Competing Worldviews Only?
| March 22, 2010 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
Evolutionary biologist Allen MacNeill, who appears frequently in the comments sections of our posts, makes the following comment to my previous post:
Teleology must exist in any functional relationship, including those in biology. The question is not “is there teleology in biology”; no less an authority on evolutionary biology than the late Ernst Mayr (not to mention Franciso Ayala) emphatically stated “yes”! The real question (and the real focus of the dispute between EBers and IDers) is the answer to the question, “where does the teleology manifest in biology come from”? EBers such as Ernst Mayr assert that it is an emergent property of natural selection, whereas IDers assert that it comes from an “intelligent designer”. It has never been clear to me how one would distinguish between these two assertions, at least insofar as they can be empirically tested. Rather, the choice of one or the other seems to me to be a choice between competing metaphysical world views, which are not empirically verifiable by definition.
Is Allen correct?
226 Responses to Competing Worldviews Only?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bornagain77 in 182
Thanks for the compliment and the clip.
Bornagain writes, “so please provide your “sufficient” evidence that material particles exist in the first place. Each and every sub-atomic particle in the atom, (proton, neutron, electron etc..) is subject to the laws of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is about as far away from the solid material particle, that materialism had predicted as the basis of reality, as can be had.”
This is not a substantial point, BA. I accept modern knowledge about the nature of the material world, and I know full well that table are not “solid.”
More substantially, you write, “Simple if what you believe is absolutely true (That God is not true) just simply describe to me exactly how you derived this absolute transcendent truth from a transient material basis. Please tell me exactly to which material parameter that you will appeal in order to invalidate God and to prove God is not true?”
I didn’t say that I can prove that God doesn’t exist, and I never claimed to have derived any “absolute transcendent truth” – I don’t even believe in “absolute transcendent truths”. What I’ve said is that I don’t think that the existence of some transcendental being can be investigated, so it seems much more reasonable to not believe than to believe. There are jillions of things that could be true but are beyond investigation, and I don’t waste my time thinking how I could disprove them, or worrying about the effects of not believing them. There are hundreds of world religions, all sorts of new-agey beliefs, preposterous crank theories, and even some spiritual perspectives that appeal to me, but there is no way to show which, if any, are true, so I prefer to chose to limit my beliefs, and live with not knowing where that seems warranted.
Aleta in 212
“I didn’t say that I can prove that God doesn’t exist, and I never claimed to have derived any “absolute transcendent truth” – I don’t even believe in “absolute transcendent truths”.”
I am sorry but that statement is completely inane because the belief “there are no absolute transcendent truths” would be a absolute transcendent truth! Even more importantly if you really think that you cannot make truthful statements why do you even post here? To confuse?
Innerbling illustrates a key confusion in these discussions when he writes,
“Aleta in 212
“I didn’t say that I can prove that God doesn’t exist, and I never claimed to have derived any “absolute transcendent truth” – I don’t even believe in “absolute transcendent truths”.”
I am sorry but that statement is completely inane because the belief “there are no absolute transcendent truths” would be a absolute transcendent truth! Even more importantly if you really think that you cannot make truthful statements why do you even post here? To confuse?”
Any time I say I don’t believe something I don’t mean that I think I am absolutely right. My belief that “there are no absolute transcendent truths” is on the sum total of my experience and knowledge and study of the world. Like all truths about the world, in my opinion, it is tentative in the sense that new evidence could change my mind, but at this point the evidence, for me, is conclusive enough for me to choose this as a belief.
To people like Innerbling, Bornagain, and Stephen, the denial of absolute truths undercuts the notion of truth entirely because absolute truths are the foundation upon which other truths stand. But that is not the case for me: I have a different foundation for truth. To them, anything not resting on their idea of absolute truth can have no “real” validity.
So when I talk about what I believe, I am offering a perspective based on my 60 years of experience. I’ve studied religion, science, the history of science, philosophy, mathematics and other expressions of the culture of mankind, and I’ve had many significant life events (as have we all) from which to learn and grow and ponder the human condition. From all that I have reached conclusions that I offer as my beliefs, not because I am certain that each and every one is true, and not because they rest on any transcendental foundation, but because they are what, based on all the evidence and experience I have had, I currently choose as the most reasonable thing to believe.
Aleta in 214
“To people like Innerbling, Bornagain, and Stephen, the denial of absolute truths undercuts the notion of truth entirely because absolute truths are the foundation upon which other truths stand. But that is not the case for me: I have a different foundation for truth. To them, anything not resting on their idea of absolute truth can have no “real” validity.”
Like I explained to Allen I am fully aware that I am a finite being and as such I lack omniscience which would be required to know the absolute truth about something. As a finite being I believe I can only make contingent approximations of the truth values. Statement “All bachelors are single” is true as long as reality is rational if it’s not there might be a married bachelor somewhere.
As a finite being I have to have faith that I am living in a rational universe because no one can prove that universe is rational and that there exists absolute truth values which I can approximate with my finite understanding. As far as I can see the only rational worldview is a Christian one and as a consequence I am a Christian.
But I think there are other rational worldviews. We have chosen different paths.
By the way, “all bachelors are single” is true be definition. It is a statement about the agreed upon meanings of words, not the real world.
Aleta, I definitely dont agree with your logic, yet I respect your “choice” of a different path, but before you go on to something else I want to share with you something personal that severely rocked the way I looked at this world;
One Easter Sunday Sunrise Service
Here is a true story of a miracle that happened in my life in 1989.
I was living in Lancaster, California in the high desert of southern California. I was invited to go to a sunrise service, with a church called the Vineyard, for Easter. The Saturday night before the service I was going to bed around 10:00 p.m.; I had no alarm clock to get me up at 4:30 a.m., so I prayed a simple prayer, “Lord, if you want me to go to the sunrise service, could you please wake me at 4:30 am”. I went to sleep, and at exactly 4:30 a.m. my roommate tripped on a rug on his way back from the restroom and fell right on top of me in my bed. I woke up, got up, and dressed . I went down to the doughnut shop where the church was meeting, so we could drive down to the place together to our Easter sunrise service.
On the drive the sky was a clear star filled night turning to dawn. When we got to the place, of the service, the sky was still clear. Let me take a moment to tell you what the place looked like. The spot of our service was on a twenty-five yard-wide ledge which was part of a huge quarter mile deep bowl in the earth. Next to the bowl were some quarter mile high foothills. The bowl was full of giant boulders, here and there, the evidence of violent tectonic activity was everywhere, brush and trees held on wherever they could get a foothold in the earth.
As we were bringing down our musical gear from the parking lot to the ledge, clouds started to come around the foothills, building up, threatening our view of the sunrise. But, undeterred, we set up anyway. When we finally were set up, we started to sing our worship music to God. Then,…IT STARTED TO SNOW…in southern California in April…but the amazing thing about this (dry) snow is the WAY it was falling. The snow was moving in rhythm with our music!!! When we would slow down, the snow would slow down; when we sang faster, the snow fell faster; and due to the updraft from the bowl, when we would hold a note the snow would catch an updraft for that moment and hold still in front of us. This was, how shall I put it .. VERY STRANGE!! SYNCHRONICITY INDEED…Then, as we stopped singing, the snow stopped. Then, while the pastor was giving the message about Jesus triumph over death, the snow was stopped but the sky was still cloudy, When our pastor asked if anyone would like to accept Jesus as their savior, right at the very second, when people started to put their hands up to accept Jesus into their hearts, the sun broke through the clouds and started shining down on us. What a truly heartfelt moment that was. It was amazingly beautiful. The sun was shining through the trailing mist of the clouds, literally looking like a million diamonds sparkling in the sky. After the message, we sang again; As God would have it, the clouds came back again for yet one more snow dance with the music. When we finished, the snow finished. As we broke up our musical gear, the clouds broke up. And, as we drove away, the sky was perfectly clear again, just as it had been when we had arrived. Needless to say, we were all pinching ourselves to make sure we were awake and had really seen what we had seen. I’m very fond of the memory of that morning, because, best of all, my best friend, who went with me, was convinced of Gods reality, by God’s own power and not by any of the arguments I was trying to persuade him with. When you really think about it, a miracle is truly the only way to convince someone that has reservations, that all this talk going around about heaven and Jesus is, in fact, very real, indeed.
In comment #207 innerbling wrote:
This statement strikes me as both untrue and, if rigorously put into practice, bizarre to the point of absurdity. Untrue, because it is certainly not the case that all deductive syllogisms are constructed in such as way as for their conclusions to be true a priori. On the contrary, the method of constructing syllogisms and the logic upon which it based says absolutely nothing about the truth value of the content of the major premises used in such construction.
For example, there is nothing to stop me from constructing the following syllogism:
Major Premise: Evolutionary biologists are atheists.
Minor Premise: Allen MacNeill is an evolutionary biologist.
Conclusion: Allen MacNeill is an atheist.
By the rules of deductive logic, this conclusion is absolutely “true”, in that it follows logically from the major and minor premises. But, as I have stated unequivocally on many past occasions, this conclusion is absolutely false. Why? Because I am not an atheist. Now, one may respond to this assertion using any number of logically fallacious arguments. The “no true Scotsman” fallacy comes immediately to mind:
Major Premise: All true evolutionary biologists are atheists.
Minor Premise: Allen MacNeill is not an atheist.
Conclusion: Allen MacNeill is not a true evolutionary biologist.
Indeed, I have had quite a few creationists and ID supporters (and even a few evolutionary biologists) assert exactly this argument, which is not only logically fallacious but personally insulting.
Deductive statements are constructed all the time in which the “truth” of the major premises are asserted, rather than valid a priori. Indeed, several participants in this thread have constructed several of these already.
Furthermore, if the only valid syllogisms are those in which the major premises are true, then how is the truth value of such premises determined? Certainly not by the process of deductive reasoning, as it is clearly the case that a deductive syllogism can come to an “invalid” conclusion while abiding strictly by the rules of logical deduction.
Indeed, it seems to me that innerbling’s assertion that all deductive logical statements are already true a priori, as only “true” major premises may be used in constructing renders all such deductive statements both pointless and useless for the determination of actual truth, as opposed to logically deduced “truth”.
Which brings me once again to induction, abduction, and consilience as alternative means of finding validity in statements about the patterns we observe in the universe around us. Although extraordinarily powerful as means to formulating applicable (and testable) generalizations about observed objects and processes, these three forms of reasoning cannot produce the kind of absolute, incontrovertible “truth” that is produced by the application of deductive reasoning. However, as I hope is clear by now, I put virtually no store in purely deductive reasoning; indeed, I believe that the exclusive use of deductive reasoning can lead to serious error, and even monstrous evil (consider, for example, the ethical implications of the assertion of the major premise, “Aryans are the master race”).
To sum up, deductive reasoning (and deductive reasoning alone) is the only logical method for arriving at conclusions that are incontrovertibly “absolutely true”. As such, and when applied without the other three forms of logic (i.e. induction, abduction, and consilience), deduction alone can lead to both incontrovertible error and great evil.
Aleta, It is obvious that you do not grasp the essence of our discussion.
[A] I pointed out that materialists like yourself practice SELECTIVE CAUSALITY, picking and choosing which times you accept the law of cause and effect.
[B]You respond by saying that it isn’t true.
[C] So, when I follow up and ask you whether you accept causality, you respond by saying that you sometimes do, but not always.
If you cannot see the irony and the humor and in your position, you are lagging way behind in this dialogue.
—Aleta: “By the way, “all bachelors are single” is true be definition. It is a statement about the agreed upon meanings of words, not the real world.”
Yes, but the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and the law of causality DO apply to the real world. We already know that you reject the law of causality. Where to you stand on those other two laws from which the law of causality is derived.
Stephen, can you explain why – by what criteria and in respect to what evidence, you believe that tornadoes are “present in” the beginning state of the universe, but life is not? You assert this, but you offer nothing to back up your assertion. Can you elaborate?
Allen in 219
“This statement strikes me as both untrue and, if rigorously put into practice, bizarre to the point of absurdity. Untrue, because it is certainly not the case that all deductive syllogisms are constructed in such as way as for their conclusions to be true a priori. On the contrary, the method of constructing syllogisms and the logic upon which it based says absolutely nothing about the truth value of the content of the major premises used in such construction.”
First of all I am sorry I made a mistake when I said: Successful syllogism is constructed in a such a way that if anyone rejects the premises as a conclusion she also has to reject rationality.
Should have been: Successful syllogism is constructed in a such a way that if anyone rejects the major premises as a conclusion she also has to reject rationality. The major premises purpose is to connect the syllogism with reality.
Of course saying that: “anyone who rejects premises of all coherent logical syllogism’s is irrational” would be quite absurd thing to say as the whole syllogism may be false like the Allen’s example “all evolutionary biologist are atheists…”. However to reject the major premise of some successful logical arguments like: “all bachelors are single, whatever begins to exist has a cause, all men are mortal…” would be quite irrational. This doesn’t however mean that rejecting the other following premises is necessarily irrational. I hope that clarifies my position as I think we are in agreement in this regard.
Allen further continues:
“Which brings me once again to induction, abduction, and consilience as alternative means of finding validity in statements about the patterns we observe in the universe around us.”
I absolutely agree however induction, abduction, and consilience only work only after one has accepted the prescriptive truth that the world is rational. There is no way to prove to a person that the world is rational through induction, abduction or consilience he just has to choose to believe that it is. How would you convince a true skeptic who believes that every sense perception is uncaused?
Induced sense perceptions create a pattern = just statistical anomalies and fallacious way to
gain knowledge
Deductions = has no relevance to reality
Consilience = I don’t believe that other people exists…
Abduction = just fallacious to begin with…
etc.
It is clear that no one can but she has to freely choose to believe that the world is rational and
after that use induction etc to gain additive evidence for her belief.
As a conclusion I certainly do not say that the only way to gain knowledge is through deductive logic. I say that the only way to gain knowledge is through faith in induction, deduction, rationality and ultimately into God. We as finite beings are never in a position where we wouldn’t need faith.
I know that threads die, and that some of the same worldview issues have moved to the “morality” thread, but I’ll note that Stephen has not discussed how he knows what was “present” in past causes, and this can emerge, and what wasn’t, and thus can’t. His whole argument against emergence lies on circular assertions.
Re #224: It remains true that assertions are much easier stated than supported with fact. So, when challenged, it’s often best to simply abandon the assertion or ignore the challenger, rather than to support the assertion with fact.
There are prime examples of this tactic on many recent threads.
BA77
I always thought something more miraculous happened to you 1977.