There is no neutrality in law and practice. What is proscribed is just as reflective of a
religious stance as what is prescribed.
Forbidding prayer is no more neutral than practicing prayer. Both reflect a
certain values orientation or religion. However, the secularist will certainly
not admit, “I want my secular, materialistic, atheistic religion to prevail
over yours. Therefore, I will disingenuously argue in favor of keeping the
public sphere ‘neural’ or ‘fair,’ even though we all know that neutrality is a
pure fiction.” However, now in the UK, the secularists can argue that
prayer is merely “illegal”:
- A number of councils have decided not to resume their longstanding practice of opening meetings with prayer after secular campaigners attacked the historic tradition, arguing that prayers had “no place” in a secular environment. The Sunday Telegraph has found that at least 40 councils have decided to either stop or "water down" prayer sessions held at the start of business after the High Court controversially backed the complaints of secularists that the ancient custom was “illegal”.
Surprisingly, no one is arguing that secularism is also a
religion – an imperialistic, monopolistic religion at that. They intend to
control the entire public sphere, banishing any mention of God or even whispers
of a prayer. They already control the schools where their non-evidentially
based religion of Naturalism is enthroned. Consequently, only naturalistic
causation can be mentioned. Any mention of intelligent causation is now verboten!
What can be done? Apart from crying out against this hypocrisy
– this injustice – we must pray in earnest. Our God has always been our help
and our protection, and He purposely allows us to fall under weights we cannot
possibly bear – and we see no way of escape – so that we will remember that He
is our only hope.
Along with prayer, we have to also confess our sins, our
utter need and brokenness. This has always been the road to revival and
deliverance. This was the way that the wise King Solomon had prayed as he
dedicated the Temple:
- "When your people Israel have been defeated by an enemy because they have sinned against you, and when they turn back to you and confess your name, praying and making supplication to you in this temple, then hear from heaven and forgive the sin of your people Israel and bring them back to the land you gave to their fathers.” (1 Kings 8:33-34)
The secularists boast that we have lost the culture war, and
they are correct. In addition to this, according to one reliable estimate,
about 140,000 Christians are martyred yearly, and there is no one to speak up
for them – no nation, no media, no notable universities, no multi-national corporation.
They die wondering why the “Christian” West has failed to speak up for them,
not knowing that we have lost our influence. Let us therefore pray for our Lord’s
mercy and humble ourselves before Him!
"The secularists boast that we have lost the culture war, and they are correct."
ReplyDeleteYep. Dat's true!
But the Great Commission is still in effect!
And our God lives!
DeleteMann: Forbidding prayer is no more neutral than practicing prayer. Both reflect a certain values orientation or religion.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely rubbish Daniel.
If Christian prayer is mandated, then this is not neutral with respect to non-Christians.
If Muslim prayer is mandated, then this is not neutral with respect to non-Muslims.
If no prayer is mandated, then this treats all parties equally. People are still free to pray on their own, it's simply that the state is not mandating or endorsing a particular sectarian practice.
Mann: However, the secularist will certainly not admit, “I want my secular, materialistic, atheistic religion to prevail over yours. Therefore, I will disingenuously argue in favor of keeping the public sphere ‘neural’ or ‘fair,’ even though we all know that neutrality is a pure fiction.”
That would be because the secularist would not actually advocate that - I certainly don't.
What secularists would argue against is favouratism or endorsement of sectarian values and practices, and Christian prayer is certainly a sectarian practice.
Mann: However, now in the UK, the secularists can argue that prayer is merely “illegal”
This is utter rubbish as well.
Prayer is not illegal. It is government mandated or endorsed prayer that is being stopped, and that is a good thing, if you actually think about it.
Would you be fighting this hard if the prayers in question were Islamic, Hindu or Pagan in nature?
Would you fight for government endorsement of the prayers of other religious beliefs other than your own, to the exclusion of your own?
I doubt it, since you only concern seems to be the loss of unjustified privilege of your particular sect.
Mann: Surprisingly, no one is arguing that secularism is also a religion – an imperialistic, monopolistic religion at that.
It's not surprising when you realise that this is a figment of your imagination Daniel.
Mann: Any mention of intelligent causation is now verboten!
Rubbish Daniel. What is verboten is endorsement of sectarian views by the government and representatives of the government.
Although you are right that “Christian prayer is certainly a sectarian practice,” you fail to acknowledge that secularists are equally governed by the promotion of their values and worldviews. There is nothing neutral in anything that they do politically.
DeleteHere’s a good example. Although over 800 credentialed Ph’d scientists have place their careers in jeopardy and have signed a statement asserting that the theory of evolution requires scrutiny, the secularists refuse to allow the light of scrutiny to examine this highly flawed theory. Instead, they have deceptively succeeded in redefining science as “naturalism” – a religious belief that has absolutely no evidential support.
Mann: In addition to this, according to one reliable estimate, about 140,000 Christians are martyred yearly, and there is no one to speak up for them – no nation, no media, no notable universities, no multi-national corporation.
ReplyDeleteReally? You give no citation for this figure, yet you expect it to be accepted as correct?
Please see http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2011/02/relgious-persecution-letter-to.html
DeleteThank you for that. However, you still don't really give citation for your figure, refer to a group who likely has an agenda in inflating or exaggerating the figure. Also, from the brief mention you give on that link, it is not at all clear that these people are being martyred.
DeleteThe deaths being spoken of are no doubt a terrible loss, but for them to be used falsely to further an agenda is terribly immoral.
Dr. Mann, I must endorse Havok's objections. You are getting intemperate in some of your argumentation. For example you would have us believe that not to pray publicly is the equal of praying. Our founders, religious or otherwise, saw the folly of state sponsored religion. I recommend you read their voluminous and well-reasoned observations on the subject.
ReplyDeleteDr. Mann, I endorse Havok's objections. You seem to be growing increasingly intemperate in your argumentation. For example, you would have us believe that to not pray publicly is the equivalent of praying. America's founders saw great folly in state sponsored religion (public sponsored prayers being a subset of such). I recommend you read their voluminous and well-reasoned discussions on the topic.
ReplyDeleteYou also decry "our" loss of the culture wars. I suggest that secularism isn't a religion so much as a philosophical perspective. Likewise, naturalism embodies an empirical method for discovery. It does make certain assumptions that rule out unnatural or supernatural causes. Perhaps when we run into arenas of conflict such as these, we might well consider whether or not we are, as Stephen Jay Gould argued, entering a region of non-overlapping magisterium? Although I don't think that's the entire answer, let us first be sure that we aren't objecting to a careless application of categories. For example, the scientific method is, by definition, godless. What we might then ask is, "Does science sometimes venture into areas where empirical investigation is not appropriate or otherwise productive; some of it's assumptions, like axioms in any discipline, are givens and therefore not provable. In the total scheme, are all of those assumptions reasonable?
To me the culture wars represent people who have staked out a position and that all that follows is then adjusted or redefined to support that position. As such there is little dialogue or learning, just heaping on more misinformation.
Firefly (What’s this Frirefly stuff?),
DeleteYou write that “the scientific method is, by definition, godless” and that naturalism “make certain assumptions that rule out unnatural or supernatural causes.” Then, you admit what I am saying – that naturalism has inherent biases based upon their values/religious orientation (Perhaps I’m going a step further than you?).
However, I suspect that you are endorsing the idea that the scientific method is godless. However, it had never been conceived in this manner. Instead, prior to this secular age, scientists, for the most part, regarded the orderly laws as evidence for the workings of God. While it is true that we can’t put God into a test tube, His laws and will are present nevertheless.
Regarding “non-overlapping magisterium” – I’m with Dawkins. There’s plenty of overlapping. Just take a look at the evolutionary psychologists. They are applying their evolutionary understand to the acquisition of morals, society and religion – to virtually everything. And the Bible does the same!
Dr. Mann, I'm saying that the scientific method, as a methodical process, does not speak to the issue of God's involvement. There is no bias. I can be a scientist that applies the tools of science and still believe in God and wonder at His creative genius. But as a scientist I'm seeking empirical (godless) explanations. To that extent and in that sense there is no overlap. Again, it's not an issue of bias but of definition. I personally suspect that the laws that underly science are evidence of God. But I go further in believing God is exercising his sovereignty moment-by-moment. But that involvement is truly metaphysical and therefore outside of the realm of science. In that sense too, we see the results, at least to my limited view, of non-overlapping magisterium.
ReplyDeleteFirefly,
DeleteWhile I would agree with you that there are areas where scientific methods and explanations do not require a divine explanation (“non-overlapping magisterium,” as you describe it), there are other areas that are highly contentious because both naturalism and supernaturalism are vying for supremacy.
When scientists try to set up laboratory conditions to see if amino acids will ever form proteins on their own, they are guided in doing so by their naturalistic paradigm, assuming that there are only naturalistic explanations as opposed to ID explanations.
Also, whenever we talk about ultimate explanations or engage questions of origins, naturalism vs. ID is at stake. However, science has now become hostile to the possibility of an ID origin. Consequently, naturalism imposes a monopolistic a strangle-hold on science. This is a bias that limits us to only one kind of explanation – a naturalistic one.
Mann: When scientists try to set up laboratory conditions to see if amino acids will ever form proteins on their own, they are guided in doing so by their naturalistic paradigm, assuming that there are only naturalistic explanations as opposed to ID explanations.
DeleteActually, this is false. They're not guided by a "naturalistic paradigm". They're guided by methodological concerns.
There are no methods to study so called supernatural agents, nor is there non ad-hoc evidence for their existence, and so they can safely be ignored.
Perhaps in the future some methods or evidence will be discovered, and science and scientists will begin studying them and including them in hypothesis etc, but today there is no reason to even conclude they exist.
Mann: However, science has now become hostile to the possibility of an ID origin.
This is utter rubbish. Vast numbers of scientists are theists, and they would jump at the opportunity to demonstrate their beliefs had rigorous scientific evidence backing it up.
What science is hostile to is ad-hoc explanations and methods.
Mann: Consequently, naturalism imposes a monopolistic a strangle-hold on science. This is a bias that limits us to only one kind of explanation – a naturalistic one.
More rubbish Daniel.
Please produce a rigorous methodology which can produce reliable knowledge concerning reality, and which is capable of demonstrating that naturalism is false.
You can't do so, and in turn, you lose your capability to reasonably claim that science is unfairly biased.
Ps. I've linked you to papers explaining all of this in the past. Did you ever bother to read them - I'm guessing not.
Here are just a couple of essays demonstrating the point that supernaturalism is methodological unfounded, and scientific investigation is not a priori committed to Naturalism:
DeleteMethodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (Barbara Forrest)
True Science: Does it Presume Naturalism? (Tom Clark)
Of course, “supernaturalism is methodologically unfounded.” However, no one is claiming that IDers use different METHODS.
DeleteAlso, an IDer would grant that all “scientific investigation is not a priori committed to Naturalism.” However, there is usually an assumption of a natural explanation. This is an unsupportable bias. There is also the unfounded presumption that an ID explanation doesn’t belong in the laboratory.
• They're not guided by a "naturalistic paradigm". They're guided by methodological concerns.
DeleteYou are making scientists out to be automatons. We are all guided by our paradigms, theories, and philosophical commitments. To not be guided by them is to be mindless and superficial. Instead, we are always trying to integrate our findings with our theories. Consequently, our theories direct our research.
You claim that “There are no methods to study so called supernatural agents.” If this is the case, then there are no methods to ascertain or study natural causation. (This is not the same thing as formulaic causation (by the laws of physics) – something we all recognize!)
Just to speak to firefly's claims that science does not speak to (a) God's involvement - I have to disagree. If there were a God or gods, or spirits involved in any empirical phenomena, then intersubjective empirical investigation would be suitable to discover this.
ReplyDeleteHowever, such agents are not uncovered by investigation - we have in fact found that everything we have an explanation for relies not on mysterious agents, but on simply regularities (ie. Laws of Physics).
The history of scientific investigation has been a history of demonstrating that God's and spirits don't interact with the world, are superfluous, and very probably don't exist at all.
Havoc, you have overstated things just a bit. In the material realm science has been until recently very successful with its empiricism. But even here, further progress is getting a bit fuzzy. The standard model is a mess that seems to resist the cleanup sought. The Higgs boson, for example, remains elusive if it does actually exist. In other realms, such as reason, language and mathematics, the very tools with science uses to function, science is pretty much dumbfounded to explain. You cite the "laws of physics" as not being mysterious agents. Perhaps you have some insight into their existence that others have missed. As far as I know science hasn't quite figured out the reason or origins of their existence or why there is any correspondence between the working of our minds that would allow us to even think of them as laws.
ReplyDeleteFirefly: Havoc, you have overstated things just a bit.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you've pointed out any instances of this overstating.
Firefly: In the material realm science has been until recently very successful with its empiricism. But even here, further progress is getting a bit fuzzy.
Not really. Further progress is continuing at a great pace, and our understanding of reality continues to expand.
Firefly: The standard model is a mess that seems to resist the cleanup sought.
The standard model of particle physics is incomplete. What we have of it is incredibly useful and results in fantastically accurate predictions concerning reality.
Firefly: The Higgs boson, for example, remains elusive if it does actually exist.
The Higgs has a range of theoretically possible values, and we are gradually ruling them out as equipment and experiment test for it's existence.
There are also a number of extensions to the standard model which do not include the Higgs, so I fail to see why this is even an issue.
Firefly: In other realms, such as reason, language and mathematics, the very tools with science uses to function, science is pretty much dumbfounded to explain.
Not realy. Neuroscience is progressing on how our brains give rise to our minds and consciousness, and there seems to be no show stoppers as to why this progress can not continue. Evolutionary biology is increasing our understanding of how our brains came to evolve. biology and linguistics are also increasing our understandings of the history and nature of language, in both humans and non-human animals. And mathematics is a modelling tool which is very useful, but doesn't seem to me to be mysterious - it's like natural langauge, but more precise and less ambiguous, like other formal systems, such as 1st order logic.
Firefly: You cite the "laws of physics" as not being mysterious agents. Perhaps you have some insight into their existence that others have missed.
I'm not sure what you mean here. They're not agents, since they are not volitional. They're observations of the way things regularly behave in reality.
Firefly: As far as I know science hasn't quite figured out the reason or origins of their existence or why there is any correspondence between the working of our minds that would allow us to even think of them as laws.
For the former, our current laws of physics seems likely to have arisen from an underlying "framework" - if you start with a bare quantum/gravitational framework, then our laws of physics can "freeze out" under (possibly spontaneous) symmetry breaking. As to why there is this underlying framework - perhaps it is necessary, or things could not be any other way. It may simply be a brute fact. None of which seems to be reason to invoke a divine mind behind the scenes.
As for the latter, our brains, as well as those of other animals, are pattern recognition machines. Pattern recognition is very useful in an evolutionary context, since it allows all sorts of adaptive learning behaviours. This allows the organism to notice simple correlations. In animals with advanced cognitive capacities (ie. us, and to a lesser extent the other great apes, other primates, possibly dophins and the like) it allows further learning and understanding of realy. in Us, we've used this capability to understand regularities which we call "laws of physics".
Not really a problem as far as I can tell.
And firefly, nothing in your previous comment indicated that our ignorance concerning some parts of reality, due to incomplete scientific knowledge ought to lead us to posit the existence of any immaterial realm at all, so I fal to see quite what you were actually trying to get at with your comment.
ReplyDeleteHavok, I recognize your optimism regarding future discoveries in the neurosciences and, in fact, all of science. But the fact remains that there exists a huge gap, in kind, between what we call the material realm of science and areas governed by conscious intelligence (including mathematics), the arts morality, etc. Yes, I've read many who do their best to gerrymand these areas into a materialistic framework, For example, you wrote, "As to why there is this underlying framework - perhaps it is necessary, or things could not be any other way. It may simply be a brute fact. None of which seems to be reason to invoke a divine mind behind the scenes." I invoked no divine mind, I simply raised areas where applying science, a blatant philosophical choice, has thus far proven fruitless--What you call ignorance (or if you prefer, brute fact) I will call mystery. The material realm of science circumscribes a narrow and sterile slice of our reality that can't even explain the tools nor the profound sense of purpose by which it functions. If you choose to interpret all experience in these limited terms you join a throng that prefers to apply mental gymnastics and sophisticated gibberish to invoking a "divine mind."
DeleteAmong the greatest of these mysteries is that we have minds that encompass such an abstraction as science. What is less mysterious but nevertheless intriguing is the phenomena of time and history. Why is it that in all the living creatures we know of, only we have a sense of time. We have a word for "beginnings." Philosophically many people are uncomfortable with the idea that there was one because behind that concept looms more mystery. So we fantasize about multiple universes and other non-empirical voodoo to sidestep the questions. (Truly unscientific).
Once we have begun at the beginning we have a history. And while all is supposedly non-purposeful it seems history is directional, and all in one direction, at that. Somehow we've moved from nothing (or almost nothing?) to intelligent, living (another mystery or at least thus far mysterious fact) beings arguing about weather science can explain an existence that it is still trying to account for. Which brings me to your question, "What is it I'm actually trying to get at?" My answer, "That while science cannot answer every question, the metaphysical bias of scientology (which I suspect is your frame of reference) won't even allow us to honestly frame the relevant questions."
Firefly: But the fact remains that there exists a huge gap, in kind, between what we call the material realm of science and areas governed by conscious intelligence (including mathematics), the arts morality, etc.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this "huge gap, in kind" has been established. It is often claimed, but it seems to me that it is assuming your conclusion - some things aren't material, therefore materialism/science is false/cannot speak on them.
I don't see why anyone would accept this sort of argument.
Firefly: Yes, I've read many who do their best to gerrymand these areas into a materialistic framework,
You see gerrymandering, I see attempts at explanation.
Firefly: I invoked no divine mind, I simply raised areas where applying science, a blatant philosophical choice, has thus far proven fruitless--What you call ignorance (or if you prefer, brute fact) I will call mystery.
And yet other "ways of knowing" have been shown to be fruitless far longer ago than your claims for scientific investigation. It may well be that intersubjective empirical investigation cannot inform us or help explain some things in reality, but if it cannot, I don't think there is anything else that can - there is certainly nothing we currently know about which can help here.
Firefly: The material realm of science circumscribes a narrow and sterile slice of our reality that can't even explain the tools nor the profound sense of purpose by which it functions.
I think you have the view of science backwards. Scientific investigation didn't start out by defining what was natural and what was not, but has gradually "carved out" what can be shown to be probably the case.
Once again you are assuming that there is something more to reality that intersubjective empirical investoiation cannot investigate, but you have failed to show this to be the case - how do you even know that this is the case?
Firefly: Among the greatest of these mysteries is that we have minds that encompass such an abstraction as science.
I don't see it as mysterious at all. Science is simply a formal expression of the sort of things we do every single day - intersubjective empiricism.
Firefly: Why is it that in all the living creatures we know of, only we have a sense of time.
I'm pretty sure I've had dogs and cats who had a sense of time - they know when to expect you home, they know things that have happened in the past.
What I think you are referring to is our ability to discuss the past - ie. language.
Firefly: Philosophically many people are uncomfortable with the idea that there was one because behind that concept looms more mystery. So we fantasize about multiple universes and other non-empirical voodoo to sidestep the questions. (Truly unscientific).
ReplyDeleteFor a start, I don't think you're being reasonable in claiming that people have problems with "beginnings".
Secondly, you seem to have an uninformed view of cosmology, since you seem to believe that multiverse hypothesis' are put forward simply because people are uncomfortable with "beginnings". You don't seem to understand that various multiverse hypothesis "fall out" of extrapolations of existing, well attested physics.
Firefly: Once we have begun at the beginning we have a history.
This is not necessarily the case, as there have been (and likely are) cultures who claim a cyclic, eternal past. They have a history, just no beginning.
Firefly: And while all is supposedly non-purposeful it seems history is directional, and all in one direction, at that.
Thermodynamics is your friend - specifically the 2nd law, as the processes which underly our memories (which are a function of our brains) utilise increasing entropy.
Firefly: "That while science cannot answer every question, the metaphysical bias of scientology (which I suspect is your frame of reference) won't even allow us to honestly frame the relevant questions."
Intersubjective empiricism may not be able to explain everything about reality, or our limited capacity may be unable to comprehend it, or any number of other things.
But that does not mean that just any old assertion will fit. We need to have well grounded methodologies to anchor our epistemological claims, else we're simply practicing wishful thinking - using our imaginations rather than discovering things about reality.
For what it's worth, it seems to me that you have already decided that science/intersubjective empiricism cannot provide an explanation for some things (and you have decided what some of those things are). You have already decided that there is some other "realm" if you will, that you've placed outside the purview of any rational invetigation, but then you seem to want to be able to make claims about reality on this basis. But such claims appear to have no methodological support, nor are they on any sort of firm epistemological footing.
Havok, my take on those that put forth a multiverse hypothesis is that such hypothesis are not based so much on epistemological conclusions as much as they allow for ways to account for what science has been thus far unable to explain. In other words, when the scientific method encounters "barriers of knowing" some resort to imagining other possibilities, for example, universes employing a different physics and different laws. And while that may be legitimate, it is not a product of empiricism or, as you say, has no "methodological support." It's a difference of attitude; it reflects the optimism I spoke of.
ReplyDeleteYou say I have already decided there is some realm outside the purview of any rational investigation. That's not quite right. If there is a divine mind, and if we result from some creative process of that mind, I suspect that, being created, we may not be able to fully fathom that divine mind. In other words, as you've already suggested, we may not have the mental capacity required. The issue may not be one of rationality, but one of capacity and the other of empirical investigation.
My use of the term mystery reflects a posture of humility. I marvel at what we know and will yet discover. I believe there is no limit to that endeavor. But it will never be enough and that, I admit, is an expression of my metaphysics.
If there is a theory of everything, we may yet figure out the math required to explain it, but it will probably be just that, mathematics we can do (this assumes a rationality behind it all) and yet not comprehend what we know.
It's analogous to dogs and cats and time. A dog may have a sense of timing; it "senses" at what point in the day its owner will return. The pattern is established. Does that mean the dog has a sense of time--that the event occurs at 4 o'clock? Who knows what the clues involved are? I marvel when a dog will sit, focused on a stores, entry, while it's owner shops inside. Does it matter to the dog that it's ten minutes or two hours? Does the dog "think" about it? Does a dog remember "the past" or simply recognize an event or person it has seen before? Does a dog "understand" in any way, past, present and future?
But yes, I think there are realms of reality outside the purview of scientific method -- how mind controls matter, for example. And while I cannot prove it neither is your "optimism" that it will be done and can be done.
Firefly: Havok, my take on those that put forth a multiverse hypothesis is that such hypothesis are not based so much on epistemological conclusions as much as they allow for ways to account for what science has been thus far unable to explain.
DeleteWhile there may be some cosmologists who resort to hypothesising a multiverse in order to avoid a conclusion, this does not appear to be the case for all or even most of them.
For instance, the inflationary multiverse scenario's fall out of an inflationary big bang model - once inflation gets going, it is unlikely to turn off everywhere at once, and so you get different "bubbles" or non-inflationary space time dwarfed by vast gulfs of inflationary space-time - a multiverse. Other scenario's such as M-Branes, fall out of some solutions to the equations of string-theory (which is misnamed, but still interesting).
Firefly: ...for example, universes employing a different physics and different laws.
Well, this result falls out of spontaneous symmetry breaking - it is not just a random thought or belief. Symmetry breaking may not be spontaneous, but speculating on what we might expect if it were does not seem to be a huge problem.
Firefly: I marvel at what we know and will yet discover. I believe there is no limit to that endeavor. But it will never be enough and that, I admit, is an expression of my metaphysics.
I join you in that sentiment, Firefly :-)
Firefly: Does that mean the dog has a sense of time--that the event occurs at 4 o'clock?
4 o'clock is an arbitrary designation. The dog, not being beholden to our system of keeping time obviously wouldn't think of it in those terms.
Firefly: Does it matter to the dog that it's ten minutes or two hours?
I think the evidence indicates that it does. The longer the dog is left alone, the more likely it is to "get bored", and simply lie down. The amount of time the owner has been inside also tends to correlate strongly with the amount of "excitement" the dog displays upon the owner's emergence.
Firefly: Does a dog remember "the past" or simply recognize an event or person it has seen before? Does a dog "understand" in any way, past, present and future?
These are all empirical questions which may have already been answered - have you looked?
If they have not been answered, and you are actually interested in them, you could try to provide answers to them yourself.
Firefly: But yes, I think there are realms of reality outside the purview of scientific method
And how is this claim supported?
Is it on a firm epistemological footing, or does it amount to little more than an intuition you have?
Do you claim to know it in any sense, or is it closer to a "feeling" you have?
What methodological procedures would/could you use to try to verify/falsify this claim?
Firefly: -- how mind controls matter, for example.
I really don't see this as a problem, as the evidence indicates that the mind is what the brain does, and so there is no "mystery" here to be explained.
Those who ignore this evidence, and are wedded to a dualistic view, are those who need to try to answer this question (as well as explain the fairly strong evidence in favour of something like my position).
Firefly: And while I cannot prove it neither is your "optimism" that it will be done and can be done.
In the case you're talking about as an example, it IS being done.
Havok: "You don't seem to understand that various multiverse hypothesis "fall out" of extrapolations of existing, well attested physics."
ReplyDeleteThe following article might be of interest:
Much Ado About Nothing
Excerpts:
"I suppose I’m posting too much about this, but the ongoing fight over nothing between prominent physicists and philosophers strikes me as perhaps marking some kind of end-point in the multiverse-mania-driven decline of part of theoretical physics from a difficult, serious subject to a trivial and kind of ludicrous undertaking. How can you get any sillier than arguing over nothing? Will this be the end of it, or is there somewhere lower to go that I can’t yet imagine? There’s also a Three Stooges sort of entertainment value to following this fighting. It’s kind of like a segment of Dumb (a multiverse explains everything!) vs. Dumber (bringing religion into it, “pale, small, silly, nerdy”).
In this morning’s developments, we have prominent skeptic Michael Shermer, in Much Ado About Nothing, making the case that the Multiverse finishes off that “God” business, using “multiverse hypotheses predicted from mathematics and physics”. His authority here is the Hawking/Mlodinow popular book, but he’s also convinced that WMAP and LIGO are somehow going to provide evidence for multiverses, something that even the most far-out theorists in this field aren’t claiming.
Nobody seems to have told Shermer that this is not an idea taken seriously by a significant number of theorists, or that LHC data has shot down the hopes of the one or two such theorists."
(Read it all.)
Truth, no one is claiming that multiverse hypothesis' aren't speculative. What I claimed above was that they are not simply wild speculations, but are based upon fairly solid physics (the example I used above with firefly, of inflationary multiverse models, is an example of this).
DeleteThe arguments about nothing are usually of people talking past each other. Physicists have tended to treat the "void" (as Stenger describes it) as the closest to nothingness we can envisage, while philosophers berate them for not dealing with the philosophical concept of nothingness (which is not without it's difficulties).
Richard Carrier has an interesting discussion on nothing, which deals with the philosophical concept :-)
Havok: "Truth, no one is claiming that multiverse hypothesis' aren't speculative."
ReplyDeleteGuess I don't have enough faith to be a multiverse atheist.
;-)
And yet you have enough faith to claim to know something which does not even count as being speculative, it's so vague, which is not based on any established scientific knowledge or extrapolations from such, which postulates entirely unevidenced "substances", which is empirically empty and predictively impotent, lacks any sort of detail, and cannot be falsified?
DeleteThe "God hypothesis" is so much worse than ANY multiverse hypothesis, that to dismiss the later out of hand but accept the former is ludicrous!
(Cheshire Cat expression)
ReplyDeleteHavok,
Your histrionics admit that you too make an admission of faith. Don't be ashamed to confess that you are as much faith-based as anyone else, albeit you're a faith-based multi-verse atheist.
Biblical Christians have faith.
Multi-verse Atheists have faith.
Truth, apart from the fact that it's not histrionics but rather the way things are, you are equivocating between uses of the term faith, and also trying to validate your views by trying to drag me down to your level.
DeleteThe "God Hypothesis" is empirically empty, unfalsifiable as generally presented, and is not and extrapolation from existing knowledge. If you don't agree with this then please argue your case.
Christian faith appears more akin to " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" while my faith in the methods and epistemology of scientific investigation, and more broadly, intersubjective empirical investigation, is more akin to confidence based upon logic and material evidence. My faith does not appear to be comparable to your own.
Even if our "faith" were comparable, this wouldn't help your case, but would rather be an indictment of mine.
And finally, I'm not promoting any multiverse hypothesis as more than speculation grounded in existing physics/science. Christians (like yourself, I'm assuming) promote the God hypothesis as a near certainty (or at least more probably than not), as something you can and should live your life by.
So no, our positions are not comparable in the way in which you had tried to make out, and your position is not strengthened even should I have been engaged in some dramatic behaviour.
Havok: "Truth, apart from the fact that it's not histrionics but rather the way things are, you are equivocating between uses of the term faith, and also trying to validate your views by trying to drag me down to your level."
ReplyDeleteYou missed the point. Which doesn't surprise me.
First of all, it's not an equivocation on the word "faith".
Look back again at what you wrote: "Truth, no one is claiming that multiverse hypothesis' aren't speculative."
Yet you believe in the multiverse hypothesis based on faith.
In contrast, Biblical Christians repent and believe in the living and resurrected Jesus Christ, 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity as their risen King and Savior based on faith.
There's no equivocation going on here.
Second, was it a jolt to you that you hold your beliefs and positions based on faith?
Everyone holds a position - some integral position that they hold tightly - on the basis of faith. Again, that's nothing to be ashamed of. Your thrashing and kicking at this realization indicates some degree of shame upon realizing this.
Everyone from a Bible-Believing Christian to Buddhist who believes in Reincarnation to a Polytheistic Hindu to a Scientologist to a Man who worships his own penis to an African Animist to a worshipper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to a Star Wars-the-Force-believing pantheist to a nihilist to a materialist, multi-verse atheist, they all take their beliefs and positions based on faith.
Some of the critical differences are obviously the object of their faith and the justification used to undergird their faith.
Trivially, you think you have a superior basis for your faith-based position above all other faith-based positions. Of course I vigorously differ.
As an aside, I could easily have fisked your 5/15 comment at 6:46pm, but it was sufficient to merely point out that your position requires an article of faith on your part. And the hoped for effect is that you would have an epiphany that you are a person of faith just as much as anyone else.
Also, although it may have been unintentional, your recent comments are a good and plentiful source of amusement. So thank you for that.
No Truth, I got your point, and what you were trying to demonstrate. Unfortunately you're simply mistaken.
DeleteFor a start, I'm not a "multi-verse atheist" as you've labelled me. I'm ok with uncertainty and admitting that I personally, and we as humans, simply don't currently have the evidence for or against a multiverse - "I don't know" is the appropriate response.
Secondly, my point about various multiverse hypothesis was that while they are speculative, they're on far firmer footing than ANY "God hypothesis" due to them being extrapolations from existing, solidly attested physics. Contrary to Firefly's assertion that multiverse hypothesis were ad-hoc in nature, non-scientific and brought up in an attempt to avoid admitting something.
Thirdly, as I've pointed out twice now, my "faith" in scientific processes and more broadly, intersubjective empiricism is based upon logic and evidence, and is not in the least comparable to the unevidenced faith that many Christians profess - including yourself it appears. So in comparing our different "faith" positions, you are indeed trying to drag me down to your level.
Also, I'm sure there are positions I hold which are based upon the sort of "faith" that Christians have regarding the existence of their God (ie. unsupported faith), but I try to avoid living my life by them, since to do so seems to be irrational.
Ps. I'm glad I can provide some amusement for you. Now, if you could simply argue that your faith position was as good as the "scientific" position, rather than the scientific position being just as bad as your position, we could perhaps move this discussion forward ;-)
Havok, the faith-based atheist,
ReplyDeleteThe discussion has moved forward splendidly! I am delighted to see that you now recognize that you are as faith-based as anyone.
So let's have you move forward even more.
Havok, man of faith, think and imagine about the day you die. What do you think happens to you?
Have you ever been to a funeral? Ever been to a funeral of family or friends? What do you think happens to people when they die? What do you think happens when you die?
Truth, since you haven't bothered to respond to my points, I'll take this as a concession from you that I am correct, that the "God hypothesis" doesn't even rate being called a speculative hypothesis, and that you accept that multiverse hypothesis' which extrapolate from existing physics are not faith based in the same fashion as your belief in God - thank you.
DeleteTruth: Havok, man of faith, think and imagine about the day you die. What do you think happens to you?
Well, given the fairly abundant evidence which strongly indicates that consciousness is a brain process or the result of brain processes, your consciousness stops when you die.
Fairly straightforward really.
Why do you ask? Do you have some another outlandish belief with little to no evidential support you want to claim is on a similar footing? :-)