Interesting quote from Feynman (HT: Martin LaBar)
What is it about nature that lets this happen, that it is possible to guess from one part what the rest is going to do? That is an unscientific question: I do not know how to answer it, and therefore I am going to give an unscientific answer. I think it is because nature has a simplicity and therefore a great beauty. Richard Feynman, "Seeking New Laws," pp. 143-167, in Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, New York: Modern Library, 1994. Quote is from p. 167.
At the risk of quote-mining, since I don't have the book, this appears to be Feynman's version of Wigner's famous Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics argument. Wigner* wrote
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
Both Feynmann and Wigner, in my reading, conclude that science can never answer the question as to why science and mathematics work as well as they do.
If you consider all the talking points in ID--irreducible complexity, privileged planet, cosmological fine-tuning--some of which I find useless (irreducible complexity) and some of which I find interesting (the apparent sensitivity of life to the values of constants) no one observation from the world of science or mathematics has ever struck me as a more powerful apologetic than Feynman's and Wigner's point.
The world is not only governed by orderly laws, but those laws are expressible in simple enough terms that we can make sense out of them and use them to make astonishingly accurate predictions. As Feynman suggested, if I read him correctly, science can never explain why this is so. It is, in fact, unreasonable that this happens.
I often think of it this way. The dawn of modern science arrives with Newton. Newton's Second Law is a simple linear differential equation. (Probably trivial is a better word--speaking not of Newton's insight--which was genius--but of the degree of difficulty of his equation.) One can only speculate in a What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly? manner what would have happened if Newton's Second Law had been a complicated nonlinear differential equation (or even a simple nonlinear differential equation)--but it is not far-fetched to argue that science would have been stillborn.
The world is not only governed by orderly laws, but those laws are expressible in simple enough terms that we can make sense out of them and use them to make astonishingly accurate predictions. As Feynman suggested, if I read him correctly, science can never explain why this is so. It is, in fact, unreasonable that this happens.
I often think of it this way. The dawn of modern science arrives with Newton. Newton's Second Law is a simple linear differential equation. (Probably trivial is a better word--speaking not of Newton's insight--which was genius--but of the degree of difficulty of his equation.) One can only speculate in a What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly? manner what would have happened if Newton's Second Law had been a complicated nonlinear differential equation (or even a simple nonlinear differential equation)--but it is not far-fetched to argue that science would have been stillborn.
* Here is a likely apocryphal story one of my professors told about Wigner. He was already famous when, in 1930, Princeton recruited him from, I believe, Göttingen (Germany). His arrival was a big deal with lots of fanfare and hoopla. And of course all the Americans, not wanting to look stupid, went the extra mile to pronounce his name correctly.
On Wigner's first day of work his secretary answered the phone:
"May I speak to Professor Wigner?" asked the caller, pronouncing the w in Wigner like a garden-variety trailer-park w.
"Professor 'Vigner' is not available," the secretary answered, pronouncing the w like a v. "May I take a message?" She relished correcting this person--probably another annoying reporter.
"No thank you, I'll call back," the woman on the phone said. Which she did, a half hour later. The conversation was similar:
"May I speak to Professor Wigner?"
"Professor 'Vigner' is not available," the secretary answered, this time with added emphasis on the correct pronunciation. "May I take a message?"
"No thank you, I'll call back," the woman on the phone said. Which she did, a half hour later. Now her third attempt:
"May I speak to Professor Wigner?"
"Professor 'Vigner' is not available," the secretary answered, now exasperated. "May I puh-lease take a message?"
"Very well," the woman said. "Just tell him Mrs. Wigner called."
from Roy:
ReplyDeleteFeynman = Wigner = Penrose = I.D. = Fine Tuning = Susskind = String Theory (imho) = Don Lincoln = Ro 1:20-22.
"It is, in fact, unreasonable that this happens."
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I'm going to disagree. This is basically a "why is there something rather than nothing" type gambit.
But no-one ever asks, "why is there nothing rather than something?"
Oh, I'll also invoke the multiverse ;-)
Funny anecdote. Is it true?
ReplyDeleteYou can always ask a "why" question to anything, and at some point there's no answer.
ReplyDeleteI don't have the Feynman book, either, but I think you are right.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the mention!
Why is it unreasonable that the universe is explainable using terms we have developed to communicate the patterns we observe? Amazing sure, but not unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteAs an apologetic, this observation is useless. It works just as well against religion.
While, there are many things that science can't answer, we may at least propose answers and test them. Religions just make up answers and claim they are correct, even when they're wrong.
Pete,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to appeal to authority just a bit. In the post, two Nobel Laureates, in what is certainly a fair rephrasing, state that science cannot explain why mathematics and science work so well. What is your testable proposal to refute their claim?
As for its usefulness as an apologetic, your opinion doesn't matter. An apologetic, as I was using it here, is for believers. If the statement is true (and it is--nobody can explain, using science, why science and math are so effective) and it strengthens the faith of believers, then it is a good apologetic.
I did not say that Feynman's and Wigner's claims are testable. What I did say is that science can be useful in proposing and testing answers that it cannot presently answer.
ReplyDeleteI agree that my opinion does not matter. What does matter is that religion can provide no valid answer about the universe where science can, and where science cannot, neither can religion.
there are many things that science can't answer, we may at least propose answers and test them.
ReplyDeleteAre there? I can think of several answers science has proposed that can't really be tested. The multiverse theory, for instance--the existence of the multiverse is predicted by several cosmological theories, IIRC, but so far as I know no scientist has actually observed their existence or even figured out how to. The existence of other universes is *predicted* by current theories, but not really tested.
Not trolling or anything BTW, it just genuinely seems to me like cosmological theories like the multiverse thing (and others like it) are examples of scientists proposing answers without really having any empirical way to test them.
David - in thinking more about Wigner's proposal, I am wondering how equations without exact, analytical solutions fit into his claim. There are many cases in which we have governing equations to describe phenomenological behavior that cannot be solved exactly. Others require simplification or approximation to describe mathematically. Yet others require whole new aspects of math to be developed. The physical world thwarting mathematics as it were. The fact that we can and do develop new mathematics when needed suggests that it is a convenient human invention that we project upon nature because that is how we understand it. Sort of like using language to explain physical phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly certain that a large number of people would be dismayed to learn that apologetics is restricted to only bolstering previously held beliefs.
WIC - I did not mean to say that all proposed answers are testable. I probably have to be a bit more precise in my language. My latter point was that those questions that cannot be answered by science also cannot be answered by religion without special pleading. So I do not see how this works as an apologetic.
ReplyDeletePete De Santo,
ReplyDeleteIt is true that we simplify and struggle to create new math. But that is not the point. Wigner's point, I believe, is related to the surprise that we can ever write down any math--even if it is, say, a lineariztion, that is simple enough to make calculations and accurate enough to make predictions. There is no reason to expect this to be the case. No reason to expect that we could ever make calculations that match experiment to six or eight significant figures.
I'm fairly certain that a large number of people would be dismayed to learn that apologetics is restricted to only bolstering previously held beliefs.
That is not what I said---I said Christian apologetics is for believers. That is not a universal but not a rare point of view. But it is not intended to bolster previously held beliefs. On the contrary--apologetics regarding science and Christianity are meant to change the minds of Christians who believe science is the enemy.
I guess I was unclear as to how you were applying Wigner's claim as an apologetic.
ReplyDelete"I said Christian apologetics is for believers" that is how I translated your statement. Again, apologetics has a quite broader audience than just believers. Your OP is unclear as to how exactly you mean to use Wigner's claim as an apologetic (for science or for Christianity).
Wigner's point is made in hindsight. That is some theories are amazingly accurate, but did we really expect them to be so when they were originally formulated? Is it really that amazing that people can build upon prior conclusions that have been shown to be correct? I don't think most people revisit all right conclusions in a string. Rather we build upon the last few if adequate and only when necessary are prior conclusions revisited.
Wigner and Feynman both touch upon amazing features of how we understand the universe. Wigner seems to consider these things as "gifts" or "miracles", whereas Feynman is satisfied to say "I don't know."
A story similar to Wigner's has also circulated about Niklaus Wirth, father of the programming language Pascal. Once, when asked how to pronounce his name, he is reported to have said, "You can call me by name, 'Virth', or by value, 'Worth'."
ReplyDeleteDe Santo's claims are the usual "the only true knowledge is known by science" mantra with a dose of "there is no real truth found in religion." Neither of which are scientifically demonstrable statements. So how does he know they are true, absent "special pleading"?
wrf3 - show me a different way to knowledge about the universe other than science. I don't know that science is the only way, but it is the only way so far.
ReplyDeletePete DeSanto asked: "show me a different way to knowledge about the universe other than science."
ReplyDeleteFirst, learn epistemology and philosophy. You can't have science without these. Second, take a page from Artificial Intelligence. Apply the Turing test to the universe. To borrow a phrase from Francis Schaeffer, "There is a God and He is not silent."
A great deal more can be said, but time simply doesn't permit. I hope to write a book one day, cf. here, here, and here.
Certainly aspects of epistemology and philosophy are inherent to the scientific process, but they are not ways to knowledge by themselves. You might reach conclusions with them, but without science, you have no gauge of their validity. You have not shown any reliable ways to knowledge other than science.
ReplyDeleteThe links you have provided are 1) one that you further link to an exchange in which your evidence is apparently your belief 2) one that I have to wade through 576 comments to catch glimpse of an exchange between you and someone else and 3) what looks like a script for a science fiction movie. Maybe you could summarize the points instead?
Dave, you say:
ReplyDelete"it strengthens the faith of believers, then it is a good apologetic."
Are apologetics concerned with strengthening faith, not truth?
Richard,
ReplyDeleteOf course it goes without saying that it is only valuable if you teach the truth. I am dead set against teaching someone a lie just because they are comfortable in the lie. For example, I would not teach someone: "Radiometeric dating is so error prone as to be useless" even though, in some cases, that might give someone comfort and even strengthen his faith.
Pete DeSanto wrote: Certainly aspects of epistemology and philosophy are inherent to the scientific process, but they are not ways to knowledge by themselves.
ReplyDeleteThat's simply not true. Math, for example, is knowledge apart from science.
You might reach conclusions with them, but without science, you have no gauge of their validity. You have not shown any reliable ways to knowledge other than science.
Easy proof that this is false: what is the scientific proof of the validity of the scientific method?
Maybe you could summarize the points instead?
Sure. If science is the only reliable way to knowledge:
1) What is the scientific definition for intelligence?
2) What is the scientific test for intelligence?
3) Are you intelligent?
wrf3 - you're right in part about math, but math is not something subject to belief or interpretation. The practical (as far as their use in describing nature) mathematics that rely on the same assumptions as more abstract mathematics are evidence that our formulation of math is at least useful knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThere is no proof for the scientific method. There is overwhelming evidence that it works, so we use it. What is it that you think is shown to be false because of this?
Your questions are a game. Pick your preferred "scientific" definition of intelligence and we can proceed.
Pete DeSanto wrote: you're right in part about math, but math is not something subject to belief or interpretation.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is. Whatever axioms a particular system uses are taken to be true without proof - i.e. belief. Even Russell agrees with this. And not only for math, but for all knowledge. In "The Problems of Philosophy", he wrote: "All knowledge, we find, must be built up upon our instinctive beliefs, and if these are rejected, nothing is left."
... evidence that our formulation of math is at least useful knowledge.
Now you're moving the goalpost from "true" to "useful."
There is no proof for the scientific method. There is overwhelming evidence that it works, so we use it. What is it that you think is shown to be false because of this?
Your claim that there is "no reliable knowledge apart from science." In addition, "overwhelming evidence that is works" is simply special pleading based on induction. Russell writes:
The general principles of science, such as the belief in the reign of law, and the belief that every event must have a cause, are as completely dependent upon the inductive principle as are the beliefs of daily life All such general principles are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed.
Thus all knowledge which, on a basis of experience tells us something about what is not experienced, is based upon a belief which experience can neither confirm nor confute, yet which, at least in its more concrete applications, appears to be as firmly rooted in us as many of the facts of experience. The existence and justification of such beliefs -- for the inductive principle, as we shall see, is not the only example -- raises some of the most difficult and most debated problems of philosophy.
Your questions are a game. Pick your preferred "scientific" definition of intelligence and we can proceed.
If it's a game, it isn't my turn to move. If you're going to claim that the only path to knowledge is science, then the burden of proof is on you. In particular, if you're going to claim that you are intelligent, then you have to show the scientific warrant for your claim. The onus is most emphatically not on me. If you don't claim that you're intelligent, then there's no point in further discussion. Or you could back up and claim that you do have true knowledge apart from science. Or you can engage in special pleading -- science of the gaps -- and say that science will some day have a handle on intelligence. Or maybe you'll just upset the chessboard and walk away.
You omit an important further part of Russell's, that is the consistency of "instinctive belief." If one belief contradicts others it may be rejected if those other beliefs are found to be more consistent. The acid test is science.
ReplyDeleteI never said anything about truth. I spoke only of usefulness, validity, and knowledge. If knowledge is not useful or valid, is it still worthy of being called knowledge?
"Your claim that there is "no reliable knowledge apart from science." In addition, "overwhelming evidence that is works" is simply special pleading based on induction." Special pleading? I only claim that science works as has been overwhelming shown. Tell you what...I'll base my predictions of future events on science and you do it based on whatever revelation god gives you and we'll see who's knowledge gives more reliable predictions.
Games typically begin by both players understanding the rules. If you are not willing to offer a definition of intelligence you have in mind, then I will not play a rigged game. Particularly when you put words like "true" in my mouth.
I will also add that starting from assumptions and axioms is not the same as belief, Russell's language notwithstanding. When we say, "Let there be a set..." or "Given the function..." we are clearly stating the conditions from which something will be derived. We do not say, "I believe this" and then proceed to claim it and all derived from it is the truth. After all, math is subject to revision just as science is.
ReplyDeletePete DeSanto wrote: You omit an important further part of Russell's, that is the consistency of "instinctive belief."
ReplyDeletePerhaps explicitly, but I've been using consistency checks to show you where your epistemology is inconsistent. Watch.
If one belief contradicts others it may be rejected if those other beliefs are found to be more consistent. The acid test is science.
So you claim. But you haven't shown how this is a scientific statement. It cannot be, since it relies on the principle of induction, which has already been discussed. So your statement "the acid test is science" is shown to be inconsistent within your epistemology.
I never said anything about truth. I spoke only of usefulness, validity, and knowledge. If knowledge is not useful or valid, is it still worthy of being called knowledge?
It all ties into truth. Is false knowledge valid? One can argue (and evolutionists, for example, do argue) that religion is useful. Yet you seem to think that it isn't "knowledge". So, once again, you're being inconsistent.
"Your claim that there is "no reliable knowledge apart from science." In addition, "overwhelming evidence that is works" is simply special pleading based on induction." Special pleading? I only claim that science works as has been overwhelming shown.
Which is special pleading to the principle of induction. Furthermore, science has been overwhelmingly wrong, too. You're either engaging in the fallacy of selective citing to prove your point, or you're arguing the tautology that something that manages to once in a while correct itself over time is "useful". The fact that it has to constantly correct itself should give you a clue that it's not an infallible guide to knowledge.
Tell you what...I'll base my predictions of future events on science and you do it based on whatever revelation god gives you and we'll see who's knowledge gives more reliable predictions.
Apples and oranges. The kind of predictions science can make are a small subset of interesting predictions. God once revealed the near future to me and it saved my life. Science can't do that.
Games typically begin by both players understanding the rules. If you are not willing to offer a definition of intelligence you have in mind, then I will not play a rigged game. Particularly when you put words like "true" in my mouth.
What you fail to understand is that I'm happy to use your rules. The inconsistency is in your system, not mine. But your reluctance to fully explore the flaws in your epistemology isn't anything new. You made the claim; the gambit of trying to put an onus on me is, sadly, typical and not surprising. If science is the only path to valid knowledge, then you should be able to give the scientific support for whether or not you are intelligent.
Pete DeSanto wrote: I will also add that starting from assumptions and axioms is not the same as belief, Russell's language notwithstanding. When we say, "Let there be a set..." or "Given the function..." we are clearly stating the conditions from which something will be derived. We do not say, "I believe this"...
ReplyDeleteRussell is nevertheless right. Just because we don't say, "I believe this", this is nevertheless what we do when it comes to the axioms on which our worldview is based.
"But you haven't shown how this is a scientific statement."
ReplyDeleteGranted, but give me a better approach! Think of all the possible explanantions for phenomena that you'd like. Until you test them and show which are consistent with observation (science), you're just speculating.
"Furthermore, science has been overwhelmingly wrong, too."
By "science" I mean the process and not the specific findings of the process. The process has been overwhelmingly successful in weeding out ideas that don't work as well in favor of ideas that work better. Phenomena that were once claimed to be the work of the supernatural are now shown to be quite natural.
So adherents of the supernatural retreat to arguments over epistemology, etc. Your knowledge claims are reduced to "God once revealed the near future to me and it saved my life." Well, God once revealed to me that you are lying about his. Which claim represents knowledge?
In any case, science can very much reveal probabilities about the near future that we can use to avoid certain behaviors and conditions and many of these modifications are indeed life saving.
"If science is the only path to valid knowledge..." Again, I said it is the only path that works so far. Religion cannot be because it requires no further process beyond revelation. What is stated is taken as truth regardless of what testing and observation show.
Perhaps you can give an example of knowledge revealed by religion that could not be found via science or logic.
As far as your intelligence questions are concerned:
1) intelligence is not a well-defined concept, but our anthropomorphic description of intelligence includes certain attributes
2) the aspects of intelligence that are taken as hallmarks are ones for which there are specific tests
3) I demonstrate the aspects of intelligence as described by multiple groups. So I would conclude that I have intelligence.
Should I be more specific?
Well, if needed our axioms would change. Is that so for your religion?
ReplyDeletePete DeSanto asked: Well, if needed our axioms would change. Is that so for your religion?
ReplyDeleteSure. I used to be an atheist. When I became a Christian the basis of my worldview changed. Were I to deconvert, I'd switch back. Just like I switch axioms depending on which form of geometry I happen to be using.
BTW, just curious, but what axioms do you think I have that you don't?
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDelete[wrf3] "But you haven't shown how this is a scientific statement."
Granted, but give me a better approach!
Working on it. The first step is to admit that all of our knowledge rests on what Russell calls "instinctive beliefs", and what Christians would call faith. A consistent worldview on any other basis. The Christians happen to be right on this one.
Think of all the possible explanantions for phenomena that you'd like. Until you test them and show which are consistent with observation (science), you're just speculating.
I don't disagree. But the second step in developing a consistent epistemology is to understand that axioms control how evidence is evaluated. The observer immediately introduces a bias into how he (or she) explains what they see. A bias that may not have scientific backing.
[wrf3] "Furthermore, science has been overwhelmingly wrong, too."
By "science" I mean the process and not the specific findings of the process. The process has been overwhelmingly successful in weeding out ideas that don't work as well in favor of ideas that work better. Phenomena that were once claimed to be the work of the supernatural are now shown to be quite natural.
There's that bias popping up. What you've done is found an explanation consistent with your particular bias -- you haven't proven your bias to be true.
So adherents of the supernatural retreat to arguments over epistemology, etc.
Getting the fundamentals right isn't a "retreat". It's repairing a faulty foundation.
Your knowledge claims are reduced to "God once revealed the near future to me and it saved my life."
That's only one, very small, specific instance. I have more knowledge claims than that. But a step at a time.
Well, God once revealed to me that you are lying about his. Which claim represents knowledge?
Mine. And it's obvious why. I may be mistaken in my interpretation of the evidence, but I know that I'm not lying to you. Whether or not you decide to trust me is an interesting epistemological problem.
[wrf3] "If science is the only path to valid knowledge..."
Again, I said it is the only path that works so far. Religion cannot be because it requires no further process beyond revelation. What is stated is taken as truth regardless of what testing and observation show.
Of course, that's simply not true. Christians are admonished, for example, to test everything they hear to be sure that it is, in fact, from God.
How would you test, for example, whether or not I'm lying to you?
Perhaps you can give an example of knowledge revealed by religion that could not be found via science or logic.
"Don't go when the light turns green. A car is going to run that red light."
As far as your intelligence questions are concerned:
1) intelligence is not a well-defined concept, but our anthropomorphic description of intelligence includes certain attributes
2) the aspects of intelligence that are taken as hallmarks are ones for which there are specific tests
3) I demonstrate the aspects of intelligence as described by multiple groups. So I would conclude that I have intelligence.
Perfect. Thanks. Christianity makes the claim that there is an intelligence apart from man. Is this, or is this not, testable? How would you test it?
The first step is to admit that all of our knowledge rests on what Russell calls "instinctive beliefs", and what Christians would call faith.
ReplyDeleteI do not see the equivalency between belief gained through experience and faith based on revelation.
The Christians happen to be right on this one.
And what about the Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc.?
But the second step in developing a consistent epistemology is to understand that axioms control how evidence is evaluated.
Granted, but we have developed a very consistent view of nature from our current axioms.
There's that bias popping up. What you've done is found an explanation consistent with your particular bias -- you haven't proven your bias to be true.
Using science, we have progressed from multiple myths (taken on faith) about natural phenomena to converging theories on those phenomena. How is this explained any other way?
Getting the fundamentals right isn't a "retreat".
The religious retreat from claims of god causing one thing or another is to claim that we can't know that god didn't do it, or that there is a different kind of knowledge, so they attempt to find room for a god that is not required or is very different from the particular god they believe in.
That's only one, very small, specific instance.
But the rest still involve "God revealed" at their root.
I may be mistaken in my interpretation of the evidence, but I know that I'm not lying to you.
If I insist that God revealed to me you are lying, then I can equally claim hold on my knowledge. How do we resolve that? This is not a petty issue I'm raising. Your god and others' gods are at loggerheads on many things. How do you distinguish which is correct? They may claim different axioms from yours and reinterpret the evidence differently from you.
Christians are admonished, for example, to test everything they hear to be sure that it is, in fact, from God.
But the test they are required to use are based on revelation from a god they are admonished to trust in unfailingly or risk eternal torment. As are adherents of many other religions.
"Don't go when the light turns green. A car is going to run that red light."
Is, might, could, those kinds of thoughts run through people's minds many times in a day. There are many subtle stimuli that can produce such seemingly prescient thoughts. How about an example of knowledge that everyone can see?
Perfect. Thanks. Christianity makes the claim that there is an intelligence apart from man. Is this, or is this not, testable? How would you test it?
If we are using the definitions to which I referred, we might attempt to run an experiment that applies the appropriate test. We can test intelligence in other primates for example.
This has evolved into a very interesting discussion, at least for me. You have given me much to think about and I'm grateful. If I sound harsh at times, it is probably not meant to be so.
BTW - I don't know what axioms you have.
Pete DeSanto:
ReplyDelete[wrf3]The first step is to admit that all of our knowledge rests on what Russell calls "instinctive beliefs", and what Christians would call faith.
I do not see the equivalency between belief gained through experience and faith based on revelation.
That's a step ahead of my point; i.e. everyone builds their knowledge base on top of "belief" or "faith". It doesn't matter whether you're a geometer, scientist, or theist. We all have a set of unproven core beliefs. So it isn't fair to claim the theists are wrong on this when everyone does it. Everyone lives by faith, whether they admit it or not. Christianity makes it explicit and I think competing systems shy away from acknowledging this in order to not be associated with what is perceived to be an "irrational, superstitious, anti-knowledge, anti-science" system. My opinion, anyway. And, BTW, Christianity isn't anti-science -- it's anti-naturalism. It's only when the method of science is conflated with one particular philosophy that the fight erupts. But that's another issue.
Now, we can argue whether or not the core beliefs are woven into a consistent system, but that's yet another issue.
As to the equivalency issue, they are the same and share a common linkage of trust. What do you trust, and why? Obviously, a great deal of trust is placed in the aforementioned principle of induction. Is that reasonable? Maybe. As Russell said, it's a difficult epistemological problem. The scientist puts a great deal of trust in humanity, in its supposed ability to correct its mistakes through the application of a certain process. Is that warranted? That depends on your view of the nature of man. It isn't totally unwarranted; after all, I'm a software engineer and make mistakes all the time which I correct. On the other hand, the world is full of bug ridden software. Should I trust science any more (or less) than I trust software? Why?
Once we work through those difficult issues, then we can tackle whether or not there is a God, and whether or not He should have our ultimate trust or not.
Pete DeSanto:
ReplyDelete[wrf3] But the second step in developing a consistent epistemology is to understand that axioms control how evidence is evaluated.
Granted, but we have developed a very consistent view of nature from our current axioms.
Sure. Both theists and naturalists have consistent views of nature. Just like non-Euclidean and Euclidean geometers have consistent geometries. The question then becomes, which consistent view actually corresponds to "reality" -- whatever that happens to be. Is the universe Euclidean or non-Eucldean? Depends on the amount of mass, which we don't have an accurate measure of.
I've argued that the naturalist omits (at least) one phenomena that calls their entire worldview into question, namely, that of intelligence. If the claim is going to be made that God does not exist, then the naturalist has to have a theory of intelligence that would explain what evidence should be looked for, how it would be looked for, and what ought to be expected in terms of results. It's not unsolvable, but requires excursions into artificial intelligence, information theory, ethics (to deal with theodicy), history, just to name four. It's a very broad subject.
Pete DeSanto:
ReplyDelete[wrf3] There's that bias popping up. What you've done is found an explanation consistent with your particular bias -- you haven't proven your bias to be true.
Using science, we have progressed from multiple myths (taken on faith) about natural phenomena to converging theories on those phenomena. How is this explained any other way?
Converging theories? Copenhagen vs. Many-worlds aren't convergent theories, as just one example. Furthermore, it isn't clear what test(s) can be performed to determine which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics corresponds to "reality". And don't get me started on string theory.
Pretty math is not proof. And we're back to the topic of David's post. ;-)
BTW, what to what "multiple myths" are you referring? If, as one example, you mean the notion of six literal 24-hour days of creation, some 6,000 years ago, you do know that that's not the universally held position, right? Sure, there's a vocal (and mostly ignorant) subset of Christianity that clings to this. But that gets into issues of how to read. One of the problems is that the eastern mind is not the western mind and most "western" minds don't adopt the "eastern" mindset when they read an eastern text. Jefferson Airplane expressed it well when they sang:
It's like a tear in the hands of a western man
Tell you about salt, carbon and water
But a tear to an oriental man
He’ll tell you about sadness and sorrow or the love of a man and a woman.
The literalists completely miss the point of what Genesis is saying. Just like those who think the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution isn't about the right of the individual to bear arms. Interpretation can be hard. But it isn't impossible. And it's akin to science: interpretation is concerned with correctly finding the structure and meaning of communication, while science is concerned with correctly finding the structure and composition of the universe. As Christians might say, word and flesh.
Pete DeSanto wrote: This has evolved into a very interesting discussion, at least for me. You have given me much to think about and I'm grateful. If I sound harsh at times, it is probably not meant to be so.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome. And don't worry about sounding "harsh". It's not a problem.
Back later. There's just too much material to cover in a short time, and each discussion creates it's own Hydra.
wrf3 - Speaking of Hydra...I will respond to your comments later when I have timeto think, but I want to ask you a question that struck me. We are going on in this rather complex discussion helped by our current knowledge of science, math, history, ancient linguistics and culture, philosophy, etc. to get at why we should believe in god (and evidently the Christian god at that). It seems to me that most peoples up to at least the end of the Dark Ages did not have access to even the most basic of these. They were to believe based on faith that there was a god and everything in the Bible (if they were able to read). Does it seem strange to you that we must rely on this information to possibly reach a conclusion about whether or not faith is justified? How is the non-believer or believer in other gods to have a chance at discovering that the Christian god is the truth? Maybe this is going to open a whole other discussion that we shouldn't get into yet, but I'd like to put it out there for future consideration.
ReplyDelete"I believe, is related to the surprise that we can ever write down any math.... There is no reason to expect this to be the case"
ReplyDeleteNot to interrupt the interesting discussion between Pete and wrf3, but I've never understood these type of statements. Is there any reason to not expect that we can use math and be so successful with it? What is the basis for the surprise, and for expecting something/anything different?
I have the same issue with 'life is very sensitive' to the constants; why would we expect them not to be sensitive? As an apologetic it doesn't seem very potent either, since the opposite condition can be invoked also. If the conditions of the universe were such that life would thrive with different values of the 'fine-tuned' constants, wouldn't the apologists then be noting how remarkable it is that various configurations of the natural laws are so conducive to life?
Spartan wrote: If the conditions of the universe were such that life would thrive with different values of the 'fine-tuned' constants, wouldn't the apologists then be noting how remarkable it is that various configurations of the natural laws are so conducive to life?
ReplyDeleteIt isn't that life would thrive with different values, it's that there wouldn't be any life at all -- at least according to some proponents of the idea.
Wikipedia actually does a pretty good job of describing the fine-tuning argument.
As for your question on math, I don't know enough to comment. I say this to my shame, as I have a book downstairs in my library on this topic that I haven't yet read.
Pete DeSanto asked: Does it seem strange to you that we must rely on this information to possibly reach a conclusion about whether or not faith is justified?
ReplyDeleteNot really. Every age is different. The materialist skeptic requires a different level of proof than someone with another bent. For example, in "A Brief History of Time", Hawking notes that the universe may be self-existent, so that theistic creation isn't needed. He then asks, (paraphrased), "What, then, is God needed for?" The materialist thinks in terms of particles and energy and makes the erroneous assumption that if God isn't needed for this, He isn't needed for anything. And if He isn't needed for anything, it's likely He doesn't exist.
What Hawking (and others) neglect is the relational aspect between beings. Strictly speaking, I don't need my wife. I know how to cook and clean. I'm quite capable of living on my own. And, if I don't want to perform those services myself, I can certainly hire them out.
But this doesn't mean that she doesn't exist, or that life would be the same without her. She spent three weeks out of state last summer to visit her ailing father. I was miserable. God is more than Creator. As one of the more famous bits from the Bible says, "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want..."
Imaginary friend, or very real presence? When I was an atheist, I was sure it was the former.
How is the non-believer or believer in other gods to have a chance at discovering that the Christian god is the truth?
That's easy. While God delights to use His followers to "spread the word"; He doesn't need us. He is quite capable of communicating directly with those whom He chooses. After all, no missionary ever went to Abraham or Moses. Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." Christianity is, first and foremost, revelatory and relational. Something that, in my experience, strong materialists have trouble with. It isn't "scientific" and, therefore, it can't be "real".
Maybe this is going to open a whole other discussion that we shouldn't get into yet, but I'd like to put it out there for future consideration.
Everything is fair game. I just don't know how much time I'll continue to have.
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDelete[wrf3] I may be mistaken in my interpretation of the evidence, but I know that I'm not lying to you.
If I insist that God revealed to me you are lying, then I can equally claim hold on my knowledge. How do we resolve that? This is not a petty issue I'm raising.
It isn't a petty issue, but it has an easy resolution. It all boils down to who you trust. If you are truly convinced that God revealed to you that I am lying, then I will disagree with you (since I know I'm not) yet applaud your desire to stay true to God as you perceive Him/Her/It to be (as long as it isn't just a reflection of yourself).
One of the points I've been making recently at "enrichment time" (aka sunday school) at church, that today's Christians have kind of forgotten, is that we are not "saved" by our correct knowledge. That's the ancient heresy of gnosticism -- that we enter into a relationship with God based on what we know.
On the contrary, Christianity says, "the just shall live by faith" and "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." So if you hold to what you think God told you, over what I told you, then I can live with that.
Your god and others' gods are at loggerheads on many things. How do you distinguish which is correct? They may claim different axioms from yours and reinterpret the evidence differently from you.
Sure. You ought to see the arguments I get into with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Arminians, and others. We go at it the way scientists who disagree go at it, or mathematicians go at it. We try to find one or more common areas of agreement and go from there. I think I can make a credible argument for the correctness of Christianity. Whether someone else finds it credible is quite another matter.
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDelete[wrf3] Christians are admonished, for example, to test everything they hear to be sure that it is, in fact, from God.
But the test they are required to use are based on revelation from a god they are admonished to trust in unfailingly or risk eternal torment. As are adherents of many other religions.
Why is that a problem? Shouldn't we trust God in all things? I would think that would be a self-evident truth. As for eternal torment, do you think a person who doesn't recognize the utter trustworthiness and majesty of God would be happy in His presence? C. S. Lewis said that there are two types of people: those who, at the end of all things, say "Thy will be done" and those who say "My will be done." The latter would be miserable with Him. The only problem is that they will also be miserable with themselves, especially after having glimpsed the beatific vision. Their eternal torment is self-inflicted.
[wrf3] "Don't go when the light turns green. A car is going to run that red light."
Is, might, could, those kinds of thoughts run through people's minds many times in a day. There are many subtle stimuli that can produce such seemingly prescient thoughts. How about an example of knowledge that everyone can see?
Is God saying, "I love you" not enough?
I do not see the equivalency between belief gained through experience and faith based on revelation.
ReplyDeleteThat's a step ahead of my point; i.e. everyone builds their knowledge base on top of "belief" or "faith". It doesn't matter whether you're a geometer, scientist, or theist. We all have a set of unproven core beliefs. So it isn't fair to claim the theists are wrong on this when everyone does it. Everyone lives by faith, whether they admit it or not.
Yes, but when evidence supports one set of core beliefs over another, we may lend more credence to the supported belief system. As it is, the set of beliefs embodied by math and science have a great deal of support, whereas those of religion do not where they can be tested by empirical evidence. You might appeal to evidence other than empirical evidence at this point, but then you open the door to an embarrassing number of things.
Christianity (religion in general) makes it explicit and I think competing systems shy away from acknowledging this in order to not be associated with what is perceived to be an "irrational, superstitious, anti-knowledge, anti-science" system. My opinion, anyway. And, BTW, Christianity isn't anti-science -- it's anti-naturalism.
Christianity gives much higher value to faith without evidence than to it does to faith following evidence (e.g. Thomas). That is very much in conflict with science.
It's only when the method of science is conflated with one particular philosophy that the fight erupts. But that's another issue.
The fight also seems to erupt whenever science upends some commonly held religious belief.
As to the equivalency issue, they are the same and share a common linkage of trust. What do you trust, and why? Obviously, a great deal of trust is placed in the aforementioned principle of induction. Is that reasonable? Maybe.
It is reasonable insofar as the use of induction has been successful in reaching a next step towards better understanding of nature. You must also use induction to connect religious axioms as well in order to interpret scripture and resolve moral dilemmas. So it is a difficult problem for both religion and science.
The scientist puts a great deal of trust in humanity, in its supposed ability to correct its mistakes through the application of a certain process. Is that warranted? That depends on your view of the nature of man. It isn't totally unwarranted; after all, I'm a software engineer and make mistakes all the time which I correct. On the other hand, the world is full of bug ridden software. Should I trust science any more (or less) than I trust software? Why?
I could say the same about religious experience. Is there another way we can know about revelation or the interpretation of that revelation other than by communication from the person to whom it was revealed. You must therefore put a great deal of trust in humanity as well to ensure that any god’s words are passed on or interpreted with integrity. I’m not so sure that scientists place a lot of trust in humanity. Maybe “hope” is a better word. As a rule, we seem to distrust what people say or do all the time and therefore continue to investigate things for which others claim to have already answered. I am perfectly willing to grant that we must work from assumptions, or if you prefer, beliefs, but those assumptions work.
Also, the proper analog is not between science (process) and software (product), it is between science (process) and writing/debugging software (process).
Both theists and naturalists have consistent views of nature. Just like non-Euclidean and Euclidean geometers have consistent geometries. The question then becomes, which consistent view actually corresponds to "reality" -- whatever that happens to be. Is the universe Euclidean or non-Eucldean? Depends on the amount of mass, which we don't have an accurate measure of.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure that this is a good comparison. We know that there are regions in the natural universe to which either non-Euclidean or Euclidean geometry applies, so the postulates of each are empirically supported. At this point it would be helpful to know what the differences between the theist and naturalist postulates are. I suspect it is something along the lines of “there is something more than the physical world.” Of course, I assume you don’t postulate god, but rather conclude god.
I've argued that the naturalist omits (at least) one phenomena that calls their entire worldview into question, namely, that of intelligence. If the claim is going to be made that God does not exist, then the naturalist has to have a theory of intelligence that would explain what evidence should be looked for, how it would be looked for, and what ought to be expected in terms of results.
We do not need to have a theory of intelligence to test for a god. There are other aspects that can be tested. Namely, the interactions between god and the universe claimed in scripture. For Christianity, we can test the claims of a global flood, humans and animals originating from eight or so individuals following the flood, the sun halted in the sky for 24 hrs, virgin birth, the origin of rainbows, resurrection, faith healing, historical events, etc. It may be that I have not been exposed to the correct interpretation of scripture as it relates to these, but so far the record is not good.
Converging theories? Copenhagen vs. Many-worlds aren't convergent theories, as just one example. Furthermore, it isn't clear what test(s) can be performed to determine which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics corresponds to "reality".
Copenhagen vs. Many-worlds are interpretations of QM, which is a result of converging ideas about energy and certain particles. Contrast that to perhaps the analogs in religion where the theories appear to be the existence of this god or that god and the many, many interpretations taken as truth from the words of those gods.
The literalists completely miss the point of what Genesis is saying.
Were the original translations of scripture done by the Western world? This now brings into question the integrity of scripture itself. Yes, I would take the claims in Genesis including creation, order of creation, the flood, tower of Babel, etc. to be myths that have been dispelled by science. Maybe I’m ignorant of such, but prior to dating the Earth and the Universe older than the literal Genesis timeline, which interpretations existed suggesting that Genesis is not to be taken literally? Is this a case where science has required a reinterpretation of scripture? What other cases might there be? How do you determine whether or not to re-examine scripture? I.e. what are you satisfied to accept as ‘miracle’ as opposed to ‘metaphor?’
As for eternal torment, do you think a person who doesn't recognize the utter trustworthiness and majesty of God would be happy in His presence? C. S. Lewis said that there are two types of people: those who, at the end of all things, say "Thy will be done" and those who say "My will be done." The latter would be miserable with Him. The only problem is that they will also be miserable with themselves, especially after having glimpsed the beatific vision. Their eternal torment is self-inflicted.
ReplyDeleteThis is a far cry from ‘lake of fire’ and other terrors attributed to hell. How do you or Lewis know the latter would be miserable once the evidence is shown to them? Their eternal torment is not self-inflicted if it was this god who fixed the rules of the game. This is much like saying that the murder victim killed himself because he refused to abide by the rules of his attacker.
Is God saying, "I love you" not enough?
No. Especially when there is not evidence for god, or the majority of people to whom god say "I love you" cannot recognize it. But I suppose the next step is to argue the nature of evidence. Is it enough for a child if his abusive father says he loves him?
Pete DeSantos:
ReplyDeleteThis is a far cry from ‘lake of fire’ and other terrors attributed to hell.
The first thing one has to do when approaching a text is to determine if a description is literal or metaphorical. One description is "lake of fire" (e.g. Rev 20:14-15). Revelation is a highly symbolic book (that happens to be the style of the genre). Another description is "outer darkness" (e.g. Mt 8:12). One might wonder how a "lake of fire" and "outer darkness" can literally refer to the same thing. Another description is "Gehenna", which refers to the valley of Hinnom "south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned." Here, "hell" is described as a "cosmic garbage heap". Hell is clearly a place of misery, but the actual form that it takes is open for debate. Personally, I think the literalists are wrong on this one. C. S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" is a short, but very perspicuous view on hell (and heaven).
How do you or Lewis know the latter would be miserable once the evidence is shown to them?
First, because evidence isn't enough. Good grief, there are people who deny the Apollo moon landings. All the evidence is explained away to fit their worldview. Second, because Christianity states that it is God that "flips the switch" as it were, inside a person, so that the evidence is seen in a new light. Whether or not God will "flip the switch" after death is an open question. I'm not sure it's a smart gamble, since Scripture says, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”
Their eternal torment is not self-inflicted if it was this god who fixed the rules of the game. This is much like saying that the murder victim killed himself because he refused to abide by the rules of his attacker.
The host of this blog and I are Calvinists, so we claim that God does fix the rules of the game. "So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses." [Rom 9:18].
But notice how you framed the issue: God as "attacker", "murderer", "tormenter". God is wrong and I, Pete Santos, am right. God does not have the right to do with His creation has He will. That's the mindset of hell -- an attitude that God will never permit in His presence. Furthermore, it's a logically indefensible position to take. The only logical course of action is "Lord, do with me as You will." Again, as Lewis said, it's the difference between "Thy will be done" and "My will be done".
[wrf3] Is God saying, "I love you" not enough?
No. Especially when there is not evidence for god,
Oh, baloney. You're no different from the Apollo deniers. Accepting the evidence would be so traumatic to your mindset (you'd have to give up your sovereignty, which your ego will not permit) that you explain it all away.
or the majority of people to whom god say "I love you" cannot recognize it. But I suppose the next step is to argue the nature of evidence. Is it enough for a child if his abusive father says he loves him?
God is not abusive. As long as you keep framing the issue that way, no evidence of any form whatsoever will persuade you.
Pete Santos
ReplyDeleteI'll address your two other posts tomorrow. It has been a long day and my mind is past mush.
Pete DeSanto:
ReplyDeleteYes, but when evidence supports one set of core beliefs over another, we may lend more credence to the supported belief system. As it is, the set of beliefs embodied by math and science have a great deal of support, whereas those of religion do not where they can be tested by empirical evidence.
First, math is not an empirical science. It is strictly logical. Second, does science encompass the belief "there is no God", "there is a God", or "whether or not God exists is irrelevant to science"? Third, if you're going to say that religion has little to no empirical evidence, you have to say what kind of evidence you're looking for; whether such evidence is actually what ought to be looked for, and under what set of axioms the evidence will be evaluated and whether or not this is reasonable.
You might appeal to evidence other than empirical evidence at this point...
And what might this be? Are you confusing "empirical" with "repeatable"? Not all good evidence is repeatable, as any lawyer will be happy to tell you.
Christianity gives much higher value to faith without evidence than to it does to faith following evidence (e.g. Thomas).
The point which I think you've missed is that there was plenty of evidence for Thomas to consider, not that there was no evidence. There is more to evidence than what can be achieved under laboratory conditions. If you ever have to sit on a jury, you're going to have to weigh evidence that you aren't going to be able to repeat.
I could say the same about religious experience. Is there another way we can know about revelation or the interpretation of that revelation other than by communication from the person to whom it was revealed.
No. Communication, whether between gluons or intelligent agents, is how we learn about the external world.
You must therefore put a great deal of trust in humanity as well to ensure that any god’s words are passed on or interpreted with integrity.
No, not really. The uniqueness of the message of Christianity, plus redundancy of the message, plus other factors give sufficient warrant to trust the message.
Matthew 25:41, Matthew 18:8, Jude 1, Luke 16:24...are these all metaphor?
ReplyDeleteFirst, because evidence isn't enough...Second, because Christianity states that it is God that "flips the switch" as it were, inside a person, so that the evidence is seen in a new light.
This seems pretty contrived. So the evidence is there and those fortunate enough to have the proper perspective (which is?) get saved and those who can't quite make it out are tortured eternally? You wonder why I say that "I love you" is not enough?
But notice how you framed the issue: God as "attacker", "murderer", "tormenter".
Ummm, no. The words in the bible framed the issue when the claimed god would destroy both body and spirit for eternity if we do not bow to him.
God is wrong and I, Pete Santos, am right.
I'm not saying that because I have not been convinced of god and do not see any reason to think any exists at this point. If you have evidence, or a way to perceive evidence, for god, now would be a good time to suggest it instead of asking questions such as "Is God saying 'I love you' not enough?".
Oh, baloney. You're no different from the Apollo deniers. Accepting the evidence would be so traumatic to your mindset (you'd have to give up your sovereignty, which your ego will not permit) that you explain it all away.
You presume too much. I am convinced of several things that are or have been traumatic to my mindset, yet I can accept those based on the evidence.
God is not abusive. As long as you keep framing the issue that way, no evidence of any form whatsoever will persuade you.
Again, I don't frame the issue, the writers of the bible do when they write words that suggest god has been extremely hostile to humanity.
First, math is not an empirical science. It is strictly logical.
I understand that, but the evidence that the fundamental axioms of math lead to a valid way to understand nature is the success of mathematical physics.
Second, does science encompass the belief "there is no God", "there is a God", or "whether or not God exists is irrelevant to science"?
ReplyDeleteScience as a process simply relies on empirical testing of ideas. The trend has been sharply away from supernatural explanations for phenomena because there is not evidence. So while the process says nothing about god, the results of the process certainly do not provide support for the supernatural in phenomena studied to date.
Third, if you're going to say that religion has little to no empirical evidence, you have to say what kind of evidence you're looking for; whether such evidence is actually what ought to be looked for, and under what set of axioms the evidence will be evaluated and whether or not this is reasonable.
I've specified that evidence. E.g. evidence for occurrences and history claimed in the bible. This seems appropriate as such instances would leave discernable impacts on the natural record. Our evidence directly contradicts those stories, leaving you to seek alternative interpretations of scripture.
You might appeal to evidence other than empirical evidence at this point...
And what might this be? Are you confusing "empirical" with "repeatable"?
I'm not confusing empirical with "repeatable.' I was hoping you would suggest some other kind of evidence (supernatural?) ;) Or are you only saying that it is a different perspective needed to apply to existing evidence?
The point which I think you've missed is that there was plenty of evidence for Thomas to consider, not that there was no evidence.
The point is that Thomas only had the word of the other apostles that Jesus had revealed his resurrected form to them and Thomas would not believe it unless he had seen himself (and gone a bit further as the story goes). The moral Jesus then spoke was blessed are those that believe without seeing. The only "evidence" Thomas had were the disciples words that Jesus had risen and Jesus prior words that he would rise. Is it unreasonable that he would doubt such an event would occur?
The uniqueness of the message of Christianity, plus redundancy of the message, plus other factors give sufficient warrant to trust the message.
Something strange repeated often enough plus ??? is enough? You seem to have much higher standards than that. If you do not trust the translators, how can you trust the message?
Things seem to be devolving into the typical believer/nonbeliever discussion here. Can we discuss the more interesting aspect of testing for a god? I was intrigued by your intelligence angle, although I think an alternative is to test for the impacts of claimed interactions between the supernatural and natural. I'm also wondering if you can think of a test for supernatural intelligence.
Pete DeSantos asked: Matthew 25:41, Matthew 18:8, Jude 1, Luke 16:24...are these all metaphor?
ReplyDeleteMt 25:41 says, "Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels..."
Mt 18:8: "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire."
Jude 1:7 [? - verse # was left off, so I'm interpolating]: "Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."
Lk 18:24, "He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’"
Are these metaphor? To answer the question, you have to look at all of the passages that speak to the final judgement. In a previous post, I offered one, e.g. Mt 22:13, "Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’"
So here we have the contrast of "darkness" with "fire". That suggests metaphor.
Malachi 4:1 says, "See, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who revere my name the sun of righteousness shall rise, with healing in its wings. "
"Sun of righteousness"? What is that? It certainly suggests metaphor.
I'm not in any way trying to minimize the horror of hell. Not by any stretch of the imagination. But I think the form of hell is not literal fire -- it's actually much worse.
I wrote a little something on what I think hell to be.
However, this is an offshoot to the main point, whether God is, or is not, a tormenter, murderer, attacker; because either way, Hell isn't pretty.
Pete DeSanto:
ReplyDelete[wrf3] But notice how you framed the issue: God as "attacker", "murderer", "tormenter".
Ummm, no. The words in the bible framed the issue when the claimed god would destroy both body and spirit for eternity if we do not bow to him.
There is no doubt that there is a consequence to our actions. The question is whether or not this makes God a "tormenter", etc.
Everyone will bow to Jesus. St. Paul wrote, "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Some will bow willingly, some unwillingly.
What should happen to those who are unwilling? What should be the consequence of their action? Defiance in heaven? Unthinkable. Rebellion? Ego? Self-centerdness? The rejection of the source of all goodness, being, and "light"? Heaven would be misery to such people.
Sovereigns are like magnets -- like charges repel. By this I mean "my will" is always in opposition to another who says "my will." This is an inescapable fact of nature; it doesn't make God a tormenter or murderer any more than any other force of nature.
Are there not four options?
1) "Annihilation",
2) God cedes His sovereignty to the billions of individual egos that are humanity,
3) Expulsion, isolation, quarantine or
4) A change of heart?
I'm not an annihilationist; the reasons why are yet another post. The second is simply not going to happen, so let's assume that Scripture only gives options 3 (hell) and 4 (transformation).
Your problem, your self-inflicted problem, is that you aren't likely to ask a "tormenter" to change your heart, even though that is exactly what God promises: "A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh."
All God is going to do is let you live with the consequences of your choices.
Pete DeSanto wrote: I've specified that evidence. E.g. evidence for occurrences and history claimed in the bible. This seems appropriate as such instances would leave discernable impacts on the natural record. Our evidence directly contradicts those stories, leaving you to seek alternative interpretations of scripture.
ReplyDeleteI assume you're talking about Genesis and not, say, the Resurrection.
Interpretation can be hard. Earlier, I gave the example of the problem of interpreting the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. The Supreme Court was split 5-4 as to whether this conferred an individual the right to carry arms.
So let's look at Genesis. I already alluded to the difference between the eastern and western mindsets. I will now quote at length from "Understanding the Revelation" by James W. Fleming, Ed.D. I could just as easily quote from a "Focus on the Family" DVD, but it's easier for me to transcribe Fleming. The point being that this isn't an isolated view from an unknown academic.
[to be continued...]
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDelete[continued]
"The modern western mind always looks at structure and form--what something looks like and what it is made of. With this kind of perspective, we will miss the meaning of apocalyptic literature. The Biblical mind looks at function. What does something do and what is it for. The description by a man of his true love in the Song of Solomon is a weird description from the western perspective of structure and form. Song of Songs 4:1-5, 'How beautiful you are, my love, how very beautiful! Your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats, moving down the slopes of Gilead. Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes that have come up from washing, all of which bear twins, and not one of them is bereaved. Your lips are like crimson thread, and your mouth is lovely. Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate behind your veil. Your neck is like the tower of David, built in courses; on it hang a thousand bucklers, all of them shields of warriors. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies.
[cont'd]
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDelete[continued]
"The modern western mind always looks at structure and form--what something looks like and what it is made of. With this kind of perspective, we will miss the meaning of apocalyptic literature. The Biblical mind looks at function. What does something do and what is it for. The description by a man of his true love in the Song of Solomon is a weird description from the western perspective of structure and form. Song of Songs 4:1-5, 'How beautiful you are, my love, how very beautiful! Your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats, moving down the slopes of Gilead. Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes that have come up from washing, all of which bear twins, and not one of them is bereaved. Your lips are like crimson thread, and your mouth is lovely. Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate behind your veil. Your neck is like the tower of David, built in courses; on it hang a thousand bucklers, all of them shields of warriors. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies.
[cont'd]
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDelete[continued]
You should feel very sorry for both the lover and the lovee, if this is a western literal, structure and form description. What is the meaning of the poem when you know the function of these things and what they do? In apocalyptic literature, what is the function of a robe? It is authority. What is the function of a sword? It is to pierce or to cut. That is what the word of God does. In the above poem, what is the function of a dove? A dove is innocent and appropriate for sacrifice. She has innocent eyes. In rabinnic thought, you could call someone a pomegranate head and you would be saying they were full of new ideas and liked to talk about these new ideas. Goats scatter whereas sheep follow in a row. We don't really know which tower in Jerusalem is the tower of David. It might be a very short fat tower. Thus, the above might mean she could haul water easily. The tower of David could have been a very tall tower and the above would be speaking about her grace and poise. The western mind will have a tendency to focus too much on the details of visual images in the Apocalypse rather than what the images stand for. The Judeo-Christian perspective stresses function. People look on the outside and God looks on the inside. What one is within is what matters. The Greco-Roman perspective stresses the beautiful body and the beautiful architecture, how things look on the outside. We are products of a combination of these two perspectives. When we look at the visions in the Apocalypse, sometimes we stress the Greco-Roman perspective too much as to how things look outside. The ancient mind would not look at them that way, but would look for the deeper meaning of what they do and what they are for. The Greco-Roman mind will think chronologically and externally. The Greco-Roman mind will have problems with understanding creation. The Greco-Roman mind will ask, 'Was creation done in sequence in seven twenty-four hour days?" The ancient mind will ask, 'What is each thing for and what does it do?' The greater light was to rule the day; the lesser light was to rule the night. What were the heavenly bodies for? They were the times for seasons. It is what these things are in relation to you. This is what the writer is concerned with. The ancient writer would not think in terms of sequence. One of the common forms of poetry in the Hebrew Bible is called step parallelism. It was a device used in oral traditions to make something easy to remember. Day one was light. Day two was the firmament above and below, the clouds and the sea. Day three was dry land. Days one through three were general. Days five though six were specific. Day four is parallel to day one; day five is parallel to day two; and day six is parallel to day three. Day four was the sun, moon and stars. Day five was birds and fish. Day six was animals and humans. The ancient mind did not think in terms of chronology or sequence. The western mind thinks that way. It is very difficult for someone from western culture to avoid reading the Apocalypse to literally."
[cont'd]
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDelete[continued]
Western readers of Scripture don't know the eastern mindset, and so they tend to impose a foreign interpretation on the words. Specifically referring to the Pentateuch, western readers typically don't know the Egyptian worldview out of which those stories come. For example, to the Egyptian, there was a body of water above the earth and water on the earth -- and it was the power of Pharaoh that kept the two apart. Noah isn't the story of a literal worldwide flood -- it's the story of God breaking the power of Pharaoh and through that, saving His people. To the Egyptian, the world was chaos and disorder and it was Pharaoh who brought order and meaning to the world. The Hebrew says, no, it is our God who brings light and life out of the chaos and darkness. In todays "sunday school" lesson, it was emphasized that the Exodus was less about getting the Hebrews out of Egypt, and more about getting the Egyptian story out of the Hebrews.
Science is about matter. Revelation is about meaning. I am reminded of Kubrick's masterpiece "2001: A Space Odyssey." Science tells us the shape, dimensions, and composition of the obelisk. But what does it mean? Without communication from the builder, we can only guess. Even today, the clear meaning of the film is lost on a lot of people.
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDeleteOr are you only saying that it is a different perspective needed to apply to existing evidence?
Absolutely. Trivial example: is the glass half full, or half empty?
Same evidence, different conclusions.
Another example, assume a euclidean universe. Measure a triangle and find that the sum of the measures of the angles is greater than 180 degrees. Measurement error? Or non-Euclidean universe?
What we believe very much influences how we evaluate evidence.
Pete DeSanto asked I'm also wondering if you can think of a test for supernatural intelligence.
ReplyDeleteThe Turing test.
Sovereigns are like magnets -- like charges repel. By this I mean "my will" is always in opposition to another who says "my will." This is an inescapable fact of nature; it doesn't make God a tormenter or murderer any more than any other force of nature.
ReplyDeleteYou're implying that god has no choice in the matter, or is constrained in his choices. Is this consistent with your understanding of god?
Your problem, your self-inflicted problem, is that you aren't likely to ask a "tormenter" to change your heart, even though that is exactly what God promises: "A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh."
If my problem stems from whatever version of original sin, is it self-inflicted? Did god give me a heart of stone to begin with? Do you see how this can be construed as torment?
All God is going to do is let you live with the consequences of your choices.
Or apparently the choices of those made thousands of years ago.
I will now quote at length from "Understanding the Revelation" by James W. Fleming, Ed.D. I could just as easily quote from a "Focus on the Family" DVD, but it's easier for me to transcribe Fleming. The point being that this isn't an isolated view from an unknown academic.
If Fleming is not obscure, I don't know who is! Is there any scholarly support for his take on this or additional authors you might suggest? Focus on the Family certainly seems to take a literal interpretation of Genesis at least in their arguments opposing gay marriage.
"The modern western mind always looks at structure and form--what something looks like and what it is made of... The Biblical mind looks at function. What does something do and what is it for.
WTF? This is sloppy nonsense. Comparing "Western mind" to "biblical mind?" Structure and function are intimately related no matter if you're from the East, West, wherever.
The western mind will have a tendency to focus too much on the details of visual images in the Apocalypse rather than what the images stand for. The Judeo-Christian perspective stresses function.
Is he speaking specifically about Revelation now? Because there is is a lot of other scripture that seems intended to be an attempted accounting of history.
For example, to the Egyptian, there was a body of water above the earth and water on the earth -- and it was the power of Pharaoh that kept the two apart. Noah isn't the story of a literal worldwide flood -- it's the story of God breaking the power of Pharaoh and through that, saving His people.
This seems a very tortured interpretation. How then are the events immediately following the flood interpreted from a function and purpose reading?
Science is about matter. Revelation is about meaning.
Well revelation certainly seems to be about something that nobody can really figure out. Hash it out with your Christian brethren and let me know what you decide.
Science tells us the shape, dimensions, and composition of the obelisk. But what does it mean?
Do things have to have meaning or is that a human projection? but I did get a similar message from the movie :)
Absolutely. Trivial example: is the glass half full, or half empty? Same evidence, different conclusions.
Same conclusions. 1/2 = 1/2
Another example, assume a euclidean universe. Measure a triangle and find that the sum of the measures of the angles is greater than 180 degrees. Measurement error? Or non-Euclidean universe?
Need more data. E.g. range of measurement error?
Pete DeSanto asked I'm also wondering if you can think of a test for supernatural intelligence.
ReplyDeleteThe Turing test.
Hmmm. I thought that was only good for testing for human intelligence. Nor is it without problems (e.g. anthropomorphism). Could you elaborate?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePete DeSanto: also wondering if you can think of a test for supernatural intelligence.
ReplyDelete[wrf3] The Turing test.
Hmmm. I thought that was only good for testing for human intelligence.
It tests intelligence, regardless of the being. We use it for animals, computers, and aliens (e.g. SETI). There's no reason, in principle, why it can be used to test for God.
Nor is it without problems (e.g. anthropomorphism).
So, taking this back to the main point, the superiority of scientific knowledge against other ways of knowing, are you saying that our knowledge of intelligence isn't scientific or reliable? If so, then science is woefully inadequate for a phenomena which we use every day. That means that science does not give a complete view of the universe; hence, it cannot be a privileged way of knowing.
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDelete[wrf3] Sovereigns are like magnets -- like charges repel. By this I mean "my will" is always in opposition to another who says "my will." This is an inescapable fact of nature; it doesn't make God a tormenter or murderer any more than any other force of nature.
You're implying that god has no choice in the matter, or is constrained in his choices. Is this consistent with your understanding of god?
Yes, it's consistent with my understanding of God. His nature constrains His choices. He is self-existent, can He choose to not exist? Probably not. Too, His choices constrain His choices; that is, if A and B are mutually exclusive, and He chooses A, that automatically excludes B.
All of this is further complicated that God is outside of time; the very notion of God "choosing" is an anthropomorphism, but we're constrained by our language.
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDelete[wrf3] Your problem, your self-inflicted problem, is that you aren't likely to ask a "tormenter" to change your heart, even though that is exactly what God promises: "A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh."
If my problem stems from whatever version of original sin, is it self-inflicted? Did god give me a heart of stone to begin with? Do you see how this can be construed as torment?
"Can be" doesn't mean "must be". If you can devise a proof where it's the only logical conclusion, instead of your personal way to view the situation, then I'll deal with it. Otherwise, you're just choosing to view circumstances, not only in the worst way possible, but the way that prevents you from changing those circumstances. A vicious Catch-22.
[wrf3] All God is going to do is let you live with the consequences of your choices.
Or apparently the choices of those made thousands of years ago.
Children have no choice in being conceived and born. It's silly to blame one's parents for one's nature. We all have to live with the cards we are dealt.
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDelete[wrf3] Science tells us the shape, dimensions, and composition of the obelisk. But what does it mean?
Do things have to have meaning or is that a human projection?
That's the question, isn't it? Science can't answer it. You have to communicate with the designer (and, hence, the Turing test).
Hmmm. I thought that was only good for testing for human intelligence.
ReplyDeleteIt tests intelligence, regardless of the being. We use it for animals, computers, and aliens (e.g. SETI). There's no reason, in principle, why it can be used to test for God.
Could you specify how you would use the test for god? What questions you would ask? What criteria you would use for "god-like" intelligence? How you would detect the answers?
So, taking this back to the main point, the superiority of scientific knowledge against other ways of knowing, are you saying that our knowledge of intelligence isn't scientific or reliable?
Well we have to distinguish what is a characteristic of intelligence and that depends on definitions. You and I both know that definitions are arbitrary at some point. The scientific part comes in testing if the characteristics we define are a property of something. And to compare scientific knowledge with "other ways of knowing" you have to have something to compare! What can you say about intelligence from the religious way of knowing?
Otherwise, you're just choosing to view circumstances, not only in the worst way possible, but the way that prevents you from changing those circumstances. A vicious Catch-22.
But if one is born into separation from god (is that the definition of original sin? total depravity?), does not originally know god, is born with the innate tendency to reject god, and maybe does not learn of god (or the right god), one is still subject to punishment from god. That is not in any way self-inflicted and is very much a form of torment. Just becuase it is natural from a Calvinist perspective does not make is less tormenting.
You have to communicate with the designer (and, hence, the Turing test).
Only if there is a designer that imbues meaning. I'm still not sure how you would use the Turing test, but I hope you will answer that from the questions I asked above.
Pete DeSanto asked: Could you specify how you would use the test for god? What questions you would ask? What criteria you would use for "god-like" intelligence? How you would detect the answers?
ReplyDeleteYou're asking me? In your very first post, you wrote: What I did say is that science can be useful in proposing and testing answers that it cannot presently answer.
What does science say about this? It can't just say "there is no evidence", without stating what evidence would be expected, how it would be collected, and how it would be tested.
You made the claim for the reliability and worth for scientific knowledge. The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim(s). Even though I've engaged in a number of tangents, my sole purpose here has been to show the problems with your epistemological claims.
You also wrote, You have not shown any reliable ways to knowledge other than science.
Since you have no scientific way of testing whether or not a supra-human intelligence exists -- you don't even know what questions to ask -- your "knowledge" of a naturalistic universe isn't reliable and, therefore, ought not be the prevailing scientific dogma.
What can you say about intelligence from the religious way of knowing?
The same thing I would say from the scientific way of knowing. We both measure intelligence more-or-less the same way; i.e. through what is communicated.
Having said that, there are answers to your questions. But if this current dialog was tedious, the next part is even more time consuming.
You're asking me? In your very first post, you wrote: What I did say is that science can be useful in proposing and testing answers that it cannot presently answer.
ReplyDeleteI did not make a claim about specific questions. I also conceded that math was another way to knowledge, albeit supported by it's applicability to science and aided by the need for new mathematics to describe physical phenomena.
What does science say about this? It can't just say "there is no evidence", without stating what evidence would be expected, how it would be collected, and how it would be tested.
Well, your Turing test might be one thing science can say about this if you ever get around to describing how you would run your test.
You made the claim for the reliability and worth for scientific knowledge. The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim(s).
Scientific knowledge has given us medicine, mechanics, physiology, biology, population dynamics, new modes of communication, etc. etc. etc. Religion has given us ??? If you'd like to argue the point, make with some evidence of reliable knowledge yielded by religion.
Since you have no scientific way of testing whether or not a supra-human intelligence exists -- you don't even know what questions to ask -- your "knowledge" of a naturalistic universe isn't reliable and, therefore, ought not be the prevailing scientific dogma.
Dogma? Show a sound, meaningful method to test for the supernatural and it will have to be considered. You haven't exactly been forthcoming with knowledge about a supernatural universe other than to quote from a religious text. Maybe we should move on to the point where you show what ought/not be the prevailing dogma.
Having said that, there are answers to your questions. But if this current dialog was tedious, the next part is even more time consuming.
I can be patient.
You still working out the details of that Turing test there wrf3?
ReplyDeletePete DeSanto asked: You still working out the details of that Turing test there wrf3?
ReplyDeleteNot particularly. That's what grad students are for. The point is that there is an elephant in the room that science is not dealing with, which greatly weakens "sciences" claim to knowledge. I don't expect that I'll be able to solve it single handedly. I'm just going to point out that the Emperor is naked and leave it at that here. In my (limited) spare time I'm collecting notes for an eventual article.
I will, however, address your question about "what reliable knowledge has religion produced." But it may take me a day or three.
Not particularly. That's what grad students are for.
ReplyDeleteOK.
The point is that there is an elephant in the room that science is not dealing with, which greatly weakens "sciences" claim to knowledge.
Science has been dealing quite a lot with aspects of consciousness, will, intelligence, the mind, etc. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but trying nonetheless.
Pete DeSanto wrote: Science has been dealing quite a lot with aspects of consciousness, will, intelligence, the mind, etc. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but trying nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteI'm not complaining with what science has found so far; after all, I've just about finished re-reading Jackson's "Introduction to Artificial Intelligence."
The point that I've been trying to get across to you is that any claims by "scientists" that there is no God do not cite any studies as to whether or not nature itself is intelligent.
Pete DeSanto asked: make with some evidence of reliable knowledge yielded by religion.
ReplyDeleteWell, that hinges on your definition of "reliable", doesn't it?
This won't be an exhaustive list, however:
1) God exists.
2) Jesus rose physically from the dead.
3) Man is, by nature, a selfish creature.
4) External rules (i.e. law) cannot change man's selfish nature.
5) God, through the power of the Gospel, can change man's nature.
6) The Hittite empire existed.
The point that I've been trying to get across to you is that any claims by "scientists" that there is no God do not cite any studies as to whether or not nature itself is intelligent.
ReplyDeleteThe claim is that there is no evidence for god, hence no reason to believe in god.
This won't be an exhaustive list, however:
Nor a relevant one. 1, 2, and 5 are claims, not evidence. 3 and 4 are assertions that may be based upon observed behavior. What is the significance of 6?
Maybe a more comprehensive list is in order.
More evidence?
ReplyDelete1) Vishnu exists.
2) Vishnu physically contains all souls.
3) Liberation is an objective of human life.
4) All religions can help attain spiritual objectives.
5) Man through the practice of yoga can achieve nirvana.
6) Vedic sanskrit existed.
Pete DeSanto
ReplyDeleteThe claim is that there is no evidence for god, hence no reason to believe in god.
And we're going around in circles. I know what the claim is. The claim is bogus because if God is anything, God is intelligent. How can science say there is "no evidence for God", if science doesn't have a handle on testing for and detecting intelligence?
Nor a relevant one.
You just moved the goalpost. You asked me for "reliable knowledge yielded by religion". I gave you exactly what you asked for. You didn't ask for the evidence for it. As for #6, "scholars" have claimed that the Biblical account of the Hittites was wrong -- until supporting evidence showed the Bible to be right and the scholars wrong.
And, with this, I'm going to bow out.
You didn't ask for the evidence for it.
ReplyDeletebut I did... make with some evidence of reliable knowledge yielded by religion.
The claim is bogus because if God is anything, God is intelligent. How can science say there is "no evidence for God", if science doesn't have a handle on testing for and detecting intelligence?
Well if we can't test for it, there is no evidence for it. You can make up whatever you like, but that does not constitute evidence.
And, with this, I'm going to bow out.
All good things must come to an end I suppose. It's been a thought provoking exchange for me. Thanks.