A Scoville Scale for Dangerous Questions

My first question: “What would happen if more and more college students began questioning Darwinism and challenging their professors and universities?” [Hotness = Jalepeno]

My second question: “What would happen if more and more universities, based upon a large number of students defecting from Darwinism, became ID friendly?” [Hotness = Serrano]

My third question: “What would happen if both parents and paying students began challenging the teaching of Darwinism, claiming it’s nothing more than forced indoctrination into materialism and therefore the education they’re paying for isn’t being provided to them? [Hotness = Serrano]

If materialism is true, is it possible to consider what Hitler and Stalin did as wrong?

–Pepper Spray

With this vast information pile on chile peppers, it’s very obvious that Dembski is from Texas.

What practical application does this class on Dawinian theory have? How is it that you are not wasting my time and money?
– pure capsaicin

How did the human species survive in the transitional period when it lost its natural (primate) defense mechanisms without having as of yet evolved the brainpower to invent weapons? – Jalapeno

My question is still:

If materialism is true, all beliefs are caused by chemistry and physics. How can you trust your own rationality if this is the case since you don’t believe in anything because it is true? And to any response you have, please answer the question: do you believe that because it is true or because the atoms are bouncing around in your head a certain way?

Hotness: Habenero. If you understand the dilemma, at the very least Nordihydrocapsacin.

If everything is caused by random chance and there is no absolute moral judge, why should we honor your contract?

How does one alternately argue that it is a fact that there is no design apparent in nature, and that a mechanism for identifying design in nature is not possible? [Thai pepper]

What test can falsify not just a proposition of evolution, but the entire theory.

- Pure capsaicin

Are materialists deluded? After all, they live in a world of merely “apparent” design, “apparent” objective moral values and “apparent” free will etc. And let’s think about just that last one for a moment, here is a group of people who, in all likelhood, get up every morning, decide what to eat, decide what to wear, decide what to do that day…and yet, they have decided that they have no decision making ability!! Their own experience isn’t enough to convince them — for these people, when will even seeing and experiencing be enough for them to believe?!

[Standard US grade pepper spray]

In a similar vein as my question above:

1) Is it wrong to suggest that homosexuals are genetically flawed human beings who have lost the ability to propogate naturally and who should be destroyed via natural selection?

-Red Savina Habanero

2) Is it wrong to allow homosexuals to reproduce artificially since doing so prevents natural selection?

– Habanero Chile

From Chap. 15 (6th Ed. OoS), Charlie D. asked the questions,

“Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?”

Jalapeño

“Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though this appearance is often false, to have come in suddenly on the successive geological stages?”

Cayenne

Darwin of course skirted those two seminal questions by declaring the fossil record as “more imperfect than most geologists believe.”, and added:

“Serious as these several objections are, in my judgment they are by no means sufficient to overthrow the theory of descent with subsequent modification.”

A survey of modern biologists regarding grading the above questions would undoubtedly be assessed as ‘bell pepper’, or perhaps ‘pepperoncini (one of my favs) in hotness. Obviously, the quest for transitional fossils goes on, and the mutahorts out there are firmly committed to abide by one of Darwin’s commandments: (pg. 660 of the 6th edition)

“Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for thus only can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed.”

Amen, brother!

I don’t understand this topic.

Would somebody define “materialism” in this context?

You all seem to be talking in code.

All this pepper talk is making me hungry for Indian food.

From whence came all the material?

Jalapeño

If God is real, what should your response be? As for rating… Someone else will have to be the judge of that.

What will happen to the materialist meme if birthrates among theists continue to outpace birthrates among atheists?

pequinn chili: Its not listed but its burn comes on slowly yet is very hot when it peaks.

H’mm:

Though I am an atypical Jamaican [I do not like pepper], let’s put up a good old Jamaican Scotch Bonnet — BTW, a big part of the reason why Jerk Seasoning is as hot and hard hitting as it is. [Why not go on down to Boston Beach in Portland, JA and explore the "pleasures" of 50 new sinuses unknown to modern medicine . . . with the help of some authentic Maroon preparers of Jerk Pork etc? (They have been at this for the past 4- 500 years or so . . .)]

First, note uncle Charlie D’s classic statement that Behe used as a start-point for thinking about irreducible complexity:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Now, the hot-sauce Q: If the standard of disproof proposed by Darwinists is that proposed exceptions must be such that they “could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications” then how is this not a case of selective hyper-skepticism that makes the theory in effect unfalsifiable [as matters of fact are simply not up to the standard, "could not possibly . . ."]?

GEM of TKI

Q: What is ‘materialism’? Is it a proposition about matter or is it itself matter/material? If it is a proposition about matter then it is not itself matter (just as a proposition about a house is not itself a house), because for it to be ‘about’ matter implies that it is distinct from it.

The dilemma is this: If it is true that materialism is a proposition about matter and therefore not itself material, this is self-defeating. If materialism is itself material and not truly about matter, then it is not a proposition that explains matter (from the ‘outside’ as it were).

So materialism is either matter or it isn’t. If it is material, then it is not propositional; if it is propositional then it is not material. If they want to make the case that propositions are material, I would happily pay for them to ship me one pound of materialism.

Hotness: Habanero Chile sprayed with pure capsaicin and dipped in tobasco sauce (OUCH!)

If it is true that materialism is a proposition about matter and therefore not itself material, this is self-defeating.

It is a pretty stupid concept but a lot of people buy it.

tribune7,

When you stop and think about it, yes. You have to use immaterial concepts and immaterial abstractions and immaterial laws of logic. That makes materialism downright silly.

From whence came all the material?

Jalapeño

Now, that’s a creation myth I haven’t heard.

Bob

Why aren’t you a nihilist? Like, logically speaking?

Maybe not that hot because a lot of materialists probably are.

JT75, “I would happily pay for them to ship me one pound of materialism.”

Hmm. I espouse a non-materialist viewpoint, myself, for different reasons. But I don’t think this argument of yours holds water.

Your argument has been made in various forms for a long time, but basically the idea is that materialism is an “idea” that is “about” reality, and that if materialism is true, matter itself is having an “idea” about itself. I don’t see how this stultifies. Computers are material objects that have “ideas” about other things. Computer are matter in a certain arrangement, and it’s the arrangement wherein exists the “idea.” So if someone wanted to hand you a pound of materialism, one way they could do it, I suppose, is to hand you the brain of a dead materialist, since that brain was programmed, by virtue of a particular software arrangement, with the idea of materialism.

I, myself, reject materialism on the basis that consciousness doesn’t fit in the reality described by the materialists.

Computers are material objects that have “ideas” about other things.

Actually, not really. Humans give meaning to the various states of a computer. Without an observer to give it meaning, it is just a collection of wires with electrons in them, or pixels that emit light. You can make a computer out of almost anything, such as with water and pipes, sheeps and pens, etc. It is the meaning you attach to each of the states and the transition ruls you apply at each step that are important. You hope to reach a final state that has a “meaning”, but certainly not to the computer. It is not conscious.

So, I think the argument does actually hold. If matter is all that exist, then how can one bit of matter be “true” about another bit? Are the atoms in my arm “true” of anything right now? If so, what and what not? How can you tell?

Atom, “Actually, not really. Humans give meaning to the various states of a computer.”

True. But the point is, “meaning” can exist in material objects, including our brains, which are, even to a supernaturalist presumably, are organs of thought in the natural/material world.

The *idea* of materialism exists in your material brain. If it didn’t, would you be able to write about it now?

Re mike1962

So you’re basically taking “meaning” as information, in the sense that it can abide in matter but is still irreducible to matter?

I can agree with that, but if you say information IS reducible to matter, then you run into a whole set of analagous problems.

Someone on telic thoughts gave a good example of how symbols are irreducible to matter:

There is a small campfire giving off smoke in the woods. It could just be a fire. Or it could mean “Send help, the army is coming.” In one instance it carries a message (meaning), in the other it doesn’t. What about the material itself changed? (The answer: nothing.) Therefore the message is irreducible to the medium alone.

Atom: “There is a small campfire giving off smoke in the woods. It could just be a fire. Or it could mean “Send help, the army is coming.”

Right. But a computer could make the distinction soley based on its material programming. Granted, humans programmed the computer. But humans have consciousness, which is the real reason I reject materialism.

It all gets back to consciousness, IMO, otherwise, I don’t think people would be arguing over any of this. (Try to imagine unconscious entities arguing over it.) Some people seem to see this, and some don’t. And never the twain shall meet. Even Dembski and Davescot are at odds on this, even on this blog. So what more can I say?

Before anyone suspects me of being a mere troll and gives me the boot, I will say that I am basically an honest, non-religious man, who thinks consciousness is a huge clue that some other than the material universe exists. What more can I say?

mike1962: The *idea* of materialism exists in your material brain. If it didn’t, would you be able to write about it now?

I’m not sure I agree with this. I think it tends to assume what is at issue. I lean toward the notion that what exists in my material brain is a state that *represents* the ideas that I have, but that the ideas themselves are part of my incorporeal self. In other words, I think the material brain is similar to a computer in that it can have states that represent ideas, but not really have ideas of its own.

Re 33:

In short, code is inherently about pointing to something other than the matter in question that holds the significant state, and in a context of interpretation.

E.g. what does GIFT mean? [Whether glyphs or systems of binary codes makes little difference to the symbols and their meaning . . . GIFT can be in multiple paces at once and undergo multiple representations . . .]

ANS: In English, some thing usually welcome [there was once a Trojan horse (story) after all, thus " 'ware the Greeks bearing gifts . . ." . . .] but in German, something not usually welcome [save that in Pharmacology drugs are in effect poisons in small doses . . .]

And note that the issue of meaning is not anchored to the question of empirical, factual reality or observability! [The Iliad is meaningful, though doubtfully factual . . .]

GEM of TKI

Hi there, I have been working on a general theory of culture, quite an enterprise and 2009 as the 150th Aniversary of ‘Origin of the Species’ looms large in developing a theory which meets the rigours of physical and natural sciences as well as providing a telling ‘home’ for all the social disciplines. Religion has to be accounted for because sociologically it is a deep reality within almost every culture in the history of mankind.

My own position is that such a general theory of culture must neither undermines nor underline religion because it operates on a different intellectual frequency to faith. The position I take on ID is that certainly regarding culture it is a clear overextension into a realm of epistemology that may appear ‘irreducibly complex’ but I am certain I have reduced its complexity to clear yet sophisticated principles.

While a general theory of culture does not have to respect God, it certainly has to respect the idea of God because that is a reality for all cultures as I mentioned previously. So I am in a position to say to you that I can prove (to the demands of physical, natural and social sciences) that such a theory is accessible and quite different from evolutionary theory. Culture is propulsive in a way that the sloth-like incrementalism of Darwinism could not fathom.

It is not just ID which overextends into culture, the field of ‘memetics’ as I will show is clearly a bridge too far for the Darwinian paradigm. What I have found in my quest to develop this general theory which has to take one to the limits of human epistemology is that there is something more. No question. However, as to whether that means we are talking about designer, designers, intelligent or not is a philosophical theism which I cover but don’t have the present interest to pursue it to great depth.

I am interested in the Wedge strategy of penetrating the social sciences and I guess this is the real reason I am writing to you Mr Dembski. Do you feel that design has a place in illuminating the social sciences and perhaps a general theory of culture? I have a deep interest in your answer. Culture is a very complex interwoven area of behavioural life. It operates to quite different rules to those advanced by evolutiionary theory and in the coming months and years that will all become apparent.

From my studies and appreciating ’something more’ I now find myself going to church and praying when I never did before. However, that doesn’t mean that the mechanisms of culture are any less true.

It may well be part of Newtonian method to get inside the mind of God but for a ‘more’ in the region of 14 billion years I think there is more than a little arrogance in that Newtonian position. Perhaps that is what is required at the cutting edge of thought though to advance theoretical physics forward.

I have been meaning to send you something for some time. I am looking to go on and complete my PhD which is fairly wide ranging covering a myriad of subjects. I am in the process of contacting Associate Chapter Advisers whom I can challenge, they can challenge me and ensure that I am clear on the technical detail in each of the many subject areas that are necessary to cover.

The reason why I embarked on a general theory of culture is because I have always had the deep feeling that the explanation of the natural world from the Darwinian paradigm did not apply to the social world we inhabit. I have found the answer (the culture helix if you will) and it has implications for human knowledge, for ID, evolutionary theory and more importantly for me the people on the street. After all that has to be the main reason why anyone would engage in these sort of inquiries. A general theory of culture illuminates an interconnected world and at a time where global warming, environmental considerations, slavery, globalisation, etc are prominent such a theory advances a future which is very Christian, while not requiring people to formally become Christians.

I would end with a personal assertion about the traditions of materialism. It is capitalism as the prime mover towards a more secular Europe West. Most people do not care for science in the real working world. However, every day, every hour people purchase, they buy, they consume and when they do that they buy into the ethics, dynamics and pervasive and seductive allure of capitalism. Even if ID was taught in schools people would still be purchasing and consuming capitalism. It is very difficult to teach the Beattitudes and meekness when all people want is to consume, consume, consume.

I look forward to the next 24 months and beyond, it promises much in the ways we see the world, and how the world sees us.

Thank you for your time Mr Dembski.

From whence came all the material?

Jalapeño

Bob: Now, that’s a creation myth I haven’t heard.

Hehe…nice. On the other hand, Bob, do you happen to have an alternative materialistic explanation for the origin of matter that is any less speculative or ludicrous than Jalapeño?

Hello, all. I’d like to ask a question, or series of questions, meant in all honesty and sincerity.

It strikes me, as I read through the “dangerous questions” posted here, that many of the participants here share the premise that “materialism” or “naturalism” (however defined) imply, or cause, or motivate (but which?) nihilism and/or hedonism. (It has been claimed, if I’m not mistaken, that materialists who regard themselves as moral agents are being illogical or inconsistent.)

If that’s a fair interpretation of what many here believe, then I’d like to pose this question: what is the argument for this claim? What reasons are there for thinking that materialism implies, motivates, or causes nihilism and/or hedonism or other social ills?

Anyone who wants to respond privately may feel free to do so at carl.sachs@gmail.com.

Carl,

What does it mean to be moral? We are in to Socrates territory here as you should know that as professor of philosophy.

If we define moral as adhering to a code or a standard (and I am sure old Socs could have found holes in this definition), then how does one choose the code or standard that isn’t arbitrary.

If you are a materialist (no God, only blind forces bouncing off each other), then the choice is arbitrary. A materialist has the option of choosing one of the long held standards by many cultures and may not ever become a hedonist, nihilist or actually cause any social ills. But in reality their choice is arbitrary and since they are driven by material forces alone, it is determined (unless you believe materialistic forces themselves can generate free will). There is no reason why materialists would choose such one standard and may choose any standard which maximizes their happiness and such a standard could be hedonistic or nihilistic or it may not. As such materialists could often choose a materialistic life style which are two different connotations of the word “materialist.” But there is no reason why they have to as you in the past have observed.

So there is no inherent reason for the materialist to choose any standard other than to maximize what they think their happiness is and by definition this will not include an after life since they do not believe in a God or an after life.

From this assumption, there will not be a tendency to choose sets of actions that puts off current satisfaction for future happiness in an after life and they will not probably consider actions that are consistent with such a belief. Rather than get into a long winded discussion, such an attitude will probably lead to a large portion of the population taking a more hedonistic and nilhistic approach to life.

Since morality can be defined any way one wants then materialists can be moral because the definition probably lacks any consensus of meaning.

My main prediction is that this thread will go on ad infinitum because this is what people here really want to talk about.

Carl: “What reasons are there for thinking that materialism implies, motivates, or causes nihilism and/or hedonism or other social ills?”

To a materialist/naturalist, “good”, whatever it is, must be reduced to merely a particular arrangement of matter. To a supernaturalist, “good” or “goodness” is something real and cuts to the very fabric of reality. “Good” is “good” because it really IS good. That may make you laugh, but the fact that human can make a distinction in their minds between a relative sort of “good” and something good by *nature* is a interesting clue to some of us that “good” is a Real Thing. Let that sink in. Maybe you’ll get hit with a zoan of some sort.

Hi Carl:

Re your:

What reasons are there for thinking that materialism implies, motivates, or causes nihilism and/or hedonism or other social ills?

I observe a couple of good responses and duly note the report that you are a phil prof, but think I can also add a few remarks, as one sitting outside contemporary American culture [which ever more reminds me of Athens circa 430 - 400 BC, complete with whole movements of Alcibiades et al, and reminds me ever more of a Plato's Cave world]:

ANS 1: Look all around you, starting with your friendly local Cable TV set of 500 channels or whatever, your friendly local Parliament or Congress or Cabinet and your friendly local university campus — AKA “Star Trek world, the reality”. [In short, there is substantial evidence that as a matter of recent history, the rise of evolutionary materialism as a worldview dominant among the so-called educated elites and institutions dominated by them, let's call them the intelligentsia, has as a matter of fact been strongly acocmpanied by a rise in precisely the patterns of behaviour and motivation described.]

ANS 2: Cf the observations of Ans 1 with the remarks in Rom 1 – 2, Eph 4 fr v. 17 on, and Ac 17. In short, in the best known book in Western Culture, for some 2,000 years now, there has been an argument that links turning from God with the folly of professing wisdom while in fact having en-darkened minds and out-of-control passions, leading to social chaos. That argument is backed up by the all too well known stories of the classical Western cultures, and with the recent case of several ideologies as they attained state power. So, it should not be surprising that a lot of people will connect some dots as above.

ANS 3: Evolutionary materialism [and notice the specification, kindly] in the end boils down to reducing thought and behaviour to terms that inherently undermine the foundation of morality, i.e responsible choice. If all phenomena in the end are traced to chance plus necessity, then agency — including both mind and conscience — is a delusion, or at best an epiphenomenon riding on the underlying chains of material forces and molecular etc chaos, perhaps mediated through accidents of personal and cultural history. Without agency, morality [and for that matter, its practical progenitors, real conscience and real, credible mind] collapses into an accident of personality and/or institution and/or culture, i.e relativism of the worst, and self-referentially incoherent sort. Thence, in a society that happens to be heavily individualistic, it tends to promote/motivate hedonism, nihilism etc. as individuals react to the ideologies they absorb through the culture they inhabit. thence, ANS 1 again, and ANS 2 too.

I trust these help.

GEM of TKI

PS: kindly read the July 28 thread by Ms O’Leary, on her review of Weikart, and then have a look at a more extensive and detailed discussion by Oakes, here. Note also that Marxism-Leninism, by itself responsible for over 100 millions of democide victims [cf Rummel's estimates] over the past 100 years, is deeply rooted in evolutionary materialism, and partakes of all the threads discussed just above, saver for, of course, its collectivism..

PPS: Further following up, Weikart makes an interesting summary here:

_______

Darwin expressed incredulity when critics assailed him for undermining morality. In his Autobiography, however, Darwin rejected the idea of objective moral standards, stating that one “can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.” (1) Friedrich Hellwald, an influential ethnologist, promoted a Darwinian view of social evolution in his major work, The History of Culture (1875). Hellwald was quite radical in exalting the Darwinian process of the struggle for existence above all moral considerations. “The right of the stronger,” he insisted, “is a natural law.” (2) He clarified this idea further:

In nature only One Right rules, which is no right, the right of the stronger, or violence. But violence is also in fact the highest source of right, in that without it no legislation is thinkable. I will in the course of my portrayal easily prove that even in human history the right of the stronger has fundamentally retained its validity at all times. (3)

This Darwinian undermining of human rights would be fateful for the Judeo-Christian vision of the sanctity of human life.

Besides stressing human inequality, Haeckel and many of his fellow Darwinists devalued human life by criticizing Judeo-Christian conceptions of humanity as “anthropocentric.” Rather than being created in the image of God, they argued, humans were descended from simian ancestors. They blurred the distinctions between humans and animals, alleging that characteristics that had been traditionally considered uniquely human–rationality, morality, religion, etc.–were also present in animals to some degree. In Darwin’s own words, the difference between humans and animals is quantitative, not qualitative.

Darwin’s explanation that all human characteristics that previously had been associated with the human soul were not qualitatively distinct from animals also undermined the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of body-soul dualism, which endued humans with greater moral and spiritual significance than other organisms . . .
___________

Worth a thought or two . . .

In short, we are still looking at at least a hot Red Savina Habanero here.

GEM of TKI

Thank you for the responses thus far. I’d like to ask some follow-up questions. Thus far, I’ve heard a number of responses, and they seem slightly different to me. So I want to propose some interpretations, and see what you all think.

1) The problem with materialism is that it cannot explain, or account for, choice or agency.

2) The problem with materialism is that entails that choice or agency is actually impossible.

3) The problem with materialism is that it provides no objective standard as to which moral system is the correct one.

In any event, I think that (1), (2), and (3) are different claims, requiring different arguments, and so I’m interested in hearing which of these, if any, comes closet to expressing what you think.

Carl,

I think that (3) expresses what I believe. I believe 1 and 2 were raised just to show that choosing something can be a folly under materialistic assumptions. If you cannot not choose, then morality is a meaningless concept.

So they are tied together somehow. Though you could make an argument that free will could possibly arise out of materialism and I am sure that most materialist feel comfortable with that assumption since few of us like to be thought of as automatons having no will.

However, even if we do have free will and materialism is the true explanation of the world, then choice of a standard becomes arbitrary. If you disagree that would be an interesting argument. Also many of the non-religious standards in the world do not necessarily lead to nilhism or anti-social behavior or to “materialism” in a life style sense of focusing on material goods. However, you can make the argument that many will lead that way and have already done so.

Choosing some of the religious standards is also problematic since there are so many variations and which one is the right one if any.

Carl (and Jerry):

Came by after fighting with a 404 error earlier and several follow-ups in the real world. Saw the further activity.

First, 1, 2, 3 are intimately linked, in particular 1 entails both 2 and 3, and 1 is in turn entailed by the implications of explaining all phenomena by a-rational forces: blind chance + necessity: hydrogen to humans by a cascade of materialistic evolutions.

If a system has no basis for responsible choice or agency, the relative to its assumptions REAL choice is impossible and as a result morality [which is based on choice] is in turn arbitrary and accidental in effect.

Further, it undermines reasoning in general on the grounds already noted in brief, i.e reductionism of the mind to matter in motion and bonding, however mediated through accidents of evolution and culture. So, “morality,” “reasoning” and “knowledge” all become arbitrary delusions.

Just ask: Sigmund, what about your potty training? Karl, what about your bourgeois class mentality? Burrhus, aren’t you just another rat in the cosmic maze? Jules, what is the foundation in empirics for your verifiability principle? Etc, etc . . .

In that thought world, there plainly can be no sound basis for mind much less morality.

But of course even materialists do not live in that world in praxis, and that is one of the strongest reasons for seeing out the starting gate that the system is a failure: no-one can live by it, starting with the chains of thought that lead him to accept it. It is self-referential and inconsistent, thus has in it core-level self contradictions that flow out of its evolutionary materialism.

Onlookers: A simple 101-level summary is here, you can go elsewhere for detailed developments, long since on the record.

GEM of TKI

H’mm:

Maybe the issue over materialism and the problem of credibly accounting for mind and morality is hotter than was initially evaluated?

Naga Jolokia?

GEM of TKI

More dangerous questions for Pinker:
Can we distinguish between creationism and ID?

Do creationists (IDists, to Pinker) warrant the guarantees of free speech and/or access to the media?

Is it possible to discuss ID without linking it to Holocaust denial?

Is it incumbent upon a Harvard professor to correctly represent a position (ID), or an organization (the DI) he is discussing in the public media as opposed to disseminating rhetoric?

Should pots refrain from calling kettles black?

For Steve Pinker, the answer is apparently “No!”

I WAS disappointed to see that the Globe published a creationist op-ed in its otherwise outstanding editorial section.

The creationist movement, having suffered a string of humiliating judicial setbacks for three decades, recently hit on the brilliant alternative strategy of ginning up a “controversy” and masquerading as advocates of free speech and open debate. The Discovery Institute, at which DeWolf is a senior fellow, is a well-funded propaganda organization that has been executing this strategy.

The reality is that the “debate” between intelligent design and genuine biology is like the “debate” between homeopathy and medicine, parapsychology and neuroscience, or Holocaust denial and history — they are victorious if they are given a seat on the debating platform.

It was sad to see the Globe’s op-ed page taken in by this ruse.
STEVEN PINKER, Cambridge
The writer is professor of psychology at Harvard University

http://www.boston.com/news/glo.....c_inquiry/

One of the things I find interesting in the responses thus far is argument that looks like this:

1) any adequate metaphysical system must be able to explain certain basic features of human experience, such as rationality and moral agency.

2) materialism and/or atheism cannot provide an adequate explanation;

3) therefore, it is reasonable to reject materialism and/or atheism.

The first premise strikes me as basically sound, though I could quibble — since some metaphysicians radically revise our understanding of these concepts.

But I’m still not entirely clear on the reasoning behind the second premise. I think that to most people here it is obvious. It’s not obvious to me. The intuition doing the work here seems to me to be, “how could the mere causal interactions of atoms give rise to reason, choice, love, etc? it’s absurd!” But is it absurd? How can you tell?

In any event, I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues with me. And as I said before, I’m also willing to discuss them over private email exchanges.

Regards,
Carl

Hi Carl

If you will look at my always linked through my name, you will see a summary presentation with onward links on why many of us at UD etc hold to premise 2 as a well-warranted conclusion to our own investigations.

You will note that this broadening of what is primarily a scientific question on the credibility of the inference to agency, comes into play only after looking at the foundational nature of information, specification and complexity, and then exploring OOL, biodiversity at body plan level, and also the issue of cosmogenesis.

Then, the phil and worldviews incidental issues are brought in as the onward agenda for well-rounded thinking. A summary is made in the online note, and onward links are provided.

The issue is not one of “obviousness,” but one that there is a real and longstanding issue with real reasons warranting our conclusion.

[Cf, e.g., Reppert on C S Lewis' Dangerous Question for a simple case in point. Plantinga and others have raised the issue at more sophisticated levels as well. So this is not a mere matter of the deluded, stupid, ignorant fundy rubes going at it again. And, on the "wicked" prong of Dawkins' 4-pronged fork, we plead guilty, for as all men are, we too are finite, fallible, fallen and struggling to avoid being ill-willed and ill-tempered. We also read in Rom 1 - 2, that there is a testimony within and without that points to the God we so often are most eager not to discover; we find an uncomfortable parallel between the Pauline inferences on the predictable consequences of that rejection of evidence, and our own times. We find that there is good reason to conclude that the major lines of evidence cited by the Apostle still hold good in even our C21 scientific era, on their own merits and without appeal to anything more than what is available to a reasonably competent and thoughtful man.]

As can be seen above, I noted on these in brief in 40 – 43 and in 45 above, whereupon the thread paused.

If you wish to look at the issues, why not take them up step by step, and let’s do so right here where we can all see what is going on.

GEM of TKI

PS: Onlookers, here is a 101-level look at the issues, and here is an exploration through a public lecture, of what that means in the context of the battle over the public square here in the Caribbean.