Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

RDM’s challenge to naturalistic hyperskeptics regarding THEIR “extraordinary claims”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
NB: RDM paper, here

In the current VJT discussion thread on What Evidence is, RD Miksa asks a telling question (slightly adjusted for readability) of naturalistic hyperskeptics:

RDM, 25:  . . . the ironic thing to note in terms of comments from the anti-super-naturalist side is how they fail to realize that their very own arguments undermine their own naturalistic position. Indeed, note their use of the poorly-formulated but often used mantra “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Note how this mantra is used to claim–in the context of this discussion–how it is apparently more rational to believe that hundreds of witnesses hallucinated or colluded or lied rather than believe that a man levitated. But the problem is, such an argument can be turned right back on the naturalistic.

For example, consider that the biological realm reeks of the appearance of intentional design, as many naturalists themselves admit. But naturalists deny this and claim that neo-Darwinian evolution is reasonable. But this is an extraordinary claim. After all, just like with levitation, I have never seen one type of organism change into another type. I have never seen molecules change into animals than conscious men. But then the naturalists will say that scientists have looked at the evidence and have inferred that neo-Darwinian theory is the best explanation of the evidence at hand.

But suddenly, I retort: What’s more likely, that molecules evolved into men without design, something that no one has ever seen, or that

1) the scientists are lying due to a naturalistic prejudice and/or that

2) scientists are mistaken about their inference, and/or

3) that the scientists are biased in favor of naturalism and this unconsciously skews their interpretation of the evidence, and/or that

4) all the scientists are colluded together to promote evolution to keep their jobs, and/or that

5) people are sometimes honestly mistaken in their inferential efforts and that is probably the case with these scientists, and so on and so forth.

So, it is clearly more likely that [there] is a problem on the part of the scientists rather than that our uniform and repeated empirical evidence that species do not evolve into other species is wrong.

And since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I am perfectly rational to not believe in the extraordinary claim that is neo-Darwinian evolution. [ –> NB, March 1: Following up from comment 37 below, a more formal, detailed presentation in a paper by RDM is to be found here. KF]

The reactions to this were unintentionally quite illuminating, leading to an exchange. Let me clip:

MT, 27: . . . Thousands have witnessed Criss Angel levitate and walk on water. Do you think he has supernatural power?

RDM, 28: No, but not primarily because of scientific evidence, but rather because of eye-witness testimony…namely, the eye-witness testimony of Criss Angel who has specifically said that these are all magic tricks and that he has no such powers. Also, the eye witness testimony of numerous other people who testify that Criss Angel is a gifted magician, and thus he would be expected to perform such feats as an illusion. So it is testimony–namely, the testimony of the person that would know best, meaning Criss Angel–that is the evidence that demonstrates that these things are not occurring.

Furthermore, it is indisputable that the testimony of all those people makes it rational to believe that they observed Criss Angel levitate or walk on water. But then, when that testimony is combined with Criss Angel’s own testimony and past history, that factor than makes it more rational to believe that the best explanation of the event, when all the relevant testimony is considered, is that the people in question witnessed an illusion rather than the real thing . . .

G2, 29:  Same question to you: Do you believe people can levitate ?

RDM, 33: Expand your thinking a bit. My point was that today, many adults are magicians and illusionists with devices and machines to make illusions seem real. But a three year could not fit such criteria. By the same token, at the time Joseph of Cupertino lived, the devices used to make illusions of such a nature occur were not available either. Hence why in both cases there is the similarity that a wide scale illusion could not be manufactured as it could be by an aduot magician today. Furthermore, there are other cases for levitation than just that one . . . . [34:] now a questions for you: if thousands of people of diverse backgrounds and educations–atheists, naturalists, religious people, etc,– did see a three year old walk on water for a few minutes, then levitate, then walk on water again and there were no indications of fraud, what would you believe about that? Why?

G2, 35: I tend to lend a little more weight to a few hundred years of science and thousands, (millions?) of scientists who have never, never, observed, or had the slightest reason to suppose that walking on water, levitating, etc etc etc are possible. This sort of nonsense violates extremely basic assumptions such as conservation of energy, etc, that Im afraid the ‘eye witness’ accounts from long ago don’t sound very convincing. Its not that science must be obeyed, just where I would bet my money . . . . [37:] I didn’t actually answer your question. You are proposing a current event, which is completely different to an event observed many years in the past. Not the same thing. If its a current event, I would still be very sceptical. It could easily be a magic trick … how could I be sure its not the great Randi (in his heyday) ?

RDM, 39: Reference your comment: Perfect. And by argumentative parity, when it comes to neo-Darwinian evolution, I place more weight in the testimony of every single human being who have ever lived (including all scientists) and who have never seen one type of species evolve into another (nor have ever seen molecules evolve into man without guidance) rather than believe a comparatively few scientists who are biased and prejudiced in favour of naturlaistic explanations and, at best, simply making an inference about the evidence at hand, and could be lying, could be colluding, etc.

So.once again, as I said, the naturalists argument can be used against him to good effect. And in most cases, his only objection is essentially special pleading. As they say, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

VJT, 42: You write: “Thousands have witnessed Criss Angel levitate and walk on water. Do you think he has supernatural power?”

Here’s my answer: show me how a seventeenth century magician could have duped thousands into thinking that he was levitating in the air, several meters above ground, for hours on end and without any support such as a stick, and I’ll start taking your objection seriously.

Fascinating, and utterly revealing.

To round off, let me again cite Harvard Law School professor and founding father of the modern school of evidence, Simon Greenleaf:

KF, 1: . . . I draw attention again to the following from Simon Greenleaf’s Treatise on Evidence, Vol I ch 1:

Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [–> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction.

Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd.

The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them.

The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved.

By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond reasonable doubt.

The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]

If the sort of selective hyperskepticism you are seeing were applied across the board science, law, courts, management and general common sense guided conduct would collapse.

That is already a sign that something has gone deeply wrong.

Of course, we now too often see the notion that an aphorism popularised by Sagan allows us to take hyperskeptical liberties with evidence that is inconvenient for the now so boldly presented a priory evolutionary materialist scientism you are challenging. That is little more than willfully obtuse question-begging. So, instead a sounder approach would be to acknowledge that prejudice and hyperskepticism should be set to one side and that reasonable and adequate evidence should be shown some respect.

At least, by the reasonable.

And of course, on levitation, I must point out that there are enough witnesses around and there is enough record that there should be no doubt that it is real. Of course, in my own experience, I have reason to acknowledge that the source of such can be suspect, and I am acquainted with a case where the greater miracle being witnessed was in suppressing the degree of levitation and then breaking the hold of destructive forces.

Last but not least, your discussion has direct bearing on hyperskepticism in response to the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth; underscoring to me the sheer unreasonableness of far too many who indulge in such dismissiveness.

Those indulging such should take sober pause as they ponder the implications of the elevatorgate scandal.

RDM has clearly put his finger on a quite serious matter, and it will bear reflection. END

Comments
AS Hume did little more than sneer hyperskeptically at inconvenient record, effectively equating serious evidence with gossip. As unfortunately on fair comment you just did, refusing to reckon with the actual balance of evidence. But then across several threads it has become plain that those committed to naturalism are not open to contrary evidence or testimony and record as aspects of that evidence. In particular, one would not gain from your tone or substance that this is a case with thousands of diverse incidents and thousands of witnesses with quite eminent and sometimes hostile witnesses, and eyewitness lifetime record within the sort of reach of Hume that WWI and its run-up are for us. On track record, no great surprise, sadly. I suggest a far wiser and more expert voice on evidence, here clipping from Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists, in the Kregel reprint (with a bit of augmentation):
1] THE ANCIENT DOCUMENTS RULE: Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. [p.16.] 2] Conversance: In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs. [p. 17.] 3] On Inquiries and Reports: If [a report] were "the result of inquiries, made under competent public authority, concerning matters in which the public are concerned" it would . . . be legally admissible . . . To entitle such results, however, to our full confidence, it is not necessary that they be obtained under a legal commission; it is sufficient if the inquiry is gravely undertaken and pursued, by a person of competent intelligence, sagacity and integrity. The request of a person in authority, or a desire to serve the public, are, to all moral intents, as sufficient a motive as a legal commission. [p. 25.] 4] Probability of Truthfulness: In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is a sufficient probability that it is true. [p. 28.] 5] Criteria of Proof: A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. [pp. 28 - 9.] 6] Credibility of Witnesses: In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector. [p. 29] 7] Credit due to testimony: The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances. [p.31.] 8] Ability of a Witness to speak truth: the ability of a witness to speak the truth depends on the opportunities which he has had for observing the facts, the accuracy of his powers of discerning, and the faithfulness of his memory in retaining the facts, once observed and known . . . It is always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound mind, and of the average and ordinary degree of intelligence . . . Whenever an objection is raised in opposition to ordinary presumptions of law, or to the ordiary experience of mankind, the burden of proof is devolved on the objector. [pp. 33 - 4.] 9] Internal coherence and external corroboration: Every event which actually transpires has its appropriate relation and place in the vast complication of circumstances, of which the affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, it is intimately connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident, related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be shown to be false. [p. 39.] 10] Marks of false vs true testimony: a false witness will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is a danger of his being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts, equally circumstantial . . . Therefore, it is, that variety and minuteness of detail are usually regarded as certain test[s] of sincerity, if the story, in the circumstances related, is of a nature capable of easy refutation, if it were false . . . . [False witnesses] are often copious and even profuse in their statements, as far as these may have been previously fabricated, and in relation to the principal matter; but beyond this, all will be reserved and meagre, from fear of detection . . . in the testimony of the true witness there is a visible and striking naturalness of manner, and an unaffected readiness and copiousness in the detail of circumstances, as well in one part of the narrative as another, and evidently without the least regard to the facility or difficulty of verification or detection . . . the increased number of witnesses to circumstances, and the increased number of circumstances themselves, all tend to increase the probability of detection if the witnesses are false . . . Thus the force of circumstantial evidence is found to depend on the number of particulars involved in the narrative; the difficulty of fabricating them all, if false, and the great facility of detection; the nature of the circumstances to be compared, and from which the dates and other facts to are be collected; the intricacy of the comparison; the number of intermediate steps in the process of deduction; and the circuity of the investigation. The more largely the narrative partake[s] of these characteristics, the further it will be found removed from all suspicion of contrivance or design, and the more profoundly the mind will rest in the conviction of its truth. [pp. 39 - 40.] 11] Procedure: let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances.[p. 42.] Here, we supplement: J W Montgomery observes of the NT accounts -- and following the McCloskey and Schoenberg framework for detecting perjury -- that the modern approach to assessing quality of such testimony focusses on identifying internal and external defects in the testimony and the witness: (a) Internal defects in the witness himself refer to any personal characteristics or past history tending to show that the "witness is inherently untrustworthy, unreliable, or undependable." (b) But perhaps the apostolic witnesses suffered from external defects, that is, "motives to falsify"? (c) Turning now to the testimony itself, we must ask if the New Testament writings are internally inconsistent or self-contradictory. (d) Finally, what about external defects in the testimony itself, i.e., inconsistencies between the New Testament accounts and what we know to be the case from archaeology or extra-biblical historical records? --> In each case, the answer is in favour of the quality of the NT, as can be observed here. 12] The degree of coherence expected of true witnesses: substantial truth, under circumstantial variety. There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them, and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually occurred. [p.34. All cites from The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics, 1995).]
KF PS: To see the link to origins science on the unobservable past of origins, simply read the OP and compare onwards the full, linked paper by RDM. Ponder also the vera causa principle as used in cases where we do not have direct access to the observation of events at close hand.kairosfocus
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
From 46: here, in the teeth of 500 witnesses What is this referring to ? [G2, read the link here -- and the context in several remarks above makes it plain that there are links to the other thread -- which you were involved with, as in no 46 in that thread and following comments which answer the question you try to suggest has not been answered. This pattern raises questions as to whether you are discussing seriously and in good faith. KF]Graham2
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
PS: I should add that the underlying physicalist closure that conceives the world as a physical, closed system does not just run into problems with testimony on the supernatural, it starts with trouble with responsible freedom and therefore undermining of responsible rational contemplation, warrant and knowledge. This ends in self referential incoherence and absurdity as say J B S Haldane long ago pointed out:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
In short a priori evolutionary materialst scientism, physicalism, naturalism and other fellow travellers don't just run into problems on the case of testimony to the miraculous that SHOULD pass reasonable scrutiny, it starts long before that, by undermining the responsible, knowing person. Such, per good reason, cannot be right.kairosfocus
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
G2, you are now playing the troll. Kindly cf 46 on in the other thread (What Evidence is), which you have recklessly disregarded. When you ask a fallaciously complex question it cannot be simplistically or naively answered yes or no, as well you know -- especially after you have rejected eyewitness testimony and report of such by one of the eyewitnesses. The pivotal issue is adequacy of evidence and our response to it, and absent selective hyperskeptical dismissal, there is no good reason to dismiss the witnesses to unusual but credibly real cases of elevation of humans without physical means of support [where illusionism is not credible], and there is equally no good reason to try to twist that view into a strawmannish, distorted claim that humans "levitate" or "fly" by their own power or the like. And, there is no good reason to pretend to collective delusion, or to trickery in every perceived case or the like. But this is simply a particular case of a wider presumption of uniform experience against the miraculous, where just the induction on the ordinary patterns of the world simply cannot properly rule out the exceptional that goes beyond the ordinary course of nature. KFkairosfocus
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
How many words does it take to say YES or NO ? You and VJT are peas in a pod. Onlookers, cf the just below, also 46 on in the What Evidence is thread, in light of its OP by VJT. KFGraham2
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
MT, you make the gross error of reasoning in a materialist, closed circle. Please, consider the actual issue -- the miraculous for good or ill -- instead of erecting a strawman. RDM is not arguing that people may be elevated by natural means such as maglev, but that (in context) on sufficient testimony and record we can compare the evidentialist rejection of miracles regardless of testimony to what would happen were we to exact the same or substantially the same standard of the evolutionary materialist reconstruction of the claimed past of origins presented to us as scientific consensus and often as unquestionable fact. KFkairosfocus
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
KF: You never did answer my question, did you ? This question/answer thing is a bugger, isn't it ? G2: You are now insistently speaking in utter disregard to truth, in hopes of profiting by what you say or suggest being perceived as true. I suggest you ponder what you have done, especially propagating misinformation without context that would correct the false impression given. Onlookers may wish to cf here and above in the other thread for substantiation; 46 is a good place to begin. KFGraham2
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
RD Miksa It is a miracle that you hold a "job that deals heavily with testimony as evidence"(comment#5) :-) How many charlatans take you for a ride in a day? If the guy levitating is represented by simple cuboid, the moment of inertia for 70 kg will be 35/6 (d^2 + w^2) (axis of rotation at height). How the heck will anyone levitate without constantly trying to balance - unlike serene levitation that is described in ancient accounts? A Buddhist monk style levitation is more plausible. Unless you believe the guy who levitated is made of HTS material, say (yttrium barium copper oxide), and is quantum locked and in an environment close to 140K,there is no way to get a serene levitation in a standing position - assuming that levitation is even possible without trickery.Me_Think
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT
RDM, I have to express gratitude to you for your sacrifice of time to participate in a significant and in fact eye-opening discussion on what now has to be described as Hume- Clifford- Sagan evidentialism. On balance, it is selectively hyperskeptical and when applied to the naturalist position as regards the unobservable past of origins, it shows that it cannot pass its own test. That is a significant result, though one that will doubtless be hotly contested by the committed. KF PS: I strongly suggest use of a discard-able email for more personal exchanges. Many email services now allow secondary addresses.kairosfocus
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT
Hello Everyone, Given that I have a number of other projects on the go, and given that—as I told KF in an e-mail—I find that getting involved in internet discussions tends to take too much of my attention away from other projects that I am working on, and also given that I find that many internet discussions simply lead to me repeating the same points over and over again in different ways, let me just state that this post will be my last post on this subject. If anyone wants further information about my ideas, let me know and I will make my e-mail available to you. Plus, you can always read my paper. However, as this is my last post, I will be making it as absolutely comprehensive as possible. It will be both a type of history lesson detailing how and why my argument developed in the first place as well as a further articulation of the argument itself. So let’s begin. 01) Many years ago, philosopher David Hume—who was a skeptic and almost certainly a naturalist—wanted to create an argument against miracles and the supernatural that would once and for all be decisive in showing that it would always be irrational to believe in miracles and the supernatural even if miracles actually occurred. Thus, Hume’s goal was to show that belief in miracles and the supernatural could never be rationally justified regardless of whether miracles actually occurred or not. 02) Now, to accomplish his aforementioned goal, Hume developed his “Argument Against Miracles.” 03) In his argument, Hume defined a miracle as ‘a violation of the laws of nature.’ Now, how Hume determined what a ‘law of nature’ was, was by looking at what regularly occurred in nature based on our uniform and repeated human experience. Thus, if our constant empirical experience showed us that something in nature regularly happened over and over again, then whatever that was could thus be considered a law of nature. So, if an apple dropped to the ground whenever it was let go, and it did that over and over again every time we dropped it, after a good period of time we could claim that it was a ‘law of nature’ that apples drop to the ground whenever they are let go of. So for Hume, constant regularity was the key to establishing what was or was not a law of nature. 04) Now, having established what a law of nature was, Hume then claimed that our evidence for the regularity and seeming inviolability of these laws of nature counts as evidence of the strongest sort: namely, that all of our empirical experience constantly reinforces the regularity and seeming inviolability of these laws of nature. 05) Hume then claimed that a miracle was something that violated the laws (regularities) of nature. 06) Hume then asked: “What is the best evidence that could be presented for a miracle?” Hume concluded that the best evidence for a miracle claim would be testimony. But Hume then reasoned that even if that testimony was of the strongest sort, it would still have to be compared against the testimony from all of our experience that shows us that the regularities of nature cannot be broken in the way the proponents of the miracle claim they have been broken. 07) Thus, Hume reasoned that even if the testimonial evidence for a miracle was of the most overwhelming sort, it would still not justify rationally believing that that miracle occurred. Why? Because the testimonial evidence would have to be compared against all our experiential evidence against such a miracle, and when these two evidences were compared, they would cancel each other out. But this would, at best, leave us with agnosticism towards the miracle claim rather than being able to rationally believe it. 08) Now, while Hume, in his argument, considered comparing the evidence from our experience against ideal and overwhelming testimony and still claimed to show that even such ideal testimonial evidence would never be able to make it rational to believe in a miracle claim, what Hume then stated was that, in reality, the testimonial evidence for miracles is usually poor. Indeed, Hume claimed that the testimony for miracles is usually provided by gullible, ignorant, and barbaric people who are unreliable as witnesses. Furthermore, witness could be hallucinating, or mistaken about what they saw, or lying, or any number of other things. 09) And so Hume concluded not only that ideal testimonial evidence would never be enough to make belief in a miracle rational (at best only a type of agnosticism about miracles could be achieved), but that the testimony normally offered for miracles definitely was never enough to justify belief in a miracle. And so we had Hume’s Argument Against Miracles, an argument which Hume thought defeated our ability to claim that belief in miracles was rational, and which also left something like naturalism as the only rational worldview to hold. 10) Hume’s Argument Against Miracles was then used by deists, naturalists, and other opponents of religion to argue against the rational believability of miracles and other claims of the supernatural. 11) Over time, and while still being used, Hume’s Argument Against Miracles was summarized into the mantra “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The extraordinary claims were tacitly defined as claims that went against what we all normally experience as the regularity of nature. 12) Today, in modern times, naturalists the world over use the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” argument as a means to claim that they are perfectly rational to not believe in a miracle claim regardless of how strong the testimonial evidence for such a claim might be. And indeed, we have seen this very thing in action with naturalist Larry Moran, who refused to believe an overwhelming amount of testimonial evidence for the levitations of Joseph of Cupertino precisely because he (Larry Moran) claims that such an event as levitation goes against all his experience of the regularity of nature and thus (a la Hume), the testimonial evidence for such a claim could never be enough to overcome the evidence from his own experience that such things do not happen. 13) Now, as I was studying Hume’s argument—the very one which naturalists and atheists were routinely using against me anytime I tried to present evidence for a miracle or supernatural claim to them—I suddenly had a realization: Hume’s argument absolutely destroys the rational believability of naturalism (although I am sure that I was not the first one to notice this). But why is this so? 14) Consider that the naturalist, given the commitments of his worldview, has to rationally believe at least three claims in order to account for the living, conscious beings that we see around us today. And these three claims are: that life can come from non-life, that species can evolve into totally different species, and that unconscious matter can become conscious. 15) Now remember that Hume states that what we constantly and regularly experience in nature can be deemed to be a “law” of nature. But when we look around, what does all of our human experience constantly and regularly show us: that life only comes from life, that species remain fixed in their type, and that conscious things only come from other conscious things. Thus, via Hume, these three latter things are essentially “laws” of nature. 16) Remember also that, a la Hume, any claim that is counter to what we regularly experience of nature is an extraordinary claim. This means that, by Hume’s definition, the three claims that the naturalist makes (that life can come from non-life, that species can evolve into totally different species, and that unconscious matter can become conscious) are extraordinary claims given that all our experiential evidence of the regularity of nature is against these three claims. 17) Now note that, just as with miracles, the only evidence that we have for these three naturalistic claims is the testimony of naturalist scientists, and, for all practical purposes, this is the only evidence that we will ever have. After all, no one person, in one lifetime, can personally master the fields of origin of life studies, evolution, and consciousness; it is, for all intents and purposes, a practical impossibility to personal know all these areas. So it is these naturalist scientists that tell us that they believe, based on their inference of what they believe is the best explanation of the evidence (just like with witnesses of miracles and other supernatural claims) that life can come from non-life, that species can evolve into totally different species, and that unconscious matter can become conscious. 18) But now, mirroring Hume’s Argument Against Miracles, I noted that even if the testimonial evidence from these naturalistic scientists was of the most powerful sort, it would never be sufficient to overcome all the experiential evidence that we have against these naturalistic claims. At best, there would be a type of parity between the evidence and we would thus have to remain agnostic about the rational believability of these naturalistic claims (just like Hume claims would be the case between ideal testimony for a miracle and all our experiential evidence against it). 19) However, just like with Hume, I also realized that, in reality, the testimony of scientists about these three claims is far from ideal. Indeed, given that many of these scientists admit 1) to a naturalistic bias, 2) could be honestly mistaken, 3) could be lying, 4) could be engaging in fraud, 5) could by skewed by their practice methodological naturalism, 6) use ‘just-so stories’ as explanations, and 7) so on and so on (I note a number of other things in my paper), then it is actually the case that the testimonial evidence from the scientists for these three naturalistic claims is far from ideal and far from powerful (not to mention that they presently have no evidence for how life came from non-life or for how consciousness arose from unconscious matter). 20) And so, using Hume’s own reasoning, when comparing the testimonial evidence from the scientists for the three naturalistic claims against all human experience concerning the regularity of nature that goes against these three naturalistic claims, it was clear that the testimonial evidence from the scientists for the three naturalistic claims could never overcome the experiential evidence against these claims—at least not if Hume’s reasoning was being used. And so Hume’s own reasoning—and the reasoning that so many naturalists presently use against miracles—rendered naturalism’s three necessary claims rationally unbelievable. In essence, the extraordinary claims of naturalism did not have the extraordinary evidence necessary to overcome all our experiential evidence against those claims. 21) So this was how I came to realize that the naturalist’s own reasoning process backfired on his own position and destroyed it. Now, to conclude, the point of my argument is to force the naturalist into a fatal position: either 1) the naturalist must admit that the reasoning process that he and other naturalists (since Hume) have been using to claim that they are rational not to believe in miracles and the supernatural is wrong, and then face the fact that there is plenty of solid and reasonable evidence for supernatural claims, or else 2) the naturalist must be intellectually dishonest and a hypocrite who uses a double-standard when reasoning between different claims, which then shows the naturalist to not be serious about seeking the truth or following the evidence where it leads, or finally 3) the naturalist must admit that his naturalism is not rationally believable and that he therefore only holds to it on blind faith, which would be an admission that would destroy naturalism’s claim to be an “evidence-based” worldview. So the whole point is to use the naturalist’s own reasoning to severely weaken naturalism’s claim to be a rational worldview, for whichever one of the three options above that is chosen, they all weaken the rationality of the naturalistic worldview to a serious, possibly fatal, degree. And this, ladies and gentlemen, will be my final word on this subject in this commentary thread. Let me know if you want anything further and I will make myself reachable via e-mail. Thank you all.RD Miksa
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
empirical observation: life only comes from life philosophy: materialism requires that we reject the empirical observations theory: life can arise from non-lifeMung
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
Dear KF, You beat me to it...thank you! RD MiksaRD Miksa
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
I see your confusion. The problem with your arguments regarding evolution has nothing to do with the demand for extraordinary evidence in and of itself. Similarly, when advocates of naturalism demand extraordinary evidence in support of extraordinary claims, I have no problem with that as well. The problem with your arguments regarding evolution is that what you specify as satisfying your request for “extraordinary evidence” (e.g. directly witnessing transitions such as molecules to animals to man) would not be evidence of evolution at all, much less extraordinarily supportive evidence. Indeed, observation of change at that pace, absent special explanatory circumstances (e.g. experimental manipulation), would create considerable problems for evolutionary theory, as the processes that drive evolutionary events typically operate at a vastly slower pace. So, as previously stated, the problem with your sample (rhetorical) application of your reasoning in the evoluationary domain is that you’ve no notion of what would and would not count as evidence, much less extraordinary evidence, for evolution.
And yet RB, as I keep repeating, and repeating, and repeating, and repeating, even if, for the sake of argument, I concede your point above, I have still shown ways in which extraordinary evidence for naturalistic claims could be provided while meeting all your above points (for example, observable abiogenesis and the presentation of a fossil record that clearly and unambiguously shows the tiny, incremental steps in the transition of one species to another) Such evidence would be in-principle discoverable and observable. And yet you constantly ignore these responses. A very telling fact, and the one that makes me believe that you are not really arguing in good faith. Furthermore, since you say above that you have no problem with me demanding extraordinary evidence for evolution, and since for me, the extraordinary evidence I demand (hypothetically) before believing in evolution is a fossil record that clearly and unambiguously shows, in tiny increments, the transition of one species to another at all the right times, then I take it that you would have no problem with such a request? After all, it bypasses all of your objections above—it is discoverable and observable and would be expected given evolution—so you should not have a problem with this particular demand for such extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim of evolution before I believe it, right? And yet somehow, I doubt that you are OK with such a request. In fact, in my experience, most naturalists would claim that such a request was simply unreasonable. And yet, those very same naturalist would not believe in a miracle even if everyone in the world saw the stars form into the Apostles Creed (remember the quote from JJC Smart).
Similarly, were “Naturalists” to commit similar blunders in specifying what would count as “extraordinary evidence” for the superatural (e.g. demanding events that have no bearing whatsoever upon the reality of the supernatural), I would reject their arguments as equally defective. That’s what I clearly state above.
Perfect, because that’s what naturalist do all the time! For example, not believing in the resurrection of Jesus—an unrepeatable and unobservable historical event—because they don’t see people resurrecting now. Or when naturalist do not believe that Joseph of Cupertino levitated—again, an unrepeatable and unobservable historical event—because they do not see people levitating now.
Vis your paper, your summary of several “laws” of nature on page six (and repeated above), upon which you premise your demand for extraordinary evidence, is a dazzling display of assumed conclusions. I lost interest there. If your mentors didn’t point this out, you should demand a tuition refund.
And by stating this, I am sorry to say that you just show your foolishness and/or ignorance. Either that, or you just picked a spot in my paper where you thought you spotted a flaw and could just “stop” reading it. Now why do I say this? Because my whole paper is about using Hume’s definition of what a law of nature is. And Hume’s definition of a “law” of nature is something that is regularly, constantly, and uniformly experience as occurring in nature. Since it is regularly, constantly, and uniformly experienced that life only come from life, that species remain fixed, and that conscious things only come from already conscious things, then, given Hume’s own definition, these things count as laws of nature. So these things do fit what Hume defines as a law of nature. And indeed, if you had actually read the paper, you would have read this on Page 2: So the first portion of the argument which Hume formulates against miracles is essentially a plausibility comparison between the “proof” against a miracle which individuals gain from their experience of the regularity and seeming inviolability of nature and the “proof” for a miracle which individuals gain from testimony. First, Hume argues that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and a law of nature is subsequently defined by Hume as the firm regularity of nature which humans constantly experience and thus believe and hold to be a law of nature, even though it is not necessarily an actual law of nature in reality. And so to repeat: the things that I state are “laws” of nature on Page 6 would indeed be laws of nature under Hume’s definition, which was the whole bloody point of my paper! (And you wonder why I doubt that you actually read it.) And so, since you wanted to throw in the jab about me getting my tuition refunded, I suggest you also get a refund if you ever paid for a course in reading comprehension. Anyway, I will be posting one more time explaining all of my reasoning about this topic (not directly in response to you), and then I’m done. Thank you for the back and forth. Though heated, it was good.RD Miksa
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
RB: let's roll the tape from p. 6: ___________________________ >> Naturalism, as mentioned, is the worldview which holds that the natural world is all that exists and that neither God, nor anything like God (souls, gods, angels, etc.) exists. Integral to this worldview are a number of key claims, two of which will be focused on here. The first is abiogenesis, meaning that the naturalist claims that life arose from non-life without any intelligent guidance, planning, or oversight; essentially, that inert and “dead” matter was somehow able to become living matter without an intelligence of any type involved in the process. The second claim that naturalists hold to is that unconscious and a-rational matter somehow, and also without any intelligent guidance, planning, or oversight, became matter that was conscious, rational, and capable of subjectivity; essentially, that a subjective consciousness capable of rationality somehow emerged from that which was unconscious, a-rational, and non-subjective without an intelligence involved in the process. In addition to these two main naturalistic claims, a third claim exists which, though not absolutely integral to the naturalistic worldview, is so closely aligned to it that it would be hard to conceive of naturalism being rationally believable without this additional claim also being adhered to by the naturalist. And this additional claim is that blind and utterly unguided Neo-Darwinian evolution (hereafter simply “Neo- Darwinism”) is responsible for the creation of all living organisms that currently exist on Earth, and thus that [p. 5] | macro-evolutionary changes within organisms have actually occurred. 11 Indeed, although it is not necessary to hold to Neo-Darwinism to be a naturalist, it is hard to see how naturalism could be rational without the Neo- Darwinian idea serving as the naturalist’s answer to the apparent design and complexity of biological organisms. And many naturalists admit to this fact. 12 So these are the three naturalistic claims which will be scrutinized in this work: 1) blind abiogenesis; 2) that self-consciousness arose from unconscious matter without any guiding intelligence involved; and 3) that Neo-Darwinian evolution occurred. If these three elements can be shown, via a parallel to Hume’s argument, to be rationally unbelievable, then it is contended that naturalism itself is essentially rationally unbelievable given the indispensability of these three claims to the naturalistic worldview. Yet it must also be immediately reinforced that just as Hume’s argument is not an argument against whether or not a miracle has actually occurred, but rather an argument concerning whether or not a person can ever be rationally justified in believing that a miracle has occurred, 13 so too will the argument presented in this work be an argument against whether a person can ever be rationally justified in believing the three naturalistic claims above, not an argument about whether or not they actually occurred naturalistically. The Laws of Nature & Naturalism. The first step to demonstrating how Hume’s argument against miracles works against the three claims of naturalism is to review certain applicable “laws” of nature; or, to use Hume’s definition, to examine the relevant regularities of nature which present themselves to human experience, and which thus lead individuals to hold these regularities as “laws” of nature. And the three such laws that are applicable to the present argument are the following: 1) that life only comes from life; 2) that creatures with self-consciousness are only produced by the reproductive action of other already self-conscious creatures; and 3) that biological species essentially remain fixed in their specific type (essentially, that macro-evolution does not occur). [p. 6] | Consider the first law of nature articulated: that life only comes from life. This law is as firm as any law of nature that humans experience, and all human experience, since recorded history, confirms the firmness of this regularity of nature. No one has ever observed or experienced life coming from non-life. 14 Next, consider the law that self-consciousness only arises from those things already themselves self-conscious. Again, this law is as firm as any other law which humans can draw from their experience; no one has observed a self-conscious embodied entity arise apart from the reproductive action of an already self-conscious entity (and the same type of point could be made for verbal language and sexual reproduction). And finally, the fact that biological species essentially remain fixed in their specific type is also as firm as can be, for human beings most certainly do not observe any macro-evolutionary changes occurring within the species that they observe around them. Human beings thus experience the truth of these three laws continuously, and they are arguably as firm as any other laws of nature are, for these three regularities of nature have been confirmed by all human experience . . . [p. 7] >> ____________________________ What you object to must be: >> 1) that life only comes from life;>> a --> An empirical, abundantly verified finding, summarisint the work that overthrew spontaneous generation. b --> Also, implying an appeal to the principle that in addressing the unobserved past of origins, we can only soundly proceed by examining its traces in the present and appealing to causal factors demonstrated to be adequate to such effects, i.e. the vera causa principle championed by Newton and acknowledged by Lyell and Darwin. c --> Where a key trace is FSCO/I which in our experience and on reasonable analysis of blind searches for needles in haystacks has one empirically known adequate cause. d --> Namely, intelligently directed configuration, aka design. e --> This can be ducked, dodged and twisted into pretzels, but the astute onlooker will readily enough verify it for himself. >> 2) that creatures with self-consciousness are only produced by the reproductive action of other already self-conscious creatures; and >> f --> Go visit the obstetrics ward of your friendly, local hospital. g --> You will search in vain for storks with babies suspended in blankets from beaks. >>3) that biological species essentially remain fixed in their specific type (essentially, that macro-evolution does not occur). >> h --> I might quibble on fixity of specie, given the difficulties of definition, but it is true that kinds of life forms in our observation show variation that is within quite clear margins. i --> And, that is what we actually see. So, I would suggest your quarrel is with the observations, not with the summaries. Indeed, by quarreling with and trying to dismiss them as question-begging, you do inadvertently imply that they entail RDM's conclusions once he applies the Sagan form of Clifford's evidentialism. Which of course has roots in Hume's errors. To show them question-begging, kindly provide actual, credibly observed instances of counter-examples. Otherwise, all foaming froth, no Mauby. (A useful saying, though I confess to disliking that acquired taste, Eastern Caribbean bitter bark drink. Give me my J'can Sorrel any day! Toss in some ackee and saltfish, plantain and green bananas, calaloo and a Johnny cake or two and I'd be in heaven. Some cornmeal pop and hard dough bread. Coco tea, too. A worthy Breakfast, dat!) KFkairosfocus
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
RDM:
So when naturalists use such reasoning against the supernatural, they believe that they are being eminently rational, but suddenly when the very same reasoning is used against their own claims, the principles and methodologies they just finished using against supernatural claims are no longer valid and are deemed irrational (as you just admitted above).
I see your confusion. The problem with your arguments regarding evolution has nothing to do with the demand for extraordinary evidence in and of itself. Similarly, when advocates of naturalism demand extraordinary evidence in support of extraordinary claims, I have no problem with that as well. The problem with your arguments regarding evolution is that what you specify as satisfying your request for “extraordinary evidence” (e.g. directly witnessing transitions such as molecules to animals to man) would not be evidence of evolution at all, much less extraordinarily supportive evidence. Indeed, observation of change at that pace, absent special explanatory circumstances (e.g. experimental manipulation), would create considerable problems for evolutionary theory, as the processes that drive evolutionary events typically operate at a vastly slower pace. So, as previously stated, the problem with your sample (rhetorical) application of your reasoning in the evoluationary domain is that you’ve no notion of what would and would not count as evidence, much less extraordinary evidence, for evolution. Similarly, were “Naturalists” to commit similar blunders in specifying what would count as “extraordinary evidence” for the superatural (e.g. demanding events that have no bearing whatsoever upon the reality of the supernatural), I would reject their arguments as equally defective. That’s what I clearly state above. Vis your paper, your summary of several “laws” of nature on page six (and repeated above), upon which you premise your demand for extraordinary evidence, is a dazzling display of assumed conclusions. I lost interest there. If your mentors didn't point this out, you should demand a tuition refund.Reciprocating Bill
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
RB,
Your reasoning regarding what makes Moran’s claims “extraordinary” is a hot mess of assumed conclusions and circularity derived from same, and no less defective than your reasoning about evolution.
Assertions are worth nothing. Why don’t you actually back this claim up with some evidence and an explanation of how my reasoning is a “hot mess” rather than just spouting empty bromides.
Your paper suffers from the same fatal defect.
Once you actually show a familiarity with having read my paper—for there is, in my view, little evidence of that now—then I will consider your criticism seriously. Till then, nothing more than empty talk.RD Miksa
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
RB: I will reply to something quickly.
So, then, your argument is that your own reasoning about evolution is woefully defective, and irrational, and that any “naturalist” who employs similar reasoning about the supernatural also displays defective reasoning, and irrationality. I certainly agree with that.
You have the right idea, but the wrong order. It was naturalists—based on Hume’s Argument Against Miracles and summarized in their mantra that ‘extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence’, where extraordinary evidence is left as a subjective threshold—who both did employ and continue to employ this style of reasoning against the supernatural. And yet, when I employ the very same principles, reasoning, and methodology that naturalists have used for centuries against belief in the supernatural against their own extraordinary naturalistic claims, suddenly the principles and methodology they used all along are no longer valid and are considered irrational (as you admit). So when naturalists use such reasoning against the supernatural, they believe that they are being eminently rational, but suddenly when the very same reasoning is used against their own claims, the principles and methodologies they just finished using against supernatural claims are no longer valid and are deemed irrational (as you just admitted above). Such a maneuver is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, and yet it is constantly done by naturalists (at least in my experience). And it all began with Hume and was adopted by the naturalists that followed him (after all, we just saw used in the quotes of JJC Smart and Larry Moran from my earlier post). So if you want to blame anyone for the creation of such “poor” reasoning, blame naturalists, starting with Hume And yet, the reason that naturalists take such a hypocritical approach and employ such a double-standard is because they know that if they do not, then they will have to face the fact that many supernatural claims have more than enough evidence to make them reasonable to believe in. That is why naturalists must continue to maintain their subjective threshold for what counts as extraordinary evidence; that way, whenever evidence of the supernatural is provided, the naturalist can always move the goal-posts and demand endlessly more evidence (as JJC Smart admits he would do in the quote where he says that a naturalist will always find a naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one). In addition, concerning your question about how this argument relates to evolution, perhaps you should have read what I wrote to fifthmonarchyman in Comment 59: fifthmonarchyman: It might help if the Critics among stop seeing this as a positive argument against evolution… Me: Oh, I forgot to add that you are right here as well. The argument is not so much an argument against evolution, but rather it is an argument that is meant to show that if a person believes that the evidence for evolution is sufficient to make it rational to believe in, then he should accept the evidence for miracles (and the supernatural) given that such evidence is just as good or better, albeit different, than the evidence for evolution. Thus, the whole point is not necessarily to deny that it is rational to believe in evolution, but rather to show that it is irrational to not believe in the sufficiency of the evidence for miracles (and the supernatural) if one is willing to accept the sufficiency of the evidence for evolution. So again, in a critical way, the goal is not to deny evolution per se (or abiogenesis), but rather to show that if one accepts the evidence for evolution, then the same person has no rational excuse to not accept the evidence for miracles; and any such excuse would be no more than special pleading or selective skepticism. Finally, the more I read of your comments, the more I realize that you have identified absolutely no “leaky hole” in my argument, at least in terms of what the argument is meant to achieve. In fact, by claiming that my reasoning methodology is irrational, you have proved one of the main points that I meant to achieve: to show that the naturalists—going all the way back to Hume—on whom I completely based the reasoning used in this argument, have been arguing irrationally along. That is the point!RD Miksa
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
RDM: I could not let this pass:
when you make an extraordinary claim that goes against all experience, then the evidence has to be truly extraordinary in order to even qualify as evidence . . .
Notice the begged question that entails that reported experiences contrary to what naturalists believe must be false? And, of course, while I did not see the C17 events, I happen to have been one of many witnesses to a C21 case. So, I directly and from the inside know that grandiose dismissive claims about "all experience" are false and at best irresponsible. Had the objector said typical day to day experience or even the overwhelming weight of experiences, that would be another thing. But then, the objection would collapse. For, no-one is claiming that the miraculous is typical or common. Just the opposite. Further to this, the assignment of "extraordinary" is improper. Under reasonable conditions of seeing, such as the inside of a building lighted by a typical array of working 4-ft fluorescent tubes sufficient to read ordinary printed text by, to see objects (including bodies) and to see underneath elevated objects (e.g. the ceiling mount overhead multimedia projector above the spot) is also a commonplace. Where the question is not whether humans may be elevated in the air and be accurately seen to be so elevated but the means of such elevation. Where in the relevant case, illusionist tricks are ruled out -- and need I note that the witnesses were essentially in full 360 degree perspectives. (A friend who used to watch street magicians in London reported that the back-stage view was usually quite revealing on how twerdun.) The seeing is not extraordinary, it is the implication of what is seen that is extraordinary. And, what is revealing is the resistance and how it is motivated. KFkairosfocus
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
RDM:
Wonderful, that was exactly my point, for you have just made the case that about 90% of naturalists (at least those on the internet)—and including Hume, given that he originated this argument, as my paper explains—are irrational given that they argue in precisely the way that I have demonstrated.
So, then, your argument is that your own reasoning about evolution is woefully defective, and irrational, and that any “naturalist” who employs similar reasoning about the supernatural also displays defective reasoning, and irrationality. I certainly agree with that. But perhaps that is unfair. Here is a direct question: Do you above report your own views and reasoning about evolution, and your withholding of belief concerning the same, or do you not? I understand that you deploy those views as a rhetorical device. That said: are those your views, or are those not your views?
I guess I don’t need to convince you that most naturalists argue irrationally.
"Most?" I haven’t made any case at all regarding percentages of "naturalists" who reason equally poorly on the internet. I don’t know and I don’t care (it’s the internet). I've said nothing that has bearing on that question.
Now watch me use Larry Moran’s own method of reasoning against him: “But when you make an extraordinary claim [that life comes from non-life, that species evolved, and that consciousness came from unconscious matter] that goes against all experience [that life only comes from life, that species remain fixed, and that conscious things only come from already conscious things], then the evidence has to be truly extraordinary in order to even qualify as evidence.
Your reasoning regarding what makes Moran’s claims “extraordinary” is a hot mess of assumed conclusions and circularity derived from same, and no less defective than your reasoning about evolution. Your paper suffers from the same fatal defect.
Anyway, please note that I honestly don’t feel that you are really engaging with the points that I am making.
Of course I don't engage all of your points. As I said, one need only find one hole in a bucket to know that it doesn't hold water, and here we have at least two: defective reasoning about evolution, and now massively assumed conclusions. (BTW, vis your paper, if your professor didn't take you to task about the latter, s/he's done you a disservice.)
I will thus let you know that this will very likely be my last interaction with you concerning this matter.I will thus let you know that this will very likely be my last interaction with you concerning this matter.
OK, bye. But answer that question before you go: Do you above report your own views and reasoning about evolution, and your withholding of belief concerning the same, or do you not? A yes or no will do.Reciprocating Bill
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
RB: Ad hominem warning. KF . . . thread ownerkairosfocus
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
RB,
You’d be right to characterize a “naturalist” who employs reasoning as faulty as your own, as exemplified by your reasoning over evolution (and “evolution is a good example for the argument to use”), as irrational.
Wonderful, that was exactly my point, for you have just made the case that about 90% of naturalists (at least those on the internet)—and including Hume, given that he originated this argument, as my paper explains—are irrational given that they argue in precisely the way that I have demonstrated. For some quick and easy evidence of this claim, see Larry Moran’s response to VJ Torley in the “What is evidence” post as well as the comments from naturalists about that post. They essentially do exactly what I said: claim that they would never believe in the levitation of Joseph of Cupertino no matter what the testimonial evidence for it is given that that evidence will never be extraordinary enough for them (see below for more details). Furthermore, even high-end naturalists admit this. For example, consider this quote from atheist JJC Smart (and which I use in the footnotes of my paper that KF linked to): …someone who has naturalistic preconceptions will always in fact find some naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one... Suppose that I woke up in the night and saw the stars arranged in shapes that spelt out the Apostle's Creed. I would know that astronomically it is impossible that stars should have changed their position. I don't know what I would think. Perhaps I would think that I was dreaming or that I had gone mad. What if everyone else seemed to me to be telling me that the same had happened? Then I might not only think that I had gone mad—I would probably go mad.” So again, the point is to use the naturalist’s principles—like JJC Smart’s idea that the naturalist will always find an explanation for his own position more plausible than any evidence against it—against the naturalist to show that his method of arguing is irrational and unreasonable given that he has already tacitly admitted that no evidence could ever convince him of the supernatural (as JJC Smart admits). But since you already tacitly conceded this fact by claiming that my naturalist-copying method of arguing was irrational, I guess I don’t need to convince you that most naturalists argue irrationally. Thank you for admitting the whole point of my argument.
It’s a UD tradition that, when a conversation fails to follow the anticipated script, ID proponents imagine their own debate, providing both sides of the exchange. They always win! Welcome to the fold.
And apparently it’s something of a UD tradition that naturalistic commentators either don’t actually read or don’t understand or just ignore what is being said to them. That way they can always say the arguments against their position fail. And seems like you are already part of that fold.
Within that historical context, evolutionary theory entails that the events you demand to witness occur over time scales that are unobservable by individual persons. “Molecules to animals” spanned ~thirty million centuries. “Animals to conscious men” another ~five million centuries. Even the most rapid punctuationist account of speciation posits the “sudden appearance” of species over tens of thousands of years. That’s why you haven’t witnessed any such transitions: the span of your lifetime is too brief, by many orders of mangnitude, to observe evolutionary events of the kind you demand to observe. The fact that you haven’t witnessed such transitions has zero bearing on the likely accuracy of that evolutionary account. Citing “something that no one has ever seen…” as justification for skepticism betrays your innocence of the actual claims of evlolutionary theory. Demanding to see as “extraordinary evidence” transitions of a magnitude that that evolutionary theory predicts no one can never directly observe betrays the same, illustrating the hazards involved when the uninformed attempt to evaluate scientific claims and set their own evidentiary standards.
And once again, you fail to understand the point. The point is to use the naturalists own principles against him and to show the naturalist that his own way of arguing undermines his naturalism. So again—and to continue to use the levitation example of Joseph of Cupertino and the responses to that example—the naturalist (such as Larry Moran) deems himself rational to deny the overwhelming testimonial evidence for that event because the evidence for the event, to him, is not extraordinary enough to reach his subjective threshold of extraordinary. In fact, this is what Larry Moran says: If thousands of people reported that St. Cupertino just walked around in the garden then that would be quite unremarkable and we could tentatively accept it as true even if we remained skeptical about eyewitness reports. But when you make an extraordinary claim that goes against all experience, then the evidence has to be truly extraordinary in order to even qualify as evidence. I don't believe that St. Cupertino actually flew around parts of Italy in the 1600s because there are much more reasonable explanations for the reports that have been written. Those naturalistic explanations don't require all the extra baggage that you have to take on if you assume that the reputed observations were true. Now watch me use Larry Moran’s own method of reasoning against him: “But when you make an extraordinary claim [that life comes from non-life, that species evolved, and that consciousness came from unconscious matter] that goes against all experience [that life only comes from life, that species remain fixed, and that conscious things only come from already conscious things], then the evidence has to be truly extraordinary in order to even qualify as evidence. I don't believe that [life comes from non-life, that species evolved, and that consciousness came from unconscious matter] because there are much more reasonable explanations for the [inferences that naturalistic scientists make]. Those [super]naturalistic explanations don't require all the extra baggage [such as believing that life could come from non-life, that species could evolve, and that consciousness has to come from unconscious matter] that you have to take on if you assume [and which go against all experience] that the reputed [naturalistic inferences] were true.” See, I used the exact same reasoning as Larry Moran did, and since you called my reasoning irrational, then, by necessary extension you have called Larry Moran’s reasoning irrational as well! And that is exactly my point: the principles that naturalists use are irrational and undermine their own position! Next, understand that to appreciate the context of my “demanding to observe evolution” you need to understand two points. First, all my empirical and observable experience concerning the regularity of nature (that life only comes from life, that species remain fixed, and that consciousness only comes from things already conscious) argues against the claims that life can come from non-life, that species can evolve into different species, and that consciousness can come from unconsciousness matter; thus, that fact makes those naturalistic claims extraordinary (just like the naturalist claims that something like levitation is extraordinary because it goes against all of his experience of the regularity of nature). And since all my experiential and observational experience is against the naturalist's claims, then the evidence needed to support such claims must be equally as powerful, such as, potentially, directly observing those things actually occur, Second, just like the naturalist demands to actually see a supernatural event before believing in it even though that supernatural event may be a historical event that is unrepeatable and unobservable in our present time (like the resurrection of Jesus or the levitation of Joseph of Cupertino), so too can the supernaturalist, by argumentative parity, make the same demand for the naturalist’s claims. Once again, the whole point is to show that what is sauce for the goose (the naturalist) is sauce for the gander (the supernaturalist). Finally, I once again note that even if your criticism above is accepted as cogent, you yet again fail to engage with my point that abiogenesis could be observable in one lifetime, or that the neo-Darwinian could meet my demand for extraordinary evidence by providing me with fossil evidence that clearly and unequivocally shows, in tiny increments, the transition of one species to another. Such evidence is, in principle, discoverable, observable, and completely bypasses your above objection. And yet the response from you about that point is…silence.
By the way, you’re not being honest with yourself. If and when investigators devise an experimental setup within which the extraordinary evidence you demand presents itself you will continue to withhold belief in evolution – citing the very experimental manipulations employed by those investigators as instances of “intelligence” manipulating events. We’ve seen this many times already.
But RB…that is the point! If I did so, I would, once again be using the exact same methodology as naturalists who demand to see some supernatural event and then, when it is provided to them, suddenly claim that they need to see another, bigger supernatural event to be sure, or they say that they were just hallucinating, or they say that “strange things happen in the multiverse”, or they say that they live in an alien computer simulation and that the event was caused by these advanced but natural aliens, and so on and so on. Provide naturalists with the evidence they demand, and they just demand more evidence; the cycle of moving the evidentiary goal-posts is never-ending. Remember what atheists JJC Smart said: “…someone who has naturalistic preconceptions will always in fact find some naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one... So the whole point is that the supernaturalist can use these methods too, and when he does, naturalism is rendered rationally unbelievable. Thus, the naturalist must either admit that his argumentative methods are faulty and so change them, or else he must admit that naturalism is shown to be irrational by his very own methods. Anyway, please note that I honestly don’t feel that you are really engaging with the points that I am making, and as such, given that I have other pressing matters to attend to, and given that I see little point in writing full responses to an individual who appears to be ignoring most of what I say, I will thus let you know that this will very likely be my last interaction with you concerning this matter.RD Miksa
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Reciprocating Bill doesn't have any idea what evolutionism entails. However he does continue to prove that his version is untestable and therefor unscientific.Joe
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
RDM:
First, read what I posted above.
It’s a UD tradition that, when a conversation fails to follow the anticipated script, ID proponents imagine their own debate, providing both sides of the exchange. They always win! Welcome to the fold.
I call BS on your ‘actual entailments of the theory point.’ As I have said on multiple and repeated occasions, there are a number of ways that scientists could create the experiments necessary to make evolution observable without violating the entailments of the theory
Your call fails. The context of my remarks is your statement, “I have never seen molecules change into animals than conscious men. ..What’s more likely, that molecules evolved into men without design, something that no one has ever seen…” (my emphasis). The context you supplied is the history of life on earth, and ultimately of human evolution, not laboratory experiment. Within that historical context, evolutionary theory entails that the events you demand to witness occur over time scales that are unobservable by individual persons. “Molecules to animals” spanned ~thirty million centuries. “Animals to conscious men” another ~five million centuries. Even the most rapid punctuationist account of speciation posits the “sudden appearance” of species over tens of thousands of years. That’s why you haven’t witnessed any such transitions: the span of your lifetime is too brief, by many orders of mangnitude, to observe evolutionary events of the kind you demand to observe. The fact that you haven’t witnessed such transitions has zero bearing on the likely accuracy of that evolutionary account. Citing “something that no one has ever seen…” as justification for skepticism betrays your innocence of the actual claims of evlolutionary theory. Demanding to see as “extraordinary evidence” transitions of a magnitude that that evolutionary theory predicts no one can never directly observe betrays the same, illustrating the hazards involved when the uninformed attempt to evaluate scientific claims and set their own evidentiary standards. By the way, you’re not being honest with yourself. If and when investigators devise an experimental setup within which the extraordinary evidence you demand presents itself you will continue to withhold belief in evolution - citing the very experimental manipulations employed by those investigators as instances of “intelligence” manipulating events. We’ve seen this many times already.
it is the naturalist with his ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ mantra, and then his subjective interpretation of what ‘extraordinary evidence’ is who is making irrational demands for evidence when dealing with the so-called extraordinary claims of supernaturalism.
You’d be right to characterize a “naturalist” who employs reasoning as faulty as your own, as exemplified by your reasoning over evolution (and “evolution is a good example for the argument to use”), as irrational.Reciprocating Bill
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Dear bornagain77 Thank you for the link. I appreciate it and I will check it out shortly. Sincerely, RD MiksaRD Miksa
February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
RD Miksa, you may appreciate this video (12 minutes). God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQOwMX4bCqk It is argued that Quantum Physics and Relativity invalidate Kant's objection against the proofs of the existence of God. Quantum experiments demonstrate that there are visible corporal effects that originate from invisible spiritual causes..bornagain77
February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT
Dear Box, While I agree that naturalism is an irrational position for various argumentative and evidentiary reasons, the fact is that many naturalists see naturalism as the only rational position to hold (and many people perceive naturalism as very rational), and they believe that in large part due to the principles that they use (as described above) and due to such things as Hume's Argument Against Miracles. Thus, to be able to use the naturalist's own principles against him to show that naturalism is made irrational by those very principles is a goal that is, in my view, quite worthy and powerful.RD Miksa
February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
RDM, I can only agree with your argument - what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. However, there seems to be one problem: not only is there no "extraordinary" evidence for naturalism, there is also no "ordinary" evidence. IOW your argument would come in handy if there would be ordinary evidence - or any evidence whatsoever - for the naturalist position, but since there isn't any it seems a bit misplaced. It's like shooting with a cannon on a mosquito.Box
February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
RDM, very well thought-through. Selective hyperskepticism is always fatally incoherent as if one disbelieves what one should accept on accessible and credibly adequate warrant, one must therefore believe what one ought not to believe per its want of adequate warrant. Including, I add, culpable agnosticism rooted in willful obtuseness or the like. KFkairosfocus
February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
It might help if the Critics among stop seeing this as a positive argument against evolution... Oh, I forgot to add that you are right here as well. The argument is not so much an argument against evolution, but rather it is an argument that is meant to show that if a person believes that the evidence for evolution is sufficient to make it rational to believe in, then he should accept the evidence for miracles (and the supernatural) given that such evidence is just as good or better, albeit different, than the evidence for evolution. Thus, the whole point is not necessarily to deny that it is rational to believe in evolution, but rather to show that it is irrational to not believe in the sufficiency of the evidence for miracles (and the supernatural) if one is willing to accept the sufficiency of the evidence for evolution. So again, in a critical way, the goal is not to deny evolution per se (or abiogenesis), but rather to show that if one accepts the evidence for evolution, then the same person has no rational excuse to not accept the evidence for miracles; and any such excuse would be no more than special pleading or selective skepticism.RD Miksa
February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Dear fifthmonarchyman, You said: It might help if the Critics among stop seeing this as a positive argument against evolution and instead see it as a theist defense against Hume. Indeed, the argument is ultimately meant to throw the naturalist into a fatal dilemma: either reject Hume and his Argument Against Miracles, but then face the fact that there is plenty of reasonable evidence for the truth of miracle claims and the supernatural, or else accept Hume's argument but then realize that the very principles behind that argument, when turned on naturalism, make naturalism rationally unbelievable. Either way, the naturalist has a serious problem. And thank you very much for the kind words in your comment. Plus, did you see the link that KF posted to my more formal paper about this subject? Take care.RD Miksa
February 28, 2015
February
02
Feb
28
28
2015
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply