What is God?

[alexey]

This one is probably more on topic:

..

The guy is no idiot. I'm not convinced he's right, but I sure like his irreverence.

I'll be frank - I am very much surprised that you find this to be intellectually stimulating. Something has gone horribly wrong. Please find a better application for your quite capable mind.

Overthrowing the scientific consensus is supposed to be hard. People with good ideas will go to work and eventually convince others. Crackpots will go to complain on programs like the "uncommon knowledge."

[PeterMP]

At some level I'm not sure what the issue here really is, if somebody is willing to accept the possibility and even belief in a trickster God, then evolution has a theory is easy to dismiss.

 

Now, most people that I know don't really accept the notion of a trickster God when you really explore the idea so it isn't much of an issue.

 

But there are certainly some out there.

[pjfootballer]

Whatever/whoever he/she is, they hate me. Really. God hates me.

[s0crates]

Berlinski's schtick seems like a more sophisticated version of the Gish Gallop. One can be very eloquent while at the same time spouting enormous piles of nonsense, misrepresenting opposing views, etc.

Berlinski dislikes Dawkins, and that is fine - Dawkins is a bit of a arrogant jerk. But criticizing Dawkins does not undermine evolutionary biology as a science or promote intelligent design the way that Berlinski seems to pretend that it does.

I suppose that's fair. You've conceded my point about the arrogance of these scientists who dabble in theology, and I do think Berlinski is probably outside his element when he talks about biology. He is a decent philosopher though.

I might say Dawkins is as qualified to do theology and philosophy as Berlinski is to do biology.

The thing that annoys me is the people who think science implies atheism. It's really a preposterous view.

As an aside, I'd be interested to know what distinguishes a "Gish gallop" from a cumulative argument (assuming it isn't whether or not one agrees with the arguer).

[alexey]

I suppose that's fair. You've conceded my point about the arrogance of these scientists who dabble in theology, and I do think Berlinski is probably outside his element when he talks about biology. He is a decent philosopher though.

"Let's face it - academics throughout the Western world form a native conspiracy class, and they are very akin to a criminal class - they will believe anything. And once they believe something, the conspiracy is held tenatiously." - Berlinski (12th minute of https://youtu.be/FyxUwaq00Rc)

The thing that annoys me is the people who think science implies atheism. It's really a preposterous view.

Science uses methodological naturalism.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful

Is it really that preposterous? Religious thought has something to offer to study of philosophy, history, anthropology, and so on... but not in the realm of natural sciences.

Natural sciences are indeed taking power away from religous claims and institutions - Mr. Berlinski is right about that. He explains this dynamic by saying that there is a criminal conspiracy of scientists who want power. I think the reason is different - some models of reality simply did not stand up to scrutiny. Those models are losing power. Thousands of ideas suffered this fate.

[Zguy28]

Who are these young earthers? Can you give me names? Do they have scholarly credentials? Can you reference a work from a reputable publisher (say Oxford UP for example)?

I know many serious theologians, smart and credentialed people, who are theists, but I don't know of any serious scholars who are biblical literalists (probably because no serious thinker would take such an obviously false view seriously).

And this isn't just a personal anecdote. Augustine wasn't a literalist. Aquinas wasn't a literalist. The Pope isn't a literalist.

Where are all the literalists? As far as I can tell they only exist in uneducated circles. (Maybe by the word "liberal," you just mean educated).

Ironically, the post you respond to was an admonition to stop straw manning theists, saddling them with a view any thinking person would reject. Seriously, if you do know these people, you should tell them they make theism look absurd, which it isn't.

I'm sure I could if I dig enough.

Just about every one at my Seminary (Southeastern Baptist Theological) is a young earth creationist including the president Daniel Akin. Same for Reformed Theological Seminary and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (heard of Albert Mohler?).

 

But anyway, my point was less about age of the earth than it was about "literalism".There are many who hold to the plain reading/interpretation of most of Scripture. But hermeneutics is a pretty complex science e.g. general and special hermeneutics, different methods (historical-critical, grammatical-historical, historical-cultural etc.). The folks you think of when you think of the word "scholar" are guys like Bart Ehrman (UNC Chapel Hill) who are critical scholars. Sure there are lots of them. But there are lots of conservative Christian scholars/theologians as well such D.A. Carson, J. Ed Komoszewski, Andreas Kostenberger, Merrill Erickson, and Wayne Grudem who take the bible mostly in a literal sense.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Taking the bible literally isn't necessarily reserved for the unintelligent. It's an unintelligent viewpoint but being taught something by your mother about an all powerful, omniscient being from the time you are old enough to learn can do a lot of permanent damage to your brain.

[alexey]

It is easy to claim that firebrands like Richard Dawkins lack intellectual humility.

It is harder to make a similar claim about people like Sean Carroll:

[drtdrums]

Re: Scripture

Account for the following:

Genre

Author

Cultural and literary context

Intended Audience

Once you've done that, you'll have a good idea what was intended to be literal and what was not. Reading something that was not intended to be literal as literal/historical destroys the intended meaning of the text.

Try to read the OT like an ancient Israelite. Try to read the NT as a first century Jew under Roman rule. No one is going to nail it, but the context of the bible is not 21st century evangelical thought.

[Renegade7]

Does anyone else feel this is a 14 Billion year old debate that maybe we aren't meant to solve? That regardless of how we got here, figuring that out is not why we're here?

[Zguy28]

Re: Scripture

Account for the following:

Genre

Author

Cultural and literary context

Intended Audience

Once you've done that, you'll have a good idea what was intended to be literal and what was not. Reading something that was not intended to be literal as literal/historical destroys the intended meaning of the text.

Try to read the OT like an ancient Israelite. Try to read the NT as a first century Jew under Roman rule. No one is going to nail it, but the context of the bible is not 21st century evangelical thought.

Context of Scripture is based on when and where it was written and what was happening. "21st century Evangelicals" and liberal/critical scholars both agree on that. Application however is a whole other ball of wax.

[PeterMP]

It is easy to claim that firebrands like Richard Dawkins lack intellectual humility.

It is harder to make a similar claim about people like Sean Carroll:

 

Why would something that is true of Dawkins not be true of him?

 

He seems to be saying the same exact things.  He's just managed to get less famous saying them as near as I can tell.

 

Not even 2 minutes in he's essentially claiming that something that limits itself to discoveries in the context of a natural system can say anything about a super natural system.

 

"The basic thing that we learned by doing science for 400 years is called something naturalism.  The idea that there is only one reality.  There are not separate planes of the super natural and natural.  There is only one material existence."

 

You don't learn naturalism by doing science.  Science is a sub-set of naturalism.

 

Science limits itself to to naturalism.

 

Science is subsumed in naturalism and not the other way around.

 

Now, I know this was a debate and part of debating and saying things that sound good even if they are not correct, but still from my perspective to start making such claims before you are even 2 minutes into your opening statement just seems bad.

 

(and considering we've been over this ground several times, I'm assuming you understand the various issues in his opening statement.)

[FrFan]

[alexey]

..

"The basic thing that we learned by doing science for 400 years is called something naturalism. The idea that there is only one reality. There are not separate planes of the super natural and natural. There is only one material existence."

In the context of his larger point, I understand this quote by Sean Carroll to say: over time, as capabilities of science grew, more and more phenomena previously explained by supernaturalism became explainable by naturalism. This increasingly reduced the need to invent supernatural hypotheses, to the point where we are today - where supernaturalism is no longer taken seriously when it comes to explaing the observed phenomena.

[drtdrums]

Context of Scripture is based on when and where it was written and what was happening. "21st century Evangelicals" and liberal/critical scholars both agree on that. Application however is a whole other ball of wax.

It is far more the rule than the exception that evangelicals wrest passages from their context. It's how you end up with predominantly YECs in many denominations and regions. It's how most of those same people think Job is history, not poetry. It's why they get upset when they learn Moses didn't actually pen the Torah as-is, or find out that Ancient Israelite cosmology in the texts taught a disc-shaped earth with a dome roof and Sheol beneath.

It's not a scholarship problem. It's a pulpit problem and a congregation problem.

[s0crates]

It is easy to claim that firebrands like Richard Dawkins lack intellectual humility.

It is harder to make a similar claim about people like Sean Carroll:

He certainly seems to have a more ecumenical attitude than Dawkins, but his metaphysics is just as abominable.

He seems to be (judging on this small sample) another example of a scientist trying to do something he is unqualified to do: Philosophy and/or theology. He may very well be a fantastic scientist, but that doesn't make him an expert on all things. I wouldn't ask for his help with a legal matter, for he is no lawyer. Why then should I ask for his opinion on a philosophical matter?

The materialistic worldview he endorses (roughly, the universe is composed entirely of blind inert matter operating according to mechanical law) is deeply problematic. It cannot be made consistent with our experience of ourselves as rational, conscious, self-directing entities.

[PeterMP]

In the context of his larger point, I understand this quote by Sean Carroll to say: over time, as capabilities of science grew, more and more phenomena previously explained by supernaturalism became explainable by naturalism. This increasingly reduced the need to invent supernatural hypotheses, to the point where we are today - where supernaturalism is no longer taken seriously when it comes to explaing the observed phenomena.

 

Well, it would have been nice if he would have actually said that.

 

That would have at least been more true to the point that it might actually be debatable.

 

Instead of just being wrong.

 

I honestly can't understand how people can get up say things that they must understand are wrong think they are doing naturalism/science any real good.

 

How is making statements like he is, having a positive impact (long term) on science/naturalism?

 

It absolutely baffles me.

 

I mean it is your opening statement.  Say something that isn't clearly wrong to anybody at all familiar with the arguments.

[s0crates]

In the context of his larger point, I understand this quote by Sean Carroll to say: over time, as capabilities of science grew, more and more phenomena previously explained by supernaturalism became explainable by naturalism. This increasingly reduced the need to invent supernatural hypotheses, to the point where we are today - where supernaturalism is no longer taken seriously when it comes to explaing the observed phenomena.

I might be able to make my point here another way, but first I need to make sure we agree on terms. Can you provide a definition of "naturalism"?

[alexey]

He certainly seems to have a more ecumenical attitude than Dawkins, but his metaphysics is just as abominable.

He seems to be (judging on this small sample) another example of a scientist trying to do something he is unqualified to do: Philosophy and/or theology. He may very well be a fantastic scientist, but that doesn't make him an expert on all things. I wouldn't ask for his help with a legal matter, for he is no lawyer. Why then should I ask for his opinion on a philosophical matter?

The materialistic worldview he endorses (roughly, the universe is composed entirely of blind inert matter operating according to mechanical law) is deeply problematic. It cannot be made consistent with our experience of ourselves as rational, conscious, self-directing entities.

I look forward to learning more about specific philosophical concerns that you have about the points made in the video.

I might be able to make my point here another way, but first I need to make sure we agree on terms. Can you provide a definition of "naturalism"?

Hopefully any standard, sourced definition would allow us to move forward.

[s0crates]

I look forward to learning more about specific philosophical concerns that you have about the points made in the video.

He mentions Cartesian dualism, which he thinks is repudiated, and on that much he is correct. But he then proceeds to articulate a view derivative of Cartesian assumptions, and that view is surely mistaken.

He is dealing with what I think is the central problem of our intellectual era, the mind-body problem, but his treatment of it is so flippant, I'm not sure he understands the immense theoretical difficulties involved.

I'll try to give the Cliffs Notes version:

Descartes has a substantialist worldview, which is really Aristotelian, that reality is composed of substances which require nothing but themselves to exist, and these substances have essential properties that make them the kind of substance they are. For Descartes, there are basically two substances:

1. Mental substance, whose essence is "thinking," by which is meant any conscious experience (perceptions, volitions, doubts, beliefs, pains, pleasures, abstract ideas, etc.).

2. Material substances, whose essence is "extension," by which Descartes meant roughly what we mean by matter, physical things with location and mass operating according to physical laws.

Now Carroll correctly diagnoses the problem here: how do these two kinds of substances connect? How do they fit together? It doesn't seem like they could as described.

But Caroll's solution is to say that the world is composed entirely of matter, or Descartes' material substance, and this implies that there is no such thing as consciousness, or Descartes' mental substance. This is an obvious mistake, as we all know from our own cases, we are conscious beings. Any theory that denies this must be wrong.

I think the problem is that we are still mired in this Aristotelian/Cartesian substantialist thinking. Reality isn't made of substances at all, it is made of events. But materialism says reality is made entirely of material substance. It is an impoverished view, because it gives us no account of the fundamental datum, our own minds.

Empirical science, at least in this materialistic iteration, is downright incoherent. It says we gain knowledge of the material world through our experience, and simultaneously denies the reality of that experience.

[alexey]

But Caroll's solution is to say that the world is composed entirely of matter, or Descartes' material substance, and this implies that there is no such thing as consciousness, or Descartes' mental substance. This is an obvious mistake, as we all know from our own cases, we are conscious beings. Any theory that denies this must be wrong.

Any theory that denies dualism must be wrong because ...?

[s0crates]

Hopefully any standard, sourced definition would allow us to move forward.

Here's the first thing that comes up on google:

"Naturalism is an approach to philosophical problems that interprets them as tractable through the methods of the empirical sciences or at least, without a distinctively a priori project of theorizing."

Now I'll ask (for starters):

1. Doesn't mathematics (which is required by science) involve "distinctively a priori theorizing"?

2. Are ethical problems "tractable through the methods of empirical science"?

3. Doesn't empircal science (like any science) begin with an a priori theory? (Namely the axiomatic assumption that the universe is law-like in its operation, and those laws are discoverable through observation).

Scientists notoriously scoff at metaphysics, but really they just don't like to have their metaphysics challenged.

Any theory that denies dualism must be wrong because ...?

That isn't what I said. I said any theory that denies consciousness must be wrong. A monistic theory need not commit this error, but a materialistic theory inevitably does.

I think dualism IS wrong (as I stated), but so is materialism. We need another kind of monism, one that is divorced from substantialist thinking altogether.

What we have now (scientific materialism) is another version of the Cartesian mistake, it endorses the view that reality is composed entirely of what Descartes called material substance.

But the very idea of "matter" independent of experience is without sense. The notion of matter is only an abstraction from experience.

Experience is the primary datum. Empirical science supposedly begins with this insight, but the materialistic iteration of science proceeds to deny its own starting point.

[Stadium-Armory]

Dharma

[s0crates]

Here is my current metaphysical theory put (far too) simply: Mind and body are not two things. They are both abstractions from the same thing, (which isn't a thing at all, but events in process).

We need to stop thinking of matter the way Descartes did, as stuff independent of experience. (That works great for practical purposes like engineering, but not as a theory about the ultimate nature of reality).

I only mention this because it might help you see what I'm up to in the above posts.

[PeterMP]

I think you could argue that even matter is an "experience" not an entity.  If we say matter is anything that has mass (a standard text book defintion), then things that are matter are either extremely limited (and possibly nonexistent), or things are only matter based on their interaction with the Higgs boson (through the Higgs field).

 

You get into a funny situation where something is matter, but only based on the existence of some non-matter entity (the Higgs field).

 

Things that are matter (at least in may cases) are matter because they "experience" the Higgs field.

 

I'm not sure how much that really changes the conversation, but it is an interesting perspective.