Disappointed with Shermer

_{Mark

April 6, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From EXPELLED Dr Caroline Crocker.

“Recently I attended a lecture by Michael Shermer at the UCSD Biological Science Symposium (4/2/09). His title was, “Why Darwin Matters,” but his topic was mostly religion. He started by defining science as “looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena” and said that his purpose was to “debunk the junk and expose sloppy thinking.”

We were all subjected to an evening of slapstick comedy, cheap laughs, and the demolition of straw men.

His characterization of ID was that the theory says, 1) If something looks designed, 2) We can’t think how it was designed naturally, 3) Therefore we assert that it was designed supernaturally. (God of the gaps.) Okay everyone, laugh away at the stupid ID theorists.

I was astonished at how a convinced Darwinist, who complains about mixing science and religion, spent most of his time at the Biological Science Symposium talking about religion.”

Get the full text here.

Comments

I am much too late to this thread, but I'll keep it short. Our problem is causation vs. non-causation. The problem, and a fact, is that the universe still is full of things we do not and most likely never will understand. We have more questions than answers and wrt the origins of the universe, your guess is no better than mine, or vice versa. We may prefer to believe that determinism is absolute in the macroscopic world but that does not necessarily extend to all aspects of nature, and we are certainly not in a position to say anything definite about what came 'before' the universe. I suggest that for the time being, we declare the matter unresolved and beyond our capability to say anything meaningful about.Cabal_{April 19, 2009
April
04
Apr
19
19
2009
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

As a parting shot, I'd like to thank those who argued for positions compatible with mine: David Kellogg, Diffaxial, Nakashima, R0b, Mark Frank, Seversky and others that I might have forgotten. I learned a lot by reading what you all had to say, and from how you said it. I also add my thanks to those whose positions I argued against, especially vjtorley. Vj was not only articulate and civil, but he (and this is rare) genuinely attempted to understand the other side's position (ours), and to reflect that back in writing. This is an excellent thing to do when one is committed to constructive dialogue. And I appreciate Stephen's comments about tone, and about how the conversation improved when the tone became less challenging and hence less divisive. I am left with a number of new and interesting issues to think about - dangling threads left over unresolved even in my own mind - but I am going to resist the temptation to tell you what they are and start any new conversation here. Maybe I'll find another thread sometime to take up some of these unfinished issues.hazel_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Vjtorley:
I think you (#470) made the best attempt to counter theistic arguments when you postulated a cyclic, deterministic law with no beginning: “Then nothing. Then something. Then nothing. Then something. (Repeat without end).” This law would allow universes to appear and disappear. In a sense, though, the Impersonal Cause is never apart from its effect: from its “standpoint”, there would be no time, because the future would be implicit in the past, hence all of the effects (cyclic universes) would be simultaneously present.
VJ, you completely miss the point of my oscillating law - which I invented in the span of three minutes while waiting for water to boil for my tea. I was not suggesting it as a serious alternative. As I stated to Clive, "What it illustrates is the emptiness of Stephen’s assertions about what is 'necessary' of impersonal versus personal timeless causes, etc. His assertions have no more basis in either logic or necessity than does my oscillating law. Nor can he, or you, describe an observation that will enable us to decide between oscillating law, unchanging impersonal law, or the actions of an agent. Declaimations that he, or you, have proven that personal agency is responsible are just that - declaimations." In my opinion that statement remains unrebutted.
I wasn’t so persuaded by your example of radioactive decay; I do think there’s something suspicious about the notion of pure randomness. Of course, humans can generate pseudo-random sequences, but they’re deterministic, of course.
I'm a bit surprised to be reading this, Vjtorley, as I took you for better informed. The randomness and indeterminacy observed at the quantum level (and that describes phenomena such as particle decay) don't go away with closer inspection, don't reflect a deterministic process which remains to be discovered, and don't reflect some sort of unseen order. There is irreducible randomness at the quantum heart of matter/energy, an instance of which is evident in the timing of particle decay.
In either scenario, however, your cosmos is still vulnerable to my sunrise argument (#608). If your cosmic program is deterministic, it might still end tomorrow; and if it is random, that’s a possibility too. However, judging from what you have written, living in a cosmos where things might break down tomorrow doesn’t seem to bother you that much, so you are at least consistent there.
Again - and I am truly surprised to be reading this - you have missed what was central in that passage. Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I intended to emphasize is that your sunrise argument fails because you are asserting that, absent a basis for unassailable certainty, we should experience anxiety about the sun rising (and similar constancies), yet all the while, by your own description, the maximum confidence offered by the cosmological argument for of the persistence of the world is "beyond reasonable doubt," NOT logical or unassailable certainty. My expectation that the sun will rise in the morning certainly attains the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt," given the trillion and more sunrises that have gone before, without exception. Your argument - even for those who accept it - offers no greater certainty than that. Hence even those who accept your argument, and "believe" on that basis, are just trading one form of reassurance for another, both of which attain only "beyond reasonable doubt." Your anxieties should therefore be equal to those of your favorite imaginary atheists who career toward insanity as we speak.
don’t share your view that science is a primarily practical matter; on the contrary, it seems riddled with theoretical considerations, where (absent a Deity) I’d expect human reason to go off the rails.
The pragmatic dimension of theory in science is the insistence that theoretical utterances eventually be subject to empirical test, which is ultimately composed of (sometimes highly sophisticated) observational procedures. Witness the large hadron collider as an example of theory driving practical actions. When reasoning goes off the tracks in science theory generates predictions that fail tests of confirmation, prompting corrections to or rejections of the faulty theoretical reasoning. If you wish to really watch the wheels come off of human reasoning, and come off irretrievably, review the theological assertions made in this thread. There is no corrective grounded in practical observation to be found here - and that is all I really asked for from start to finish. From my first post on this topic:
Presumably, it would be possible to utter these ostensibly decisive statements in a universe that is actually devoid of God. In that instance, although the logic of the argument is unchanged, it would be apparent from some remove to be mistaken, nevertheless. The question then becomes, by what means is it decidable in which sort of universe we are uttering these “decisive” arguments?
Of course, "by what means" pulls for an observation or observations that in some verifiable way ties the premises and propositions of this argument to the world. Tautologies and "self-evidence" patently fail to do so. This question remains unanswered. With that, I join the others in the bar. Is the band any good?Diffaxial_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial I think you (#470) made the best attempt to counter theistic arguments when you postulated a cyclic, deterministic law with no beginning: “Then nothing. Then something. Then nothing. Then something. (Repeat without end).” This law would allow universes to appear and disappear. In a sense, though, the Impersonal Cause is never apart from its effect: from its "standpoint", there would be no time, because the future would be implicit in the past, hence all of the effects (cyclic universes) would be simultaneously present. I wasn't so persuaded by your example of radioactive decay; I do think there's something suspicious about the notion of pure randomness. Of course, humans can generate pseudo-random sequences, but they're deterministic, of course. In either scenario, however, your cosmos is still vulnerable to my sunrise argument (#608). If your cosmic program is deterministic, it might still end tomorrow; and if it is random, that's a possibility too. However, judging from what you have written, living in a cosmos where things might break down tomorrow doesn't seem to bother you that much, so you are at least consistent there. I don't share your view that science is a primarily practical matter; on the contrary, it seems riddled with theoretical considerations, where (absent a Deity) I'd expect human reason to go off the rails. If you would like to see what I mean, go check out http://www.climatedebatedaily.com . On a deeper level, though, I hope I have prompted readers to question the whole concept of an impersonal necessity. For what makes the laws of nature necessary, anyway, and what do we mean when we say they are? One might attempt to circumvent this difficulty by locating the laws in some realm outside time. But that's a very Platonic solution, and it doesn't explain why our spatio-temporal universe is governed by timeless mathematical principles. That brings us back to the personalistic view that the universe was literally loved into existence by a Creator who cannot break His promise to uphold it - which is why its laws are so reliable. On the personalistic view, the laws of nature are not necessary, because God could have willed them otherwise; but they are reliable, because God keeps His word. Mark Frank Of all the contributors to this thread, I think you have the right to feel the most aggrieved, for your questions were never fully answered. You pointed out that "‘Necessary’ and ‘contingent’ are words that only make sense relative to some kind of constraint which may be stated explicitly or implied," which is why you were not persuaded even by Koons' example of the number of molecules in a pencil being contingent. However, you then allowed that the number is certainly contingent, relative to the laws of nature. I would then add that the laws are contingent relative to the will of God, who could have chosen them to be otherwise. For theists, God is a Necessary Being. I realize that you don’t believe in any absolute metaphysical kind of necessity, and insist that necessity has to be relative. I would say that God is necessary relative to Himself, as a Trinity of inseparable persons who know and love each other. In other words, the "constraints" on God are internal. I do realize, however, that you will not be satisfied by this solution, as you are looking for a constraint "which may be stated explicitly or implied." As I am not capable of understanding the inner life of God, I'm afraid I cannot help you further. All I will say is that God is the sort of Being that can guarantee the reliability and intelligibility of the cosmos; laws cannot, as I attempted to argue above in #608. Furthermore, the laws of nature don't "hang together" perfectly; even physicists find them unsatisfying, on their own. Well, it's been a long thread. I would like to say thank you to everyone I have been in dialogue with on this thread - and good luck to StephenB.vjtorley_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Hazel I've just been reading and re-reading your fascinating thread (#688) in defence of Taoism. I think I now have a much better understanding of where you're coming from. What you're saying, if I read you right, is that Ultimate Reality (the Tao) is inherently beautiful, but not personal. The beauty we see in the world results from a dynamic balance of "opposites" (complementary duals). The change we observe in nature arises from a beauty-generating process of dynamic transformation (Active/Receptive) which is self-perpetuating ("restless multiplicity") but at the same time self-constraining (the new has to feed upon the old). Events in space-time are not linked in a linear fashion, but in a way that creates further beauty. Thus it is perfectly legitimate to speak of the world as "a vast inter-connected lattice of events" or "a Web without a weaver" (italics mine - VJT). There are mysterious "connections between non-contiguous points of time and space such that at times changes are coordinated in ways that are beyond normal causality." This synchronicity generates beauty, by integrating the very fabric of time and space. All the patterns we see in nature arise from these creative principles of beauty: "the ever-present Tao has a larger layer of synchronous creative causality which brings about the bigger patterns we see unfold around us." Our universe was a spontaneous creation of the Tao. In other words, the universe is the product of dynamic principles which inherently give rise to beauty. Thus, on the Taoist account, our universe is not the product of: (a) decisions by a willful personal agent (God); (b) man-made, time-invariant, linear mathematical formulations which ignore the underlying harmony of the cosmos and which make the mistake of trying to put reality in a box (scientific laws); or (c) purely random occurrences (chance). The spontaneous creativity described by Taoism is not blind, for it has a built-in tendency to create beauty; yet it is not personal either. Persons are not the fundamental reality; rather, they arise from the nameless beauty of the Tao. Although the Tao is not personal, persons can strive to bring their lives into conformity with the Tao, for the principles of the Tao apply to all parts of the cosmos, at all times. Doing the right thing means acting in "a way that both contributes to and is receptive of the larger synchronous forces around us" in any given situation. In other words, morality is fundamentally aesthetic: the right thing is the beautiful thing. Beauty defines goodness. Living well means learning "to act so as to maximize health and harmony in the world around us." A sage who has spent a lifetime living in harmony with the cosmos and contemplating its beauty will be able to intuit the right thing to do in a given situation. If I understand you correctly, Hazel, Taoism says that we live an an impersonal but inherently beauty-generating "aestheti-verse", which spontaneously generated us and the cosmos we live in. We would do well to bring our everyday lives into conformity with its underlying aesthetic principles; for if we do not, we will suffer the consequences. Well, congratulations on formulating a genuine alternative point of view, Hazel. There's just one fly in the ointment for your elegant world-view: people themselves. My question is this: do human choices arise from (or if you prefer, supervene upon) the underlying beauty-generating patterns in the cosmos, or can we make choices that go against these patterns? Now, the latter alternative entails libertarian freedom, but it runs counter to the whole tenor of the Taoist world-view which you have kindly explained to us, Hazel. Accepting the view that human choices are not the offshoots of underlying patterns, and can even oppose these patterns, would imply that beauty (which generates the patterns in our cosmos) and agency are equally basic, at an ontological level. However, the key principle of the Taoist worldview you put forward seems to be that beauty is the Ultimate Reality, and everything else, agency included, is derivative. For the nameless Tao is inherently beautiful, but it is in no way personal. That brings us back to the former alternative: our choices arise from the patterns we see in the cosmos. But if our choices arise from underlying dynamic patterns that inherently generate beauty, then in what meaningful sense can they ever be called wrong? In which case, why bother fighting evil? It's just another manifestation of beauty, even if it looks ugly to some people. You might answer that evil is beautiful, but only on a local scale; from a "big picture" perspective, however, evil is unsightly. The sage, who is able to see the big picture, will recognize evil for what it is, and strive to transform it into good - even if that means killing tyrants, which some Taoist philosophers advocated, I understand. However, the sage will ONLY be able to recognize beauty, discern truth and goodness, and act properly, IF the underlying cosmic patterns which generate beauty ALSO have an inherent tendency to make people able to recognize beauty, discern truth (by having the right insights) intuit goodness (know the right thing to do in a given situation), and act accordingly (do the right thing), when everything in a person's life is attuned to the underlying rhythms of the cosmos. Insofar as your cosmos exhibits these fortunate tendencies, Hazel, it seems to have some remarkably "God-like" properties - despite the fact that it is ultimately impersonal. But my biggest problem with your world-view, Hazel, is that it appears to subordinate both Truth and Love to Beauty. I hold that Truth and Love are properly basic categories in the world. Love isn't good because it's beautiful; love is good in its own right. And truth isn't true because it's beautiful; it simply is true, period. The other big issue I have with Taoism is that it seems to imply that people do not act freely. On your account, all our actions arise from underlying impersonal patterns in the cosmos; thus our thoughts and choices are mere epiphenomena, generated by the hidden machinations of the Web without a weaver. If this is correct, people would be free only in the Hobbesian sense of being able to do what they want to do; but their wants would ultimately be determined by circumstances beyond their control. Some freedom. Some morality! Now, let's return to the sunrise story I told in #608 (by the way, I'm sorry if I imputed sentiments to you that do not reflect your true views, Hazel). What justification does a Taoist have for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow? I'd say none. For as I understand it, in the Taoist scheme of things, universes arise, continue for a while and fall apart, only to be replaced by another beautiful cosmic pattern - the Web re-weaving itself. In which case I ask: what's to stop the Web doing that tomorrow? All the beautiful connections we see in our world today might be replaced by another beautiful set of connections tomorrow. New laws, new sun - or no sun! Would we have any warning of this sudden change of events? I very much doubt it. In fact, synchronicity means that "bolts from the blue" could strike from any point in space-time - which makes the universe a very unpredictable place from a human perspective. From the way you describe it, it sounds like the Tao is free in its unfolding, even though it never makes any conscious choices. You describe its generation of our universe as a spontaneous act. I take it that means the Tao is unpredictable - at least, for us. But the Tao is also inherently beautiful, which invites the question: to what degree do its underlying beauty-generating principles constrain its future unfolding? Do these principles fully determine future states of affairs or not? (This certainly has relevance for StephenB's argument.) You have made a bold attempt to go beyond the trilemma of agency, necessity and chance, Hazel. Hats off to you for that. But it doesn't solve my sunrise problem (#608), which means that if you are right, we have no guarantee that the world will remain intelligible in the future, or that we will continue to be able to understand it. Your world-view also appears to diminish human freedom by relegating human thoughts and choices to the status of epiphenomena, riding on top of the underlying patterns of nature. We can do as we wish, but our wishes have already been determined for us. Or do you accept some form of top-down causation? Be careful: if you do, you'll be making thought and agency ontologically basic, and you might not want to do that. Lastly, you seem to subordinate truth and love to Beauty, by making them arise out of the underlying patterns of an inherently beautiful Ultimate Reality. I hope I haven't misrepresented your views. But that's my take on them, anyway.vjtorley_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

A gracious conclusion StephenB. I agree that it's time to retire the thread, if only because it takes so long to reload! Also, it's clear that we'll never agree, and we've all got our reasons. I've learned some things along the way (Sehnsucht -- thanks Clive, and by the way, you're improving as a moderator), and I think there's been some good discussion by many. Thanks to vjtorley for introducing me to some of the philosophical literature. I'm still reading through it, and I still find the cosmological argument unconvincing, but it's not a terrible way to engage oneself. I'll have something to say about it next time it comes up (as it likely will sooner or later). This thread is kind of remarkable in that it's been brought back from the brink toward civil discourse. At a certain point I kept coming back even though it wasn't good for me. Fortunately the tone shifted (thank you StephenB) and we were able to move on. Drinks all round!David Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Ladies/Gentlement: To sum things up, I think I demonstrated @ 716 that a personal agent caused the universe to begin to exist. In any situation such as this, questions and objections are inevitable, so I stayed long enough to answer those which seemed most relevant. This has been a long, hard marathon of a thread, and its length testifies to its importance. Sooner or later, all good things must come to an end, and so I will now retire from this thread. In the beginning, I had some harsh things to say about hyperskepticism, especially the form which questions the existence of truth and our capacity to know it. At times, I allowed my disdain for these world views (one world view, really) to shape my responses to the individuals who hold those views. I regret allowing that to happen. I am attacking the philosophy of hyperskepticism, not the people who happen to be living at a time when it is running rampant. My philosophy has always been this: People are precious and they deserve to be treated with respect and mercy. Bad ideas deserve no mercy at all, and I show them no mercy. I fear that I may have blurred that distinction from time to time. It is in that spirit, that I apologize to all concerned, especially David Kellogg, for allowing sarcasm to creep into my correspondence. At the same time, I thank everyone for providing valuable and relevant critiques of my earlier attempts to formulate a demonstration, making it clear that I not provided sufficient clarity with respect to terms, premises, arguments, and conclusions. If I had been more congenial at the early stages, I don’t think we would have experienced many of our misunderstandings. It was perhaps my use of the word “irrational” with respect to certain world views that seem to cause the greatest stir. At times, we are all irrational, so I probably ought not to exempt myself from that charge. Indeed, in terms of their orientation to God, there are two kinds of irrational people; the gullible, who will believe anything, and the hyperskeptics who will believe nothing. Somehow, our culture seems to go from one extreme to the other. This much I can tell you. My motive for using that “I” word was not to offend but to break through the fog of unfounded doubt, a condition visited on us by Kant and his notion that we can’t apprehend reality in its substantive form, that we must simply conceptualize our perception of it. It was as a result of this sad doctrine that Western Civilization descended into its morbid anti-intellectualism which, to this day, contaminates theology, philosophy, science, morality, politics, and social discourse. We are now only beginning to pay the price. Because of the phenomenon of “lag time,” we don’t always witness the consequences of bad thinking until decades later, even centuries later. All of our institutions are steeped in this anti-intellectualism, so whenever I can, I speak out against it. In any case, I hope to see you all on other threads. Without some compelling reason, I likely will not return here.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Therefore nothing outside of the tautological statement and its immediate logical consequences follow from that system of statements.
"Follows." This blog desperately needs an edit facility.Diffaxial_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

StephenB [730], let me deal with your answers to my other scenarios. 1. The universe is uncaused. You say "That is thinkable only if we abandon the principle of causality." But the principle of causality has already been abandoned. Causes must precede effects in time, and time is a property of the universe. I mentioned Augustine's contribution to the theory of time. oletg has pointed out to me elsewhere (thanks olegt!) an essay by Paul Davies that makes the connection between Augustine's thought and an uncaused universed. Davies writes:
The world, [Augustine] claimed, was made "not in time, but simultaneously with time." In other words, the origin of the universe-what we now call the big bang-was not simply the sudden appearance of matter in an eternally preexisting void, but the coming into being of time itself. Time began with the cosmic origin. There was no "before," no endless ocean of time for a god, or a physical process, to wear itself out in infinite preparation. Remarkably, modern science has arrived at more or less the same conclusion as Augustine, based on what we now know about the nature of space, time, and gravitation. It was Albert Einstein who taught us that time and space are not merely an immutable arena in which the great cosmic drama is acted out, but are part of the cast-part of the physical universe. As physical entities, time and space can change- suffer distortions-as a result of gravitational processes. Gravitational theory predicts that under the extreme conditions that prevailed in the early universe, space and time may have been so distorted that there existed a boundary, or "singularity," at which the distortion of space-time was infinite, and therefore through which space and time cannot have continued. Thus, physics predicts that time was indeed bounded in the past as Augustine claimed. It did not stretch back for all eternity. If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless.
2. Maybe the cause is contingent. You reply that a contingent cause "begs the question of the first cause." Well, no it doesn't -- certainly not in the philosophical sense of what it means to beg the question. Insisting on a "first cause," rather, begs the question by assuming the conclusion (that a first cause exists) in the premise. 3, 4, and 5 you respond to on the same grounds, but they are insufficient. Manichean ideas have been plausible for many, and many contingent beings have multiple contingent causes. There is no philosophical reason to assume a single cause. 6. It is highly plausible that the personal/impersonal distinction is an artifact not just of our universe, but of our little part of the universe. That's actually the alternative among the six that I embrace. I don't think you've refuted it by saying we need it to make the definitions work. You need it to make the argument work against only impersonal eternal causes, but that's not a form of the premise to which I have agreed. All the best, DavidDavid Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
I didn’t just assert the premise. I pointed out that it was a self-evident truth. Do you question this?
Yes. It is self-evident only in the sense that it is tautologically true. Statements that are tautologically true aren't true because they successfully refer to something outside of themselves; they are true because they are true by definition. Therefore nothing outside of the tautological statement and its immediate logical consequences follow from that system of statements. Your premises must stand because they attach to the world in some verifiable manner. Yours fail to do so.Diffaxial_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Well, to be fair, I agreed with you about a different premise, @655: "For all things that have always existed, none can begin in time." And I agreed to it because it was tautological (true by definition) not because it was self-evident.David Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

---David: "But I agree with you that the premises are by no means self-evident." We only have one premise, and you agreed, (to your credit) that it was true.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "What is important to note about tautological statements is that, once unraveled, they become bare assertions or definitions only. Nothing is established by simply asserting it." I didn't just assert the premise. I pointed out that it was a self-evident truth. Do you question this?StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "I do wish to note that I am not arguing the contrary to StephenBs assertions about God. I am arguning (and stated in my first post) that I don’t see that they are as decisive as he claims." Which step in the process do you suggest may not follow from the other? They either follow or they don't.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

----Hazel: "What we have going on here is supposed to be a “proof by contradiction”, but it is really just circular logic." That is why I insisted that everyone agree with the premise before we began. I knew that the sour grapes would come. Too late. The proof stands and calling it circular, which it is not, changes nothing. The premise is SELF EVIDENT. You can't do circular reasoning with a self evident truth.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

David:
Diffaxial, I don’t mind the tautologies because I think that all deductive reasoning is in some sense tautological. But I agree with you that the premises are by no means self-evident.
What is important to note about tautological statements is that, once unraveled, they become bare assertions or definitions only. Nothing is established by simply asserting it.Diffaxial_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

----David: Possible Objections: ---" The universe is uncaused" That is thinkable only if we abandon the principle of causality, in which case our discourse would mean nothing. Anyway, in spite of your splendid role as Devil's advocate, (and outstanding source for feedback) I am sure that you don't mean that objection seriously. ----"2. The cause of the universe is continent (a previous universe for example)– contingency all the way down" That begs the question of the first cause, which, as we all know, must be causeless, i.e. self existent, didn't begin in time. etc. (We do know that, don't we?) ----"3. The universe is caused by a set of contingencies — the cause is multifactorial." Not really plausible. Consult #4. ----"4. The universe is caused by more than one agent." Not a good possibility. Agent [A] and agent [B] cannot both be the first cause. Agent [A] either caused [B] or was caused by [B]. 5. The universe is caused by a combination of personal and impersonal factors Consult #4. 6. “personal” is merely an artifact of the universe in which we exist. It is a definition of a choice making agent as opposed to an impersonal cause. We need definitions to make our propositions work. ----"I’m just spitballing here. I imagine there could be more options." I appreciate them all and I appreciated your valuable comments during the whole process, which helped me make the presentation better.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

I think what we see in this thread is a good example of what the Older Sophists called dissoi logoi or contradictory arguments. The notion is that arguments are available on both sides of a case, and that these arguments may work for different people. Protagoras, the most famous of the Older Sophists, developed the method of questioning later adopted by Socrates and was said to be capable fo generating contradictory propositions on any subject.
Which is absolutely consistent with my ground level conclusion: these matters - neither the existence nor the non-existence of God - are not amenable to decisive logical arguments to which all reasonable people must assent. I do wish to note that I am not arguing the contrary to StephenBs assertions about God. I am arguning (and stated in my first post) that I don't see that they are as decisive as he claims.Diffaxial_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, I don't mind the tautologies because I think that all deductive reasoning is in some sense tautological. But I agree with you that the premises are by no means self-evident.David Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Another possibility (to my list at 721) is 7. The cause/s is/are impersonal but changing.David Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, one of the reasons that I insisted that everyone agree about the self-evident nature of the premise, and it is self evident, is that I knew someone would try to do what you are now doing, namely accuse me of smuggling the conclusion in the hypothesis. The premise is SELF EVIDENT; nothing is being smuggled in. Is there something about the premise that you think is NOT self evident.
Two points: I never assented to that. I have maintained, and still maintain, that your premises are not self-evident; rather, they are merely tautologically true, or true by definition (which amounts to the same thing). I do understand your desire to pass over the moment at which your argument is stillborn, and instead animate its corpse to produce the conclusions you desire. Last I looked you haven't been able to bring yourself to utter the word "tautological" in this discussion. Why don't you address yourself to those objections? I say they are fatal to your argument, because you (now more than ever) smuggle your conclusions into your argument by means of tautologies and definitions under cover of "self-evidence."Diffaxial_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

I think what we see in this thread is a good example of what the Older Sophists called dissoi logoi or contradictory arguments. The notion is that arguments are available on both sides of a case, and that these arguments may work for different people. Protagoras, the most famous of the Older Sophists, developed the method of questioning later adopted by Socrates and was said to be capable fo generating contradictory propositions on any subject. I think the thread also demonstrates the truth of what I said in 667 (which I was a little disappointed that nobody took up), that "there is real positive value in doubting immutable truths."David Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

What we have going on here is supposed to be a "proof by contradiction", but it is really just circular logic. 1. Personal is defined as “Anyone or anything that can choose to act or not act.” Choosing to act is not defined, but presumably means being to initiate an effect without a necessary prior cause. 2. Impersonal is defined as being unable to do that. 3. A set of logical steps is invoked to show that an impersonal cause cannot initiate an effect without necessary prior causes, which is a fact actually contained in the definition of impersonal. 4. So we conclude that a personal cause must have been involved, since by definition not-impersonal is personal. It’s all “by definition” and it’s all circular.hazel_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, one of the reasons that I insisted that everyone agree about the self-evident nature of the premise, and it is self evident, is that I knew someone would try to do what you are now doing, namely accuse me of smuggling the conclusion in the hypothesis. The premise is SELF EVIDENT; nothing is being smuggled in. Is there something about the premise that you think is NOT self evident. ----You write, "So, again, what justifies inserting “unchanging” into your premises, other than your wish to arrive safely at your logical destination?" You can't smuggle anything into that which is self-evident and undeniable. Would you like for me to show you why the premise is unassailable. The reason we arrived a that destiniation is because that is where reason takes us. I inserted the word "unchanging" so that someone would not come along and say, well the cause changed its texture over time so it no longer acts that way. The whole point of anti-theism is to show that some other unchanging element besides God can create. So, to prove them wrong, one must give them their unchangeable cause in the premise.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "We have many examples of similar impersonal phenomena in the natural world. Sotto Voce described an impersonal natural phenomenon (spontaneous particle decay) that unequivocally conforms to probabilistic quantum physical lawfulness, yet occurs at particular moments in time subsequent to the origination of that quantum lawfulness. Your gloss on this (”if Sotto Voce’s description of what goes on is correct, then it just means that the law to which he refers began in time”) is incorrect." No, it isn't. No one doubts that impersonal phenomena is followed in time by effect. Indeed, that is the way it usually happens. It cannot happen that way, though, if the law in question is eternal. IF an impersonal cause is eternal, its effects are also eternal. Would you like me to demonstrate why that is so? Sotto Voce described exactly what you said he described, but he did not show that was eternal.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Sure, there are several. Just off the top of my head: 1. The universe is uncaused 2. The cause of the universe is continent (a previous universe for example)-- contingency all the way down 3. The universe is caused by a set of contingencies -- the cause is multifactorial. 4. The universe is caused by more than one personal agent. 5. The universe is caused by a combination of personal and impersonal factors 6. "personal" is merely an artifact of the universe in which we exist. I'm just spitballing here. I imagine there could be more options.David Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

----David: "One could use the same steps to exclude a personal first cause." Not really. We would have to use an absurd premise to make that happen. We began with a self-evident truth. There are only two possibilities: Either a changeless, impersonal cause or a personal agent is responsible for the universe. If you rule out one, only the other is left. Are you saying that there is a third alternative?StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

It may be worth noting that "unchanging" is among the attributes commonly attributed to a personal First Cause.David Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Diffaxial, I think that the word “unchanging” in the premise deals with your objection. Also, Sotto Voce’s objection doesn’t hold. If an unchanging law has always been, its effect has always been. If an effect begins to exist, then that means that the law also began to exist. So, if Sotto Voce’s description of what goes on is correct, then it just means that the law to which he refers began in time
Then the question I am asking is: "What justifies inserting "unchanging" into your premises (e.g. into your definition of impersonal)?" particularly given that the subsequent conclusion you are interested in attaining turns crucially on this distinction? I can't recall a more obvious instance of smuggling one's conclusions into one's premises. Moreover, I have postulated a lawful impersonal cause that had no beginning in time, yet changes states, thereby issuing changing effects. Why is that not permissible? I hope it is plain that "It is impermissible because we have defined impersonal causes as unchanging, and unchanging in their effects" is a grossly unsatisfactory response. We have many examples of similar impersonal phenomena in the natural world. Sotto Voce described an impersonal natural phenomenon (spontaneous particle decay) that unequivocally conforms to probabilistic quantum physical lawfulness, yet occurs at particular moments in time subsequent to the origination of that quantum lawfulness. Your gloss on this ("if Sotto Voce’s description of what goes on is correct, then it just means that the law to which he refers began in time") is incorrect. Particles spontaneously decay every instant, yet the probabilistic quantum lawfulness that underlies these individual events has been of long standing, having obtained at least 13.7 billion years in the past, so far as we can tell. So, again, what justifies inserting "unchanging" into your premises, other than your wish to arrive safely at your logical destination?Diffaxial_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

I will assume for the purpose of discussion that the revised first premise is true (though I think it's problematic for a host of reasons already mentioned). I will also assume (though I don't think it's been demonstrated) that all the steps through 7 are valid. Step 8 still does not follow. The only thing that has happened will be that an impersonal first cause has been excluded. One could use the same steps to exclude a personal first cause. In which case there must be something wrong with the argument (or, alternatively, the universe is not caused either by a personal or impersonal first cause; or, freakier still, the universe cannot exist).David Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply