each point in turn:

- I will repeat why should special mean biologically special?
- Of course it is only a belief that truth is relative, just as it is only your belief that science is not a belief system.
- I study mathematical physics as an interesting subject, that does not mean I subscribe to it religiously, I still see it as a system of beliefs. I am not critisizing science in any way, I don't think it is possible to gain any knowledge without first laying down some foundational assumptions.
- I made it clear that I was making an analogy about frames of reference in physics, of course a system of beliefs is not a frame of reference in physics.
- I will repeat: science does use induction, I gave a concrete example in my last post, here is the wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction . If you think David Hume and Bertrand Russel were "supernaturalists" then induction is a problem for supernaturalists. The problem of induction has nothing to do with the supernatural.
- Whether it is reasonable to accept something depends on your belief system, for the logical positivists falsifiability was not acceptable. It really is a belief.
- The only times I have referred to my credentials were when you said "a mathematical physicist should know this" or commented on my "profound misunderstanding". I am really not trying to inflate them. Having a knowledge of physics does not exclude me from seeing things from a different point of view.

- No, you misunderstand. When I say humans are not special, I mean not special in the biological sense.
- If it is just your belief that relativism is valid, rather than an objective fact, then you of course have no justification to put forward that position at all in a rational discussion, just as you have no justification at all to put forward the proposition that "blue is the best color" in a rational discussion, because such statements are of course subjective.
- It may be your sincere belief that science uses induction, but that is not the case objectively. Objectively, science uses deduction. Evolution is of course a clear example of how deduction is used in science. The "problem" of induction is indeed only a problem for supernaturalists since they believe that powerful supernatural entities can disturb reality and violate the identity of objects at any time. The validity of induction is perfectly consistent with materialism, since materialism holds that all objects have an identity by definition and that further, objects act in accordance with their identity by definition.
- No, falsifiability is not a belief, since there are objective reasons as to why falsifiability is valid.
- The problem of course is that there is no "other [equally valid] point of view". There is only that which is true, and that which is false.

 

[Moridin]

Also, why do you think that having having "reason" to accept something means it is no longer a belief? I would argue that this is precisely what makes it a belief. Copernicus has reason to accept that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. This turned out to be false. Of course this is how science progresses, but it illustrates the point that science really is a system of beliefs.

No, science is a methodology for discovering empirical facts. A belief is just a bunch of propositions you believe, not know. Belief =/= knowledge. This is where your relativism falters.

 

[madness]

- I understand that you mean special as biologically special - my point is that humans can be considered special in other ways, such as their higher awareness and ability to ask questions about their own existence.
- All statements asserting a fact are based on some fundamental assumptions. The statement that "relativism is invalid" requires as much belief as the statement "relativism is valid.
- I agree that science uses deduction, but it also uses induction. Induction is used between observing a phenomena and asserting a "law of nature". There need not be any supernatural force to render induction invalid. I previously gave the example of dropping many different masses and observing that they all fall with the same acceleration. We therefore postulate (assume) that all masses are affected equally by gravity. If we found that masses of exactly 2.6785 kg fall twice as fast, induction would have been wrong. One might argue "induction has never led us astray in the past, so we should trust it" and this is the fundamental problem - you have to use induction to justify induction. Why should we assume that something which has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future? It is a fundamental assumption in science.
- There are not objective reasons why falsifiability is valid. We take it as a priori because it seems reasonable. The logical positivists took the opposite view, which shows that even within science there can be differing sets of beliefs.

I agree that science is a methodology - or more precisely an epistemology. Of course we need to be clear and distinguish between science as a body of knowlegde and science as the method for obtaining knowlegde here. The scientific method pertains more closely to what you said in your last post. The scientific method is really a set of beliefs about what constitutes a valid way to obtain knowlegde.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Hey, does anyone have any insight to theistic evolution(the idea that God used evolution to bring about humankind) and why or why not it really makes sense? t'would be awesome if you have some answers.

Tor

The idea is to not rely on pure science or pure theology to explain things. It is easier to picture a god as a creator, who utilizes scientific tools such as evolution. God in this case is more or less of an overseer rather than the driving force behind every little action, though some would assert that God chooses not to actively influence us despite being able to do so.

 

[Moridin]

- I understand that you mean special as biologically special - my point is that humans can be considered special in other ways, such as their higher awareness and ability to ask questions about their own existence.
- All statements asserting a fact are based on some fundamental assumptions. The statement that "relativism is invalid" requires as much belief as the statement "relativism is valid.
- I agree that science uses deduction, but it also uses induction. Induction is used between observing a phenomena and asserting a "law of nature". There need not be any supernatural force to render induction invalid. I previously gave the example of dropping many different masses and observing that they all fall with the same acceleration. We therefore postulate (assume) that all masses are affected equally by gravity. If we found that masses of exactly 2.6785 kg fall twice as fast, induction would have been wrong. One might argue "induction has never led us astray in the past, so we should trust it" and this is the fundamental problem - you have to use induction to justify induction. Why should we assume that something which has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future? It is a fundamental assumption in science.
- There are not objective reasons why falsifiability is valid. We take it as a priori because it seems reasonable. The logical positivists took the opposite view, which shows that even within science there can be differing sets of beliefs.

I agree that science is a methodology - or more precisely an epistemology. Of course we need to be clear and distinguish between science as a body of knowlegde and science as the method for obtaining knowlegde here. The scientific method pertains more closely to what you said in your last post. The scientific method is really a set of beliefs about what constitutes a valid way to obtain knowlegde.

- If not from biology, where does these "special" properties come from?
- Yes, there are objective reasons as to why falsifiability is reasonable. See Carl Sagan's dragon for description. It isn't simply assumed to be reasonable a priori
- No, there are reasons why "relativism is false" is valid, such as the internal contradictions in such as worldview. Also, just as before if everything is based on assumptions and therefore invalid, the position that everything is based on assumptions and therefore invalid is then also based on assumptions and equally invalid.
- I have already justified induction from the materialist perspective and show that induction is intrinsically invalid from a supernaturalist position. Not really sure what you are getting at here.

 

[madness]

- You are assuming everything can be reduced to biology - ie reductionism. This is not true. A more appropriate holistic examination shows we are different from other animals. Other animals. I have explained this several times.
- Carl Sagan's dragon is not an objective reason. It is an argument for why we should accept it as a priori.
- There are no internal contradictions in the relativist view. Of course you see contradictions because you assume from the outset that there is an absolute set of truths. You assume the premise. I didn't say that everything was invalid because it is based on assumptions. Making fundamental assumptions is the only way forward, otherwise no progress could be made.
- You simply stated "induction is a problem for supernaturalists". I gave an explanation of why no supernatural forces are involved, and that it was David Hume (who is most certainly not a supernaturalist) who put forward the most common form of the problem. I'm not sure if you read my explanation of induction, but it didn't involve an objects identity being violated. Induction is the assumption that things will happen in the future as they have done in the past. I am not arguing that we should reject this assumption, I am just pointing out that it is an assumption which is being made.

 

[Belzy]

One could say "all of this universe is a big Von Neumann type device" created to produce life/DNA as as part of its own "life cycle". After all is it even here if we are not here to see it? We are just a fishbowl crystal garden. Doomed to a big crunch.

 

[Moridin]

- You are assuming everything can be reduced to biology - ie reductionism. This is not true. A more appropriate holistic examination shows we are different from other animals. Other animals. I have explained this several times.
- Carl Sagan's dragon is not an objective reason. It is an argument for why we should accept it as a priori.
- There are no internal contradictions in the relativist view. Of course you see contradictions because you assume from the outset that there is an absolute set of truths. You assume the premise. I didn't say that everything was invalid because it is based on assumptions. Making fundamental assumptions is the only way forward, otherwise no progress could be made.
- You simply stated "induction is a problem for supernaturalists". I gave an explanation of why no supernatural forces are involved, and that it was David Hume (who is most certainly not a supernaturalist) who put forward the most common form of the problem. I'm not sure if you read my explanation of induction, but it didn't involve an objects identity being violated. Induction is the assumption that things will happen in the future as they have done in the past. I am not arguing that we should reject this assumption, I am just pointing out that it is an assumption which is being made.

- Science has proven the reductionist position and refuted holism pretty thoroughly. It may be that everything is reducible to biology yet contain (biological) emergentism. This does of course not change the fact that we are not biologically special.
- No, it is a justification for falsifiability, since he states reasons as to why falsifiability is preferable.
- No, there are contradictions within the relativist worldview since they assume that relativism is absolute, so their own worldview falls to its own deconstructionism and therefore cannot be valid.
- Yes, I have proven that the "problem of induction" is just problematic from supernaturalist worldviews do to their intrinsic uncertainty and entirely defensible within the materialist perspective, which no such uncertainty exists. I am not claiming that Hume is a supernaturalist, just that the problem he say only applies for a supernaturalist perspective with the justification I have made in several posts above.

 

[madness]

- It is utterly false that science has refuted holism. For the tenth time, biologically special isn't the only way to be special.
- Of course Carl Sagan's dragon is a justification for falsifiability. It is still not an objective reason. It justifies the belief that we should use falsifiability as a measure of truth.
- It is you who assumes absolutism, that is why you see contradictions.
- Induction is not defensible from the materialist perspective. You have not addressed any of the points I made. I cleary showed that it was an assumption which is made in science.

 

[Moridin]

- It is utterly false that science has refuted holism. For the tenth time, biologically special isn't the only way to be special.
- Of course Carl Sagan's dragon is a justification for falsifiability. It is still not an objective reason. It justifies the belief that we should use falsifiability as a measure of truth.
- It is you who assumes absolutism, that is why you see contradictions.
- Induction is not defensible from the materialist perspective. You have not addressed any of the points I made. I cleary showed that it was an assumption which is made in science.

- If science has not refuted holism, why is the core disciplines of science filled with reductionism, whereas the anti-science fringe is filled with holistic positions and practices?
- Yes, Sagan's dragon is an objective justification for falsifiability as the demarcation criteria of science. It is objective since its validity does not disappear if we all stopped believing in it.
- No, relativism undermines itself since the premises of relativism implies that the premises of relativism are suspect.
- I have proven the reliability of induction from the materialist perspective several times now. Please go back and re-read my posts. I have addressed all the so-called "points" you have made.

 

[madness]

- You advocate an emergent view of consciousness. This is a holistic theory. The apparent incompatability of reversible microphysics and the arrow of time is an example of holism. The treatment of whole systems in quantum mechanics is an example of holism. You yourself said that the observer must be treated as part of the system. The list goes on.
- Carl Sagan's dragon is not objective because it is based no empirical facts. It is an a priori argument.
- Note also that falsifiabilty is not falsifiable, yet you do not reject it.
- You have not proven anything about induction. As far as I can tell you do not understand what induction is. There is no reference to the supernatural in induction. Once again you have not addressed any of my points.

 

[SixNein]

PS. I am not religious, I am merely seeking a deeper and fuller explanation than the blatantly obvious.

Diet coke version:
It's open ended, and origins will never be fully explained.

Hardcore Version:
I can construct statements in mathematics that cannot be proven. If I can construct statements that cannot be proven, I can ask questions about philosophy that have no answers.

Does God exist?

The question about existence of God is impossible to prove. Since the question is impossible to prove, many people feel there is no God; however, I can ask a simple question about mathematics that you cannot prove. Is set theory consistent? If you prove set theory to be consistent, you are inconsistent. By the same logic being used by atheist, set theory is inconsistent because it cannot be proven to be consistent.

Because something cannot be proven, it does not necessarily mean not true. The problem is undecidable, and you have to accept it one way or another on faith.

"God exists because mathematics is undoubtedly consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove the consistency" - Hermann WeylDid God use evolution?

The problem is opened ended again because of God in the statement. Can you truly visualize this number: 2i^i? Let's be honest, anything to do with infinity is very poorly understood. At best, we can say there is different sizes of infinity; however, we do not understand infinity. If you think you understand infinity, you are hopelessly lost, and you have never seen the limitations of the human mind.

Creation of the universe...

If mathematics is inexhaustible, what does that tell us about our universe? I personally view it as a hint, and I believe we know next to nothing about our universe.

I believe the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinite, it does not mean it cannot expand.

 

[Hurkyl]

Lets be honest, anything to do with infinity is very poorly understood.

Only by those that understand it poorly.

 

[SixNein]

Only by those that understand it poorly.

I declare you null! =P

 

[JoeDawg]

Because something cannot be proven, it does not necessarily mean not true. The problem is undecidable, and you have to accept it one way or another on faith.

Faith is belief without evidence, or belief in spite of the evidence.

Not believing in something does not require faith.

Equivocating religious faith with evidence based belief is hugely dishonest.
They are completely different standards.

 

[SixNein]

Faith is belief without evidence, or belief in spite of the evidence.

Not believing in something does not require faith.

Equivocating religious faith with evidence based belief is hugely dishonest.
They are completely different standards.

The mathematical question was proven to be undecidable. I'm making the assumption that nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God. Unless you feel you can prove or disprove the existence of God, I think it is fair to say these questions are very much alike.

I could argue that I am evidence for the existence of God; however, I would not be one step closer to proving the existence of God. I could also argue the usefulness of set theory is evidence of it's consistency; however, I would not be one step closer to proving it consistent.

 

[JoeDawg]

Unless you feel you can prove or disprove the existence of God

Its a huge mistake to imply that the existence of anything can be 'proved' or disproved.

Proof is mathematical concept, given certain premises (assumptions), one can prove things via logical constraints. But all of these things are on the level of abstraction and whether they are proved or not, your premises could be faulty, which makes your proof useless.

The word can also be used in a much looser sense with regards to matters of law and such.

Empirical science doesn't prove anything.
Science deals with observational evidence and probability.
The more non-conflicting evidence we have for a theory the more concrete that theory.

Religious faith deals with revealed truths. Belief in gods, faith, demands no evidence or logic. So you are misusing concepts.

Also, you haven't bothered to define which god you are talking about. One can very easily show via historical evidence, human psychology, and the physical sciences how self-contradicting, unsupported by the evidence, and down right nonsensical, most religious traditions are.

But people don't believe in Jesus, Allah, and Buddha based on evidence or logical proof.
They believe based on feelings, emotions, and instinctive needs. That is the essence of faith. Science and mathematics are completely different.

The standards are not the same.

 

[drizzle]

this is a logic talk about that issue by a guy called rajabali
[you can skip the religious introduction and start from about 7:10]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH1dwXEV51E

 

[madness]

I disagree that not believing in something does not require faith. Remaining agnostic does not require faith but to actually assert that God does not exist does require faith. Do you then think that believing in freewill requires faith while not believing in it doesn't? I think the distinction between believing in something and not believing in it is semantic. For example consider Arabic, where instead of the verb "to be", they have the verb "to not be". Then in order to say you believe anything you have to say you don't not believe in it.

 

[JoeDawg]

I disagree that not believing in something does not require faith. Remaining agnostic does not require faith but to actually assert that God does not exist does require faith.

Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, not belief.
Having faith in something means, no amount of evidence or logic would change your mind.

Do you then think that believing in freewill requires faith while not believing in it doesn't?

As long as one is willing to accept new information on a subject, its not a matter of faith. Even if one is extremely agnostic on the subject and doesn't believe knowledge of said thing is really possible. All scientific belief is tentative, even when we have huge amounts of evidence. All logic is based on premises, which are simply assumptions of one kind or another. The fact a person has confidence based on evidence or logic, is not the same as faith. If one has faith is something, the matter is closed, because it has been divinely revealed as truth.

People who compare religious faith to belief based on evidence or logic usually do so to justify their faith. Faith has no justification. You either believe or you don't.

Not believing requires no such commitment. I could 'not believe' in Jesus, simply because I have never heard of him. That is hardly the same as faith.