Free Republic

"I am indeed "somewhat" agnostic on the origin of the universe. None of the standard explanations, whether from science or from religion, really make much intuitive sense to me. However, I disagree that the question is necessarily "not subject to the scientific method". Just off the top of my head I can see where future discoveries should be able to help distinguish between the several theories that have the universe coming from a prior universe in some sense, and the ones that have the universe popping spontaneously "out of nowhere"."

Not to be a broken record about the Jaki quote in #290, but is this not ninety-nine per cent philosophy attempting to acheive a result which will then be labeled as science?

About the A and B statements, I think your answer reflects what i was trying to get at, which is that if the answer lies between A and B, then what criteria are we using?

The “proofs” for the existence of a Creator are many, but they are largely philosophical, and I would say no less compelling for being so. For instance, the idea of fairness or justice or civil rights is purely illusory if it is not imposed on us by someone outside of humanity. It is not without merit, obviously, but if the concept of justice originates with humans then, by definition, it has no authority or objectivity. The concept was either put there for a reason, or it evolved without a reason. If we are to agree that justice is a correct instinct of ours, then some kind of "creator-person" becomes axiomatic, because it is necessary.

But what really is “necessary”? We say that that sensory evidence is necessary, but for what? Strictly speaking, axioms are not necessary. One could lead what would probably be a short and bewildered life in denying them. They are only necessary if you want to do anything or go anywhere - to, as you say, begin to think or talk about science. Pursuing knowledge and having fairness and ethics in the pursuit are some things that I think we both agree are absurd to ignore. Again, forgive me (and correct me) if this is not you – but here is where the naturalist accepts only the axioms which are necessary for naturalism, and then assumes that naturalism will explain the rest. This is a philosophic, or a personal decision. This decision is made not on science but on preference. To say that you are a naturalist because you don’t see any evidence of a creator does not state things in the correct order – it is really that you don’t see any evidence of a creator because you are a naturalist.

If I may be so bold as to rise, Phoenix-like, out of these ashes....

JennyP:

Let’s repeat these statements again:
A. If something is not scientifically verifiable, it is not true
B. If something is not scientifically verifiable, it is not a concern of science

I would expect someone who held the view “B” to be somewhat agnostic on something like the origin of the universe, and I suppose most are. As something outside of our observable space and time and not subject to the scientific method, our explanations of it are all attempts at educated speculation. In light of this, any theory which satisfies some logical considerations (the cosmological argument, etc.) should be considered at least possible, and the theory of a Creator certainly does that. So if one believes in “B,” I would expect one to say that, if the origin of the cosmos was not a chief concern of science, then perhaps there are other ways in which we can obtain knowledge in this area - especially considering the fact that science already affirms certain truths, such as the “sensory evidence” principle, which are not verifiable by science. Isn’t it entirely possible that the existence of a Creator could be shown to be as valid a theory as naturalism, despite the fact that it does not chiefly reside in the domain of science?

I am not going to attempt to answer that question for you, but only to say that this seems to be the point at which many well-intentioned naturalists revert from statement “B” to A.”

"(she said innocently...)"

Innocent it shall remain. I am not setting a trap!

I do ask, however, because it seems like (and again... not trying to put words in anyone's mouth) most believe in B, until there is an assumption which challenges naturalism, and then it switches to A.

I have to go - I will expand later, unless you want to preemptively correct me...

I will yield to you on that one. Descartes was not a chemist and neither am I, so to say that the combination of hydrogen and oxygen produces a result that can be said to be out of proportion to the seeming properties of each is perhaps a valid objection.

However, consciousness (and even more so, truth and falsity) is a whole different subject. Science cannot account for it - only the appearance or illusion of it, and the effects of it. But our self-aware experience of the 'now' is a mystery (the Jaki passage again, in 290). Scientifically speaking, consciousness does not exist. Science should not be concerned with it, let alone claim that it must have purely a material explanation. That is an incorrect assumption.

Let me ask you this. I want to go further but I don’t want to be accused of putting words in your mouth. Which of the following statements would you say expresses your belief, or is closest to it?
A. If something is not scientifically verifiable, it is not true
B. If something is not scientifically verifiable, it is not chiefly a concern of science

Fine...then which part do you want me to retract? When I say "propositions with no verifiable evidence," I am referring to those specific axiomatic truths, which cannot be scientifically proven or scientifically disproven, but which we assume to be true, like the sensory evidence principle you mentioned in 380. Like you said, "in your entire existence I'll wager you've never encountered a single instance of anything which contradicted those axioms," and you would be correct. So which part am I retracting?

So you say that a moral “truth” that applies to humanity “just is?” That doesn’t seem to be a consistent fit whatsoever with the standards of your previous posts. Where do you show the work in that? Was truth a result of the Big Bang? What exactly is this truth, anyway?

Look….I am not moving the goalposts. I am attempting to get at a presuppositional error, but it is the error which is preventing you from seeing it. By “you” I don’t necessarily mean you personally – I don’t know what you or any of you believe, exactly. I am referring to the general approach of my main critics here. But it is a typical trait of the “scientific” mind that what you reject, you seem to reject on scientific grounds, and what you accept, you seem to accept on philosophical grounds. Science is merely a convenient wall to hide behind. It is true of the authors I wrote about, and it seems to be true of some here.

I don’t understand what you are disagreeing with. I have said several times that there are a number of truths, not provable by science, that are accepted axiomatically. One of them is the fact that sensory evidence is basically trustworthy. I am not challenging that in the least, nor have I ever. We agree, then. Correct? Good grief.

Insofar as science is founded on propositions with no verifiable evidence, I maintain that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in your presuppositions. I apologize for putting words into your mouth, even if they may have been enlightening ones.

I didn't show it, but I don't want to drag the thread in the philosophy direction. The locals get mad.

If by saying that logic "works" you mean that one proposition is closer to some truth standard than another proposition, then you introduce another topic - truth - that does not ultimately exist if it does not exist independently of humankind and in a conscious entity. Truth by any other definition would not truly be truth. Ponder it.

Correct about sensory evidence. We are not disagreeing on this point - quite to the contrary! I am not challenging reason at all, but affirming it's position as superior to science as a knowledge gathering tool. Certain unprovable principles must be held as axiomatic in order for science to have any validity whatsoever. But you know that.

It is the application of this same principle which leads to the kind of dishonesty when saying that, not to put words in your mouth, but when saying that you cannot believe in a Creator because you don't believe in anything that doesn't have verifiable scientific evidence. If you believe in science at all, then you already believe in a number of things that have no scientific evidence, so why not this? Note that it is necessary, because it is the best and most logical explanation for consciousness, morality, free will, etc., which exist, but cannot be verified by the physical sciences. Reason is axiomatic for science, and an intelligent Creator is axiomatic for reason, so a person's choice of one over the other is purely personal.

So...not to name names, but many posting here seem to be hiding behind a wall of science for what is, esentially, a personal choice. That is everybody's right, of course, and not without good reasons, I'm sure, but a spade should be correctly identified as a spade.

Is consciousness observable? Scientifically speaking, I don't think so. The fact that dogs seem to be conscious is an inference we make from our own experience, but we have no proof that a dog is displaying anything resembling self-awareness. The mind of a dog is as unfathomable to us as the mind of God, scientifically speaking.

Additionally, this idea begins to hint at a kind of reductionistic fallacy. Does "justice" actually exist, or is it only a result of a slight structural modification in the brain? See the paragraph in my needlessly long Jaki quote in #290 that begins "Contrary to.."

The humor of this discussion is that we, Vade, are speaking two different languages. You no doubt possess a superior mind for biology and physics. You could talk circles around me on the subject of conserved intron sequences. I couldn’t spot a conserved intron sequence in a police lineup, and it doesn’t sound like it goes down well with a pint of Guiness, so I don’t really think I’m missing anything. But the truth or falsehood of naturalistic evolution or the idea of a Creator will never be found by arguing about conserved intron sequences. I will leave that for the other Freepers.

Instead, let me show you why the “crushing preponderance” of evidence, in your argument generally, and in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution specifically, is a result of faulty reasoning from the basic premise as stated.

“The defining characteristic of science is the concept of the testable hypothesis. A testable hypothesis must make predictions that can be validated by independent observers.” Thus says the author. The existence of God and the moment before Creation/Big Bang are unobservable and untestable, therefore not scientific according to those terms. There is no strict scientific evidence for these. Agreed.

But wait – the author also mentions the “solipsism” hypothesis, that the universe is an illusion. This is also unobservable and untestable, but it is assumed to be false, because it would render everything else meaningless. All of the assumptions that make science possible – that our minds inform us about reality, that knowledge is possible, that mathematics can be applied to knowledge, that we are freely choosing scientific inquiry – all of these things are unscientific, in that they cannot be proven by the scientific method. And yet, science would be absurd without the existence of these ideas. The foundation and first word of human knowledge is not science, but philosophy. And this particular philosophy is erroneous, because it assumes only the existence of the untestable hypothesis which support the argument, and rejects the other untestable hypothesis on the grounds that they are untestable. Are you there, PatrickHenry?

This is how the author can make the extravagant claim that it is “axiomatic” that abiogenesis occurred (how convenient! That is only the biggest question of them all), because of a mistaken assumption that science can be our only trusted source of knowledge and not logic, even though science itself would not exist without logic. The scientific method is an important tool for obtaining knowledge, but the ultimate source of truth and lies outside of the domain of science.

It is not the fallacy of composition. I see your problem with it, but what is 'consciousness' and on which entities is it located? Scientifically speaking, it does not exist, because it is not observable - it cannot be located anywhere or as the result of the combinations of anything! And yet it does exist, so how does science approach the problem? See below.

Humble "thank-you"s on all accounts!

While I humor you by actually perusing the Macroevolution link, I will take this opportunity to note that, in your other post, you are completely missing the point by confusing complexity with consciousness. I am beginning to think that perhaps you do not understand the difference.

...and that second-to-last sentence should say "eyes of the mind," not "yes of the mind."

For Vade - it doesn’t matter what Descartes WOULD have said. The principle is that the information to potentially create a human is there in a zygote, but not in an atom of lithium. And as far as Ockam’s Razor – what is the theory of evolution if not an endless stream of conjecture with still-unfulfilled information gaps?

And PatrickHenry – there is no consistent theory of evolution that is revealed by the fossil record, or any other data set. The pattern is that the theory is first assumed to be true, and is altered to fit any new knowledge that arises.

Which brings me to quote an essential passage from Stanley Jaki, from “the Limits of a Limitless Science.” I can’t say it any better, but I will attempt to edit it for brevity:

“Biochemistry, biophysics, microbiology and genetic research… certainly show the enormous extent of measurable parameters in life processes. But life itself still cannot be measured. Therefore, scientifically speaking, life does not exist. …There remains much more to the question, What is Life?, than can be dreamt of by biochemists or biophysicists who take the mechanistic outlook on life. Equally, biologists who espouse vitalism are dreaming when they imply that they can see experimentally purposiveness, this chief characteristic of life processes. Just as the mechanistic interpretation of life is a philosophy, so is vitalism. Both are bad philosophies, though in the opposite sense. In the former the claim is made that just because something (purposiveness) cannot be measured, it does not exist. In vitalism the claim is made that somehow purposiveness can be measured and therefore becomes part of experimental science.

“Contrary to the claim that DNA is the secret of life, life remains the secret of DNA. Microbiology has not found a quantitative answer to the apparently purposeful action in all living things, from cells to mammals. Microbiology has not found a quantitative answer to the question of free will. Brain research cannot answer the question, What is that experience, called ‘now,’ which is at the very center of consciousness? For even by finding the exact biochemical conditions that are connected with the personally felt consciousness of the ‘now,’ the question what is that ‘now’ remains to be answered. While brain research may establish the biochemical processes whenever a word is thought of, it cannot account for what it is for a word to have meaning.”

“Faced with that inability, the scientists can take two attitudes. One rests upon the mistaken conviction that the scientific method is everything and whatever cannot be expressed in quantitative terms, is purely subjective, that is, illusory. Such was, for instance, the attitude of Einstein…. Clearly, it is better take another attitude and acknowledge that there are some basic limits to a limitless science. Those limits appear as soon as a question arises that cannot be put in a quantitative form and therefore cannot be given a quantitative answer to be tested in a laboratory.”

And later he writes:

“No branch of modern science, with one exception (evolutionary biology), is so fundamentally dependent on philosophy as is scientific cosmology, and in no other field of science is philosophy more ignored, and indeed scorned.

“In a scientific cosmology, insofar as it deals with various components of the universe, such as galaxies and globular clusters, philosophy can be safely ignored. The scientist merely has to assume, on a commonsense ground, that those objects do exist because they are observable. Only when it comes to the universe as such, do scientific cosmologists claim to know something about whose existence only a rigorously articulated philosophy, respectful of the universals, can demonstrate. But in evolutionary biology one comes across indispensable philosophical terms at almost every step. Concerning the species, it is something that cannot be observed. Yet it is something that has to exist if it is right to talk about the origin and transformation of species. One can get around this problem, which involves around the philosophical problem of knowing universals, by defining a species as the totality of all individuals that can interbreed. But when we go to the genus and to even higher units, up to families, orders, phyla, and kingdoms, that definition does not do. Again, only the great generalizing powers of the mind can enable the evolutionary biologist to see a continuous connection across the paleontological record, although, as recent findings show, it is more riddled with huge holes and discontinuities than ever suspected.

“Yet most evolutionary biologists have only contempt for philosophy, although it alone can justify their great unifying vision, which is more than science, strictly speaking. What they do is climb the rungs of an essentially philosophical ladder in order to see much farther than would be allowed, strictly speaking, by the data on hand. However, once at the top of the ladder, they haughtily kick it away. In doing so they follow the example set by Darwin. With Darwin they try to discredit philosophy with their science, although philosophy enabled them to raise their eyes to see heights where biological evolution can be seen, though only with the yes of the mind. No wonder that the present-day perplexity of some leading paleontologists evokes the fate of Humpty Dumpty.”

What, you think I'm not gonna check what you replied?

To PatrickHenry - sure it's an unsolved problem. I doubt there will ever be what could reasonably be called "proof" in either case. The fossil record is a set of data that doesn't "prove" anything - it is compatible with creation as well as evolution theory. When VadeRetro says evolution "seems" to have happened - what is it that makes that statement scientific, but if I say it "seems" to me that it didn't, I am fool who has not done my work? Dismissing God is an option, but it is not a scientific one. People's philosphies and experiences are what direct and shape the way that they perceive the data, connect the dots, and come to conclusions.

Is the wind blowing outside my window a result of the purely natural effects of atmosphere and climate or is there a God who is creating it? Either, or both - but looking at the data alone will not tell you. Those who won't believe in God dig deeper to find material explanations, and those who do believe in God dig deeper to prove that material explanations are insufficient. But let's be honest about what is driving the intellectual train. Chesterton said, about any man of science, that "insofar as he is of science he will doubtless be exact, impartial, and veracious. In so far as he is a man of science he will be loose, partial, and a liar," and I'd say that's the best we can say about all forms of science, including creation science.

As a passing note I want to say that I have considered all of this discussion friendly good-natured - as opposed to some other purely nasty forums that I have participated in - or else I wouldn't be here. If something has come across as negative I don't mean it personally, and I don't take anything that way. Now I am going to go have some coffee.

You are right that it is getting tedious, but if you would follow along for a minute then you would see where I am going with this.

You are asking for proof. The proof is in the pudding, but not in the primordial pudding. A naturalistic origin of consciousness fails as logic, and therefore it fails as science. There is a simple rule of causality, named the Causal Reality principle after Descartes, which states that an effect cannot have a reality which is greater than its cause or causes; than either the nature or the potential of the causes, as Aristotle would have said. In your own words, the building blocks of our universe consisted of “certifiably mindless” material, a non-uniform gas. There was neither an actuality nor a potential for self-awareness in any of those particles. Nothing even close, I am confident in saying. And yet, the very definition of consciousness is self-awareness, the ability not just to have a mind, but to “step out” of it. The problem is that you can’t get here from there. Those dots do not connect. Materially speaking, as long as the building blocks of the cosmos are mindless, unconscious atoms, then piling on block after block only gives you more mindless, unconscious atoms, but it categorically cannot give you consciousness.

There is nothing in natural evolution – neither the relatively slow process of gradual variation, nor the unpredictable, Quantum Mechanics-style process of change, that can account for consciousness, because in every case, the causal agents are simply more mindless, unconscious atoms, and as a result, the only possible effect is more mindlessness and unconsciousness. Complex effects, such as apes and IMacs, may give the appearance of consciousness, but we have no way of proving that it is anything but an appearance - the unfathomable result of an enormously complicated chain of unconscious causation.

So if “consciousness” and “existence” exist, and you admitted that they do, then they are defined as non-physical, non-quantifiable non-matter. And yet, you say that the universe is a result of “certifiably mindless” matter acting upon mindless matter. The effect does not follow from the cause, plain and simple. It is not possible.

What are your alternatives?
1. You could bash Descartes, which is easy to do, but the principle remains.
2. You may choose to deny that there is such a thing as consciousness, although you did already agree to it in principle, and I would hate to think that I have been having a discussion with an unconscious automaton.
3. You could beg to define “consciousness” to mean that it is merely a perception of ours, and that we really are sophisticated machines, unwittingly responding to unknown stimuli. But this is the kind of thing I wrote about in my Infidels article – you would be appealing to reason in order to prove that there was really no such thing as reason. It would be a contradiction of your entire argument.
4. I know that in the world of quantum indeterminacy, it is held that it is possible for immeasurably minute fluctuations to effect cataclysmic changes. But as I said before, if those events happened within our known universe, they are still mindless matter acting on mindless matter, so that gets you nowhere. Do you dare say that the highest level of consciousness in the universe was somehow latent in the first particle of nothingness? Not even Alan Guth goes that far.

The only logical explanation for the existence of consciousness in the universe is that it was put there by a conscious being. It’s okay to admit it, ladies and gentlemen. You are obviously intelligent folks. The naturalist hypothesis for the existence human consciousness is dead before it leaves the starting gate, and unfortunately, catty comments and smug affectations cannot revive it. Your centuries-long body of evidence contains a lot of intelligent rationalizations by brilliant people, but no actual supporting facts.

I have said my piece, and I will leave this topic for the time being. I like this forum and I appreciate the discussion. This is your forum, so I must give you the last word, or the last opportunity to shoot me in the back.

I suppose that's fair enough. I was thinking more along the lines of abstract thought, so let me ask it this way, again for clarification. Take a word like "existence," as in consciousness being the ability to be aware of one's existence. "Existence" doesn't really exist, in the sense that it cannot be quantified. It has no measurable properties. It is not comprised of matter. "Existence" exists only in the sense that it is a concept, or a construct, that is grasped by a being with consciousness. Since we don't really know what is going on in the mind of a cat (leaving aside Balrog666's admission that he apparently is acquainted with the mind of a deer tick) let's stick to human consciousness. Is that fair to say?