OOL Revisited

[MarkE]

Hello again. As a creationist, I've always found the problem of the origin of life a strong pointer to the need for a creator.

One exploration of a minimal free-living organism arrived at a 531,000-base, 473-gene bacterium. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-synthesize-bacteria-with-smallest-genome-yet/

No doubt further research will take this lower. However, it highlights the gap between a postulated strand of self-replicating auto-catalysing RNA and several hundred thousand bases.

The size of that gap seems under-acknowledged in this debate.

Positing “molecular evolution” as a precursor to biological evolution aims to lessen the gap. But what would that look like? A naked strand of RNA (or some other information-bearing polymer) self-replicating with high fidelity using a sustained supply of constituent monomers.

And how does it originate? "The odds of suddenly having a self-replicating RNA pop out of a prebiotic soup are vanishingly low," says evolutionary biochemist Niles Lehman is this article: https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39252/title/RNA-World-2-0/ The article goes on to discuss possible avenues to overcome this, but no real answers.

In recognition of real problems with the RNA-world hypothesis, we have alternatives such as protein first:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/life-rsquo-s-first-molecule-was-protein-not-rna-new-model-suggests/

Or energy precedes information:

https://www.quora.com/Which-hypothesis-has-the-most-evidence-for-the-origin-of-life-Metabolism-or-RNA-self-replication/answer/Drew-Smith-48

It's a mistake to call down a god-of-the-gaps.

I suggest it's also a mistake (and unwarranted) to exclude supernatural agency no matter how vanishingly small the probability of naturalistic explanations becomes.

[RonO]

The supernatural doesn't have to be excluded. It excludes itself. You
can't get anywhere with it. That is why the abiogenesis argument failed
the scientific creationists over 30 years ago.

Ron Okimoto

[MarkE]

> The supernatural doesn't have to be excluded. It excludes itself. You
> can't get anywhere with it. That is why the abiogenesis argument failed
> the scientific creationists over 30 years ago.

Hi Ron, a question for you. Do you consider supernatural agency to be a possibility?

I'm not asking if you can "get anywhere” with the God hypothesis. I’m not asking if you consider it a low probability. I’m asking, have you ruled it out entirely, and if so, why?

[Bill Rogers]

The thing is "supernatural agency" is entirely non-specific. And it's completely compatible with any other explanation of the origin of life. If we work out a completely well documented sequence of steps from chemistry to the first imperfect replicators, the first cells, and on through humans, one can always say that God designed the physical laws that made it all possible. So I cannot even assign a probability, low or otherwise, to supernatural agency for the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, or anything else.

I'm an atheist, but my atheism didn't arise because I thought that a scientific explanation of anything ruled out a supernatural explanation (because it doesn't - you can always give God the credit for whatever you like, regardless of whether there's also a physical explanation). I'm an atheist because I find no satisfactory answer to theodicy, and no evidence of a benevolent God looking out for us. My view is we're here alone and if we don't take care of each other, no God is going to do it for us.

[RonO]

Until we figure out something it is essentially supernatural if it is
something that we can't readily observe. This would be something like
string theory, and not like some undiscovered species even though junk
beliefs like Bigfoot are basically supernatural beliefs because it is
unlikely that bigfoot is an undiscovered species and bigfoot is more
likely frauds of one type or another.

We finally got some evidence that gravitons exist last year.

The issue with your type of supernatural is you want to claim that some
god did it. This leads no where and can never amount to anything unless
that god makes an appearance. Even then you would have guys like Ray
that would likely claim that was a false god and not the one that
actually did the creating. Can such a god please everyone? Just think
of what some hard core YEC would do if some god showed up and claimed to
have created the universe 13 billion years ago and diddle farted around
creating our solar system 5 billion years ago.

It makes intelligent design fruitcake junk, but years ago Behe admitted
that the only use for his type of IC was that we could stop
investigating the issue of where the flagellum came from. Even if
Behe's god did it we would never know how. When there are no
restrictions on what could happen, you are never going to understand
what happened.

Creationists could believe that some god created the world last Tuesday
just the way we find it, and it could be true, but so what?

Fortunately that is not how science works. If you want to understand
something you are going to have to stick to the science and hope that it
tells you something interesting.

Look at Behe. He understands that biological evolution is fact, so he
has some non supernatural basis for thinking that he can understand
something about designer creation. He claims that he would know what
the designer might have done if he could see what the designer might
have done, but he has no idea of how the designer could have done it or
if he will ever see the evidence that he thinks is there. What if the
design isn't what Behe thinks that it is? Behe actually depends on the
designer using an evolutionary design technology and he expects to see a
series of improbable mutations in some order and arrangement that would
tell him that the design was directed, but it would have to depend on
naturalistic processes that were directed. Unfortunately for Behe his
god doesn't have to do things that way. There doesn't have to be any
sensible order or arrangement of mutations that had to occur because the
designer could have done it any way it wanted to. The supernatural
isn't doing Behe any good at all.

The ID perps have claimed for years that all they need to do to be
sciency is to make the unsupported claims. That may be how a lot of
science starts out, but that isn't what science actually is. With the
god did it supernatural all you are ever going to be doing is making the
unsupported claims. That has led no where for the IDiots. The ID perps
just put up their list of the 6 best pieces of IDiot evidence. They
don't even call it scientific evidence. Likely because 5 of the 6 are
already known to have failed as creation science over 30 years ago, and
the 6th is just Behe's IC that is just the standard creationist
complexity argument with IC thrown in on top. I've noted that IC is
likely 6th by merit on the list because junk like gaps in the fossil
record actually exist, but Behe has never demonstrated that his type of
IC exists in nature to talk about. The list means that the ID perps
have made zero scientific progress in their entire 22+ year history.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/kpXQXpsZCmo/zFvov2n2AwAJ

The ID perps have altered the structure of the junk and they no longer
have pleas for donations on the pages. It now seems to be in some type
of archive format. I haven't checked to see if they have altered any
content. I did copy the originals off their web page, but unless the
IDiots show some interest in the junk evidence it hasn't been worth
looking to see if they changed anything.

I have kept putting up this "best evidence for ID" since November and
all the IDiots can do is run in denial and/or lie to themselves about
the best that IDiocy has to offer. This is what depending on the
supernatural gets you.

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/28/18 4:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
> [...]

> I suggest it's also a mistake (and unwarranted) to exclude supernatural agency no matter how vanishingly small the probability of naturalistic explanations becomes.

I'm sure any and every scientist would be thrilled to investigate all
supernatural beings you bring to their lab. Well, maybe not all of
them; some may want effective precautions against smiting.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[MarkE]

> The thing is "supernatural agency" is entirely non-specific. And it's completely compatible with any other explanation of the origin of life. If we work out a completely well documented sequence of steps from chemistry to the first imperfect replicators, the first cells, and on through humans, one can always say that God designed the physical laws that made it all possible. So I cannot even assign a probability, low or otherwise, to supernatural agency for the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, or anything else.
>
> I'm an atheist, but my atheism didn't arise because I thought that a scientific explanation of anything ruled out a supernatural explanation (because it doesn't - you can always give God the credit for whatever you like, regardless of whether there's also a physical explanation). I'm an atheist because I find no satisfactory answer to theodicy, and no evidence of a benevolent God looking out for us. My view is we're here alone and if we don't take care of each other, no God is going to do it for us.

Hi Bill, what you describe is I think the position of some theistic evolutionists. They would agree that “designed the physical laws that made it all possible”, thus making divine intervention potentially undetectable. I’d call this a weaker form of appeal to supernatural agency.

I have in mind a stronger version. Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist". Prior to Darwin, to be an atheist was to irrationally ignore the lack of a naturalistic explanation, or to hope that one would be found in the future.

Suppose for a moment that we didn’t have the current theory of evolution (e.g. we’re living in the 1700s, or new evidence refutes the current theory). Would you be open to supernatural agency and/or a future naturalistic hypothesis?

[MarkE]

Just to clarify then:

1. Do you think the existence of God (a supernatural creative agent) is a possibility at all? Y/N

2. If yes, would attempting to find out about God be important to some degree? Y/N

[Ernest Major]

1. Do you think that Cthulu is a possibility at all? Y/N
2. If yes, would attempting to find out about Cthulu be important to
some degree? Y/N

Now consider that pair of questions for Anansi, Tiamat, Zeus, Odin, the
Sidhe, the Fates, Lady Luck, the flying sphagetti monster, Lares,
Rusalkas, and other supernatural entities.

I'd like you also to consider the possibility that you're committing
equivocation - between a supernatural creative agent, and the particular
hypothetical supernatual entity called God, Yhwh or Allah.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 29/03/2018 00:16, MarkE wrote:
> It's a mistake to call down a god-of-the-gaps.
>
> I suggest it's also a mistake (and unwarranted) to exclude supernatural agency no matter how vanishingly small the probability of naturalistic explanations becomes.

The practise of science requires the assumption that the world shows at
least statistical regularities. I don't go so far as to say that this
entails methodological naturalism, but it does mean that science can't
deal with unconstrained supernatural entities.

Science is the pursuit of empirical explanations for observables. Just
because something is conceivable (I know of no way one could assign a
meaningful probability to the existence of various conceivable Gods)
doesn't mean that it's a scientific concept. Scientists are going to
focus on productive hypotheses for the origin of life on earth -
hypotheses that can support research programs.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Cubist]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
> Hello again. As a creationist, I've always found the problem of the origin of life a strong pointer to the need for a creator.

"I have no idea how this happened; therefore, I *do* know how it happened—and what I know is, God musta done it."

You will, I hope, forgive me for not finding that "line of reasoning" to be particularly compelling.

> It's a mistake to call down a god-of-the-gaps.

If you actually did think that "(i)t's a mistake to call down a god-of-the-gaps", you wouldn't regard the current gaps in human knowledge of abiogenesis to be "a strong pointer to the need for a creator".

> I suggest it's also a mistake (and unwarranted) to exclude supernatural agency no matter how vanishingly small the probability of naturalistic explanations becomes.

As best I can tell, the word "supernatural" doesn't actually *mean* anything. When I look at how the word is commonly used, and attempt to reverse-engineer a meaning for the word from its common usages, it ends up meaning something like "I don't understand this", often with a side order of "—and neither does anybody else, nor *will* anybody else, *ever*".

I gather that you would not agree with the paragraph just previous. If you do indeed think that the word "supernatural" is actually meaningful, perhaps you could help me out by explaining how I can *tell* whether or not an arbitrary Entity X is "supernatural"?

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:05:03 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > The thing is "supernatural agency" is entirely non-specific. And it's completely compatible with any other explanation of the origin of life. If we work out a completely well documented sequence of steps from chemistry to the first imperfect replicators, the first cells, and on through humans, one can always say that God designed the physical laws that made it all possible. So I cannot even assign a probability, low or otherwise, to supernatural agency for the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, or anything else.
> >
> > I'm an atheist, but my atheism didn't arise because I thought that a scientific explanation of anything ruled out a supernatural explanation (because it doesn't - you can always give God the credit for whatever you like, regardless of whether there's also a physical explanation). I'm an atheist because I find no satisfactory answer to theodicy, and no evidence of a benevolent God looking out for us. My view is we're here alone and if we don't take care of each other, no God is going to do it for us.
>
> Hi Bill, what you describe is I think the position of some theistic evolutionists. They would agree that “designed the physical laws that made it all possible”, thus making divine intervention potentially undetectable. I’d call this a weaker form of appeal to supernatural agency.
>
> I have in mind a stronger version. Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist". Prior to Darwin, to be an atheist was to irrationally ignore the lack of a naturalistic explanation, or to hope that one would be found in the future.

I disagree with Dawkins about this. I think it was quite possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" before Darwin. And there were such people even in classical times, Epicurus and Lucretius, for example. There will always be things which have not been given a scientific explanation at any given time, but that's no reason to invoke God as an explanation. Dawkins, to my knowledge, never said that he was less intellectually fulfilled as an atheist because nobody had figured out how to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics.

>
> Suppose for a moment that we didn’t have the current theory of evolution (e.g. we’re living in the 1700s, or new evidence refutes the current theory). Would you be open to supernatural agency and/or a future naturalistic hypothesis?

The state of science at any particular moment has no effect at all on my openness to God. If I didn't have the problems with faith that I mentioned in my previous post, nothing in science would interfere; nor would I find the existence of lots of open questions in science an argument in favor of God.

If God's domain is the stuff we don't understand scientifically, then God's domain is always shrinking. If you want to believe in God, better to locate God right there in all the stuff we understand, too, rather than to banish Him to the origin of life on earth or the Big Bang or subatomic physics.

I don't believe in God, but my disbelief has nothing whatsoever to do with how species originate or how life changes over long time scales.

[RonO]

On 3/28/2018 11:42 PM, MarkE wrote:
> Just to clarify then:
>
> 1. Do you think the existence of God (a supernatural creative agent) is a possibility at all? Y/N
>

You know that it is a possibility. Everyone knows that it is a
possibility, but so what? Really, that possibility has zero weight in
science because it has a 100% failure rate upon testing and no one can
think of why anything would change if it were true. Really, none of our
experimental designs have to change. There are no differential
expectations because there are no credible expectations.

Really, invisible fairies could be helping the flowers bloom in the
spring. That has just as much of a possibility of existing, but who cares?

As indicated the IDiots have depended on the supernatural since they
took over from the scientific creationists, and it has gotten them no
where. Zero progress in over 22 years.

Because of the 100% failure rate the IDiots never try to test what could
be tested. YEC IDiots could obviously be dealing with the age of the
earth and universe, but the YEC IDiots claim that, that doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter because it has already failed testing. OEC theistic
evolutionist IDiots like Behe and Denton already know what a failure
everything testable has been. Denton even goes as far as claiming that
his god got everything rolling with the Big Bang and it all unfolded
into what we have. That means that even Behe's theistic evolution
tweeking claim is a failure. Pags geocentrism is a failure. To Denton
all the OEC and YEC models of god did it in the last 13 billion years
are failures.

This is why we call it faith instead of science.

> 2. If yes, would attempting to find out about God be important to some degree? Y/N
>

What is the question? If you think that some god is responsible for
nature, then study nature. Science was developed to do that. That is
what theistic scientists have done for centuries. It has not helped in
determining if such a god exists, but they have learned something about
the creation, and if some god has had something to do with it, they may
have learned something about such a god. Theologians can debate about
what they think has been learned.

That is the reality that you live in. All creationist religious people
live in that reality. If they go full bore into siding with the science
they end up like Denton. If they are wishy washy undecided they end up
like Behe, the YECers or flatearthers and geocentrists if they are fully
into science denial.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

Basing atheism on a single unanswered question seems rather premature to
me. It's a bit like saying one doesn't believe in science because there
is no satisfactory answer to the problem of quantum gravity.

Anyway, what would a "satisfactory answer to theodicy" look like?

[Earle Jones]

On 2018-03-29 17:12:55 +0000, Dexter said:

> Ernest Major wrote:
>
>> On 29/03/2018 05:42, MarkE wrote:
>>> Just to clarify then:
>>>
>>> 1. Do you think the existence of God (a supernatural
>>> creative agent) is a possibility at all? Y/N
>>>
>>> 2. If yes, would attempting to find out about God be
>>> important to some degree? Y/N
>>
>> 1. Do you think that Cthulu is a possibility at all? Y/N
>> 2. If yes, would attempting to find out about Cthulu be
>> important to some degree? Y/N
>>
>> Now consider that pair of questions for Anansi, Tiamat,
>> Zeus, Odin, the Sidhe, the Fates, Lady Luck, the flying
>> sphagetti monster, Lares, Rusalkas, and other

>> supernatural entities....

*
HEATHEN!!

How could you leave out the one true God, Babalu aye?

Babalu aye is the God of Bantu Africa and Cuba. he is known to appear
as an old man, carrying a walking stick, with his dog. He is also
known to be able to cure infectious disease, including AIDS.

earle
*
(To my knowledge, Babalu aye is the ONLY God that has a song about him,
sung by Desi Arnaz to Lucille Ball.)

[Earle Jones]

On 2018-03-29 04:42:01 +0000, MarkE said:

> Just to clarify then:
>
> 1. Do you think the existence of God (a supernatural creative agent) is
> a possibility at all? Y/N

Yes, but only in the sense that I think that just about anything is
possible, if it is not ruled out by the known laws of science. (For
example, I do NOT believe that there is a vacuum pump that delivers
water (on this planet) from a well that is 40 feet deep.)

>
> 2. If yes, would attempting to find out about God be important to some
> degree? Y/N

No. There being absolutely no evidence of any "God," there are many,
many other fields of endeavor that would be more profitable to study.
Short of any evidence, such a study would be a waste of time.

earle
*

[Bill Rogers]

I don't think it's really like that. Science is just a technique for figuring out how things work. It's not surprising that there are still open questions. Religions aim to provide a coherent view of existence. Theodicy is far more central to most religions than any individual outstanding scientific question is to science.

>
> Anyway, what would a "satisfactory answer to theodicy" look like?

I cannot think of one. The one generally given is that while we think God is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent, if we really understood, we would see how He was in fact both. I don't personally find that convincing, but many people do. So much the better for them.

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 7:20:03 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>
> Hello again. As a creationist, I've always found the problem of the
> origin of life a strong pointer to the need for a creator.

You're entitled to your opinion, and FWIW there are a number of 'theistic evolutionists' out there. Origins are the one area that I accede metaphysical explanations cannot be categorically ruled out, until such time as a provable hypothesis exists. FWIW, I restrict that to the origins of the universe, not the origins of life. I hold that the origin of life is a natural process as a result of determinism (likely causal or hard, but definitely not theological)

>
> And how does it originate? "The odds of suddenly having a self-replicating
> RNA pop out of a prebiotic soup are vanishingly low," says evolutionary
> biochemist Niles Lehman

He's 100% correct. However, I don't think there are any credible suggestions that self-replicating RNA suddenly popped out of a prebiotic soup. I've been aware of studies showing incremental complexity in self-replicating organic molecules for some time. This is a recent paper titled "open-ended evolution in self-replicating molecular systems"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496545/

Section 2.4 discusses self-replicating oligonucleotides

> is this article: https://www.the-scientist.com/?

> articles.view/articleNo/39252/title/RNA-World-2-0/ The article goes on to
> discuss possible avenues to overcome this, but no real answers.

Did you expect any?

> It's a mistake to call down a god-of-the-gaps.

Indeed it is. but isn't that what you did when you wrote

"I've always found the problem of the origin of life a strong pointer to
the need for a creator."

?

> I suggest it's also a mistake (and unwarranted)
> to exclude supernatural agency no matter how vanishingly
> small the probability of naturalistic explanations becomes.

I think you have that backwards. From a metaphysical and philosophical perspective, It's a mistake to exclude supernatural agency no matter how large the probability of naturalistic explanations becomes. A significant number of people need some emotional assurance that we are not alone and adrift in the universe. It's a discussion that becomes increasingly detached from the realm of science, but it's in the nature of most humans to hold a metaphysical foundation. I'm not one of them, and you're likely to find that the people in this forum who argue from the side of evolution by and large have no need for it either.

[Kalkidas]

On 3/29/2018 2:06 PM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 9:45:03 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 3/28/2018 6:14 PM, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 8:15:02 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>>>> The supernatural doesn't have to be excluded. It excludes itself. You
>>>>> can't get anywhere with it. That is why the abiogenesis argument failed
>>>>> the scientific creationists over 30 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ron, a question for you. Do you consider supernatural agency to be a possibility?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not asking if you can "get anywhere” with the God hypothesis. I’m not asking if you consider it a low probability. I’m asking, have you ruled it out entirely, and if so, why?
>>>
>>> The thing is "supernatural agency" is entirely non-specific. And it's completely compatible with any other explanation of the origin of life. If we work out a completely well documented sequence of steps from chemistry to the first imperfect replicators, the first cells, and on through humans, one can always say that God designed the physical laws that made it all possible. So I cannot even assign a probability, low or otherwise, to supernatural agency for the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, or anything else.
>>>
>>> I'm an atheist, but my atheism didn't arise because I thought that a scientific explanation of anything ruled out a supernatural explanation (because it doesn't - you can always give God the credit for whatever you like, regardless of whether there's also a physical explanation). I'm an atheist because I find no satisfactory answer to theodicy, and no evidence of a benevolent God looking out for us. My view is we're here alone and if we don't take care of each other, no God is going to do it for us.
>>
>> Basing atheism on a single unanswered question seems rather premature to
>> me. It's a bit like saying one doesn't believe in science because there
>> is no satisfactory answer to the problem of quantum gravity.
>
> I don't think it's really like that. Science is just a technique for figuring out how things work. It's not surprising that there are still open questions. Religions aim to provide a coherent view of existence. Theodicy is far more central to most religions than any individual outstanding scientific question is to science.

I agree that, in the western philosophical/religious traditions at
least, theodicy has been made out to be a big problem. There are reasons
for that, having to do with dogmatic errors in related theological ideas
which, if they are accepted as premises, make theodicy insoluble.

>> Anyway, what would a "satisfactory answer to theodicy" look like?
>
> I cannot think of one. The one generally given is that while we think God is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent, if we really understood, we would see how He was in fact both. I don't personally find that convincing, but many people do. So much the better for them.

Yes, what the believing western apologists tend to offer as a solution
is some variation of "we can't understand the ways of the Lord, but we
take it on faith that all suffering has an ultimate good purpose that
cannot be achieved without it".

Like you, I find that unsatisfactory, although unlike you I accept it as
true as far as it goes (which isn't far). There is a more "grown-up"
solution, but not in the framework of the dogmatic
Christian/Muslim/Jewish structures emanating from a certain part of the
world.

One has to start by abandoning certain crippled conceptions of God, of
souls, and of the universe. We don't give up God, we give up bad dogma
about Him.

[MarkE]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 6:20:03 PM UTC+9:30, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 29/03/2018 00:16, MarkE wrote:
> > It's a mistake to call down a god-of-the-gaps.
> >
> > I suggest it's also a mistake (and unwarranted) to exclude supernatural
>> agency no matter how vanishingly small the probability of naturalistic
>> explanations becomes.
>
> The practise of science requires the assumption that the world shows at
> least statistical regularities. I don't go so far as to say that this
> entails methodological naturalism, but it does mean that science can't
> deal with unconstrained supernatural entities.

Agreed, inasmuch as a frequently and capriciously interventionist deity
would make science unworkable. God gaslighting scientists?

> Science is the pursuit of empirical explanations for observables. Just
> because something is conceivable (I know of no way one could assign a
> meaningful probability to the existence of various conceivable Gods)
> doesn't mean that it's a scientific concept. Scientists are going to
> focus on productive hypotheses for the origin of life on earth -
> hypotheses that can support research programs.

A supernatural entity is by definition out of scope for naturalistic
inquiry (i.e. science).

It’s the boundary of science that I’m referring to, and the possibility
that science itself leads us to that boundary and compels us to cross it.
If we fail to find an adequate explanation within the system, then
logically we look outside it.

We search outside the material universe using theology, philosophy,
metaphysics, etc. And/or we make sense of the universe using data provided
from outside, i.e. special revelation.

[MarkE]

> 1. Do you think that Cthulu is a possibility at all? Y/N
> 2. If yes, would attempting to find out about Cthulu be important to
> some degree? Y/N
>
> Now consider that pair of questions for Anansi, Tiamat, Zeus, Odin, the
> Sidhe, the Fates, Lady Luck, the flying sphagetti monster, Lares,
> Rusalkas, and other supernatural entities.
>
> I'd like you also to consider the possibility that you're committing
> equivocation - between a supernatural creative agent, and the particular
> hypothetical supernatual entity called God, Yhwh or Allah.

Based on my previous response to you, answering this is a two-step process:
1. Does naturalism fail to provide an adequate explanation?
2. If yes, search for the most plausible supernatural explanation

The answer to 1 and the search in 2 are ultimately matters of personal
discernment and choice. However, they can (and I would argue, should) be
guided and tested by rational thought and investigation of evidence.

[MarkE]

> > I suggest it's also a mistake (and unwarranted) to exclude supernatural
>> agency no matter how vanishingly small the probability of naturalistic
>> explanations becomes.
> As best I can tell, the word "supernatural" doesn't actually *mean*
> anything. When I look at how the word is commonly used, and attempt to
> reverse-engineer a meaning for the word from its common usages, it ends
> up meaning something like "I don't understand this", often with a side
> order of "—and neither does anybody else, nor *will* anybody else, *ever*".
>
> I gather that you would not agree with the paragraph just previous. If
> you do indeed think that the word "supernatural" is actually meaningful,
> perhaps you could help me out by explaining how I can *tell* whether or
> not an arbitrary Entity X is "supernatural"?

As I’m using the term, ‘supernatural’ relates to action and existence:

1. Action. A miracle in the religious sense is an event requiring
intervention with natural laws. For example, the resurrection of Jesus
would involve overriding the second law of thermodynamics.

2. Existence. By necessity, an agent of 1 must exist outside the material
(natural) universe in order to transcend (i.e. not be constrained by) its
laws.

[MarkE]

> > Suppose for a moment that we didn’t have the current theory of
>> evolution (e.g. we’re living in the 1700s, or new evidence refutes the
>> current theory). Would you be open to supernatural agency and/or a
>> future naturalistic hypothesis?
>
> The state of science at any particular moment has no effect at all on my
> openness to God. If I didn't have the problems with faith that I
> mentioned in my previous post, nothing in science would interfere; nor
> would I find the existence of lots of open questions in science an
> argument in favor of God.
>
> If God's domain is the stuff we don't understand scientifically, then
> God's domain is always shrinking. If you want to believe in God, better
> to locate God right there in all the stuff we understand, too, rather
> than to banish Him to the origin of life on earth or the Big Bang or subatomic physics.

I’m only suggesting science as a signpost to God, and largely only for
those whose thinking is guided by science.

The God of the Bible is not located at the margins: “For in him [Jesus
Christ] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things
have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in
him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:16-17)

[William Hyde]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:05:03 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > The thing is "supernatural agency" is entirely non-specific. And it's completely compatible with any other explanation of the origin of life. If we work out a completely well documented sequence of steps from chemistry to the first imperfect replicators, the first cells, and on through humans, one can always say that God designed the physical laws that made it all possible. So I cannot even assign a probability, low or otherwise, to supernatural agency for the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, or anything else.
> >
> > I'm an atheist, but my atheism didn't arise because I thought that a scientific explanation of anything ruled out a supernatural explanation (because it doesn't - you can always give God the credit for whatever you like, regardless of whether there's also a physical explanation). I'm an atheist because I find no satisfactory answer to theodicy, and no evidence of a benevolent God looking out for us. My view is we're here alone and if we don't take care of each other, no God is going to do it for us.
>
> Hi Bill, what you describe is I think the position of some theistic evolutionists. They would agree that “designed the physical laws that made it all possible”, thus making divine intervention potentially undetectable. I’d call this a weaker form of appeal to supernatural agency.
>
> I have in mind a stronger version. Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist".

I disagree with Dawkins entirely on this. In fact I consider it to be an absurd statement. No to mention one just made to be twisted by the dishonest.

> Prior to Darwin, to be an atheist was to irrationally ignore the lack of a naturalistic explanation,

And the word "irrationally" here is simply an accusation, - a disturbing indication of your attitude - not a description. Because we did not have a natural explanation was no reason at all to decide that a god did it.

or to hope that one would be found in the future.
>
> Suppose for a moment that we didn’t have the current theory of evolution (e.g. we’re living in the 1700s, or new evidence refutes the current theory). Would you be open to supernatural agency and/or a future naturalistic hypothesis?

How about studying life as it exists?

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

William Hyde

[MarkE]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 21:24:45 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:05:03 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> > The thing is "supernatural agency" is entirely non-specific. And it's completely compatible with any other explanation of the origin of life. If we work out a completely well documented sequence of steps from chemistry to the first imperfect replicators, the first cells, and on through humans, one can always say that God designed the physical laws that made it all possible. So I cannot even assign a probability, low or otherwise, to supernatural agency for the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, or anything else.
>> >
>> > I'm an atheist, but my atheism didn't arise because I thought that a scientific explanation of anything ruled out a supernatural explanation (because it doesn't - you can always give God the credit for whatever you like, regardless of whether there's also a physical explanation). I'm an atheist because I find no satisfactory answer to theodicy, and no evidence of a benevolent God looking out for us. My view is we're here alone and if we don't take care of each other, no God is going to do it for us.
>>
>> Hi Bill, what you describe is I think the position of some theistic evolutionists. They would agree that “designed the physical laws that made it all possible”, thus making divine intervention potentially undetectable. I’d call this a weaker form of appeal to supernatural agency.
>>
>> I have in mind a stronger version. Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist".
>
>I disagree with Dawkins entirely on this. In fact I consider it to be an absurd statement. No to mention one just made to be twisted by the dishonest.
>
>> Prior to Darwin, to be an atheist was to irrationally ignore the lack of a naturalistic explanation,
>
>And the word "irrationally" here is simply an accusation, - a disturbing indication of your attitude - not a description. Because we did not have a natural explanation was no reason at all to decide that a god did it.

Perhaps irrationalis is too strong. Not intended polemically, rather
to suggest that on the balance of evidence pre-Darwin, the more
rational position was assume an intelligent designer. IMO it still is.

[MarkE]

>> And how does it originate? "The odds of suddenly having a self-replicating
>> RNA pop out of a prebiotic soup are vanishingly low," says evolutionary
>> biochemist Niles Lehman
>
>He's 100% correct. However, I don't think there are any credible suggestions that self-replicating RNA suddenly popped out of a prebiotic soup. I've been aware of studies showing incremental complexity in self-replicating organic molecules for some time. This is a recent paper titled "open-ended evolution in self-replicating molecular systems"
>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496545/
>
>Section 2.4 discusses self-replicating oligonucleotides

Good article.

And perhaps concluding with a good summary of where the field is up
to:

"Self-replicating molecules have been remarkably hard to develop and
after 30 years of research there are still only a handful of efficient
self-replicators. Achieving Darwinian evolution with these systems has
proven even more challenging. The evolutionary potential of many
self-replicating molecules is limited due to the fact that it is
difficult to achieve exponential growth of the replicator. Factors
limiting the efficiency of the self-replication process are the
presence of non-autocatalytic pathways and product inhibition. ..."

...

"The true challenge of any in vitro evolution experiment lies in the
realization of a system that has the capability to undergo open-ended
evolution. Such systems can diversify and increase in complexity and
invent new functions indefinitely. Until now, chemical systems that
show evolutionary behavior have involved relatively simple replicators
that only had access to a very limited structural space of possible
mutations. This rapidly causes the system to be incapable of exploring
new structures and the development of novelty will stagnate. An
additional limitation of simple replicators is the strong relation
between their genotype and phenotype. This lack of dichotomy causes
the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection to couple to each
another, hampering the evolvability of the systems. It is far from
trivial to design a system that is simple enough to be capable of
exponential replication and has a large structural space of mutations
at the same time. Yet a push in this direction is probably needed,
expanding the structural space available for existing replicators to
explore, enabling them to discover new functions, one of which might
eventually be the decoupling between genotype and phenotype, which
would allow the system to explore a dramatically larger structural and
functional space."

...

[Burkhard]

MarkE wrote:
> Just to clarify then:
>
> 1. Do you think the existence of God (a supernatural creative agent) is a possibility at all? Y/N

sure, I can easily believe in as many as six before breakfast.

>
> 2. If yes, would attempting to find out about God be important to some degree? Y/N
>

sort of depends on the deity, I'd say And yes, I know that's a logical
problem, a bit like putting the instruction on how to open the box
inside the box.

- If the deity(s) in question are merely powerful, but not all-powerful
etc they are akin like a force of nature. And just as we use science not
just to find out about nature but to then harness it for our benefit,
we'd try to do the same with these deities: either copying their
methods, or forcing them to work for us. Would obviously be big for the
biotech industry, on the OOL issue

If they are all powerful etc or subduing them for our purpose is not an
option, there are (at least) 3 possible scenarios:

- the deity(s) in question don't mind either way, and their involvement
is limited to doing (or having done) some things that have physical
effects, say fiddled a bit with the DNA at some point as one of your
other post suggested, In that case the interest would be mainly
intellectual curiosity, and maybe prudent resource allocation. So
knowing when and how the deity did this would be an addition (ex
hypothesis not a very useful) to the sum of our knowledge of our world.
It "might" mean we stop researching naturalistic ways how life can
emerge, which could be seen as not any longer wasting research time and
money, but I'm not sure even of this. After all, to find that
contingently, life as it is was designed does not mean that it could not
have emerged spontaneously as well - not any more than finding out that
a corpse has had his head smashed in by an assailant does not mean that
it could not have been by a accident, or that we should stop studying
landslides. In the whole OOL research, I always thought finding out how
life on earth began is in many ways the least interesting thing we can
find out this way (and is probably impossible in principle anyway),
finding out how life "can" emerge is much more interesting,

- the deity(s) in question wants us to find out about their involvement
(and maybe act in specific ways as a result) and will inflict terrible
punishment on us if we don't try, or come to the wrong conclusion. In
that case, obviously, finding out about them and getting accurate
theories would be important.

- the deity(s) in question does not want us to find out about their
involvement and will inflict terrible punishment on us if we try, or
come to the right conclusion. In that case obviously, finding out about
them would potentially be lethal, they might kill us all to keep their
secrets, like the pharaohs did with the slaves that build the pyramids.

Which unfortunately isn't at all helpful to decide on a course of
action. But since we are a deeply curious species, I'd say that as soon
as a way is found to reliably find out facts about these deities, we'd
try, and screw the consequences, we do with everything else. But that
would require actionable steps for a research project, which so far
nobody came up with.

[Ernest Major]

On 30/03/2018 05:24, William Hyde wrote:
>> I have in mind a stronger version. Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist".
> I disagree with Dawkins entirely on this. In fact I consider it to be an absurd statement. No to mention one just made to be twisted by the dishonest.
>

I incline to the hypothesis that that statement from Dawkins was rooted
in his personal history - but that hypothesis depends on my correct
recollection of a statement by Dawkins about his teenage beliefs.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bill Rogers]

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:20:02 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > Suppose for a moment that we didn’t have the current theory of
> >> evolution (e.g. we’re living in the 1700s, or new evidence refutes the
> >> current theory). Would you be open to supernatural agency and/or a
> >> future naturalistic hypothesis?
> >
> > The state of science at any particular moment has no effect at all on my
> > openness to God. If I didn't have the problems with faith that I
> > mentioned in my previous post, nothing in science would interfere; nor
> > would I find the existence of lots of open questions in science an
> > argument in favor of God.
> >
> > If God's domain is the stuff we don't understand scientifically, then
> > God's domain is always shrinking. If you want to believe in God, better
> > to locate God right there in all the stuff we understand, too, rather
> > than to banish Him to the origin of life on earth or the Big Bang or subatomic physics.
>
> I’m only suggesting science as a signpost to God, and largely only for
> those whose thinking is guided by science.

It doesn't seem to me that you are using science as a signpost to God. Rather you are suggesting God as an explanation for open issues in science. That's unlikely to impress "those whose thinking is guided by science." I think it is a mistake to think that if you want to evangelize scientifically-minded people your best bet is to throw in a lot of sciencey stuff to your pitch.

>
> The God of the Bible is not located at the margins: “For in him [Jesus
> Christ] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and
> invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things
> have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in
> him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:16-17)

Of course. That's why I think "God of the Gaps" style arguments are wrong-headed.

[Burkhard]

I think you put your finger on the problem why your own starting point
is theologically so problematic.

The whole line of "X can't be explained scientifically, therefore it may
have been the result of divine intervention" is at the same time
a) logically valid
b) scientifically uninteresting
c) theologically catastrophic.

It essentially turns God into an excuse for laziness, to be summoned
whenever you want to stop doing research.

[MarkE]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:54:08 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I'm guessing that scientific discoveries in the last few hundred years
did in a sense narrow the gaps for a god-of-the-gaps to occupy, with
say a hundred years of Darwinism being a minima.

My reading is the graph is now turning upwards. For example, a growing
understanding of the difficulty of the OOL problem leading at least
one researcher to invoke a multiverse to solve it.

[Ernest Major]

Something apologists could do to learn - if you use bad arguments,
people will infer that you don't have good arguments. That's why I refer
to Pascal's Wager (the pop version) as Satan's Wager - it's an argument
for atheism disguised as an argument for faith.

--
alias Ernest Major

[zencycle]

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 7:55:03 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
>
> The whole line of "X can't be explained scientifically, therefore it may
> have been the result of divine intervention" is at the same time
> a) logically valid
> b) scientifically uninteresting
> c) theologically catastrophic.
>
> It essentially turns God into an excuse for laziness, to be summoned
> whenever you want to stop doing research.

This is the critical failure of specified complexity and intelligent design as well. Behe claimed it couldn't be understood, which in reality meant he couldn't figure it out, so he copped out with god.

[zencycle]

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:15:03 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:

> Something apologists could do to learn - if you use bad arguments,
> people will infer that you don't have good arguments. That's why I refer
> to Pascal's Wager (the pop version) as Satan's Wager - it's an argument
> for atheism disguised as an argument for faith.

I never approached pascals wager from that perspective. My feeling on it is, If god is so easily fooled by someone just playing along, then god is certainly not worthy of worship.




>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

Seems to me that "some explanation we have not found yet" is always an
adequate naturalistic explanation, hence step 2 is never reached. If
you disagree, then you end up in the situation of ascribing supernatural
forces to events such as the disappearance of my 3-year-old grandson's
Lego Batman.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/29/18 9:17 PM, MarkE wrote:
>
>>> I suggest it's also a mistake (and unwarranted) to exclude supernatural
>>> agency no matter how vanishingly small the probability of naturalistic
>>> explanations becomes.
>> As best I can tell, the word "supernatural" doesn't actually *mean*
>> anything. When I look at how the word is commonly used, and attempt to
>> reverse-engineer a meaning for the word from its common usages, it ends
>> up meaning something like "I don't understand this", often with a side
>> order of "—and neither does anybody else, nor *will* anybody else, *ever*".
>>
>> I gather that you would not agree with the paragraph just previous. If
>> you do indeed think that the word "supernatural" is actually meaningful,
>> perhaps you could help me out by explaining how I can *tell* whether or
>> not an arbitrary Entity X is "supernatural"?
>
> As I’m using the term, ‘supernatural’ relates to action and existence:
>
> 1. Action. A miracle in the religious sense is an event requiring
> intervention with natural laws. For example, the resurrection of Jesus
> would involve overriding the second law of thermodynamics.

What about apparent violations of natural law which are not really
violations at all, once you understand the whole subject? For example,
if Jesus's resurrection overrides the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then
wouldn't the resurrection of desiccated spanish moss? Or the growth of
a plant from a seed?

And nobody ever understands the whole subject.

> 2. Existence. By necessity, an agent of 1 must exist outside the material
> (natural) universe in order to transcend (i.e. not be constrained by) its
> laws.
>

[Bill Rogers]

There are several problems with God of the Gaps.

First, your own biblical quote makes clear that God is not restricted to areas of scientific mystery. If He's there, He's there in the things we understand scientifically, just as much as in the things we don't.

Second, what happens if you plump down for some particular gap as being a key to your belief in God, the thing that really gives you confidence that God is there, because nothing else could explain it, but then science starts to make progress in filling in that gap?

You can, like lots of the creationists here, make more and more desperate sounding arguments to make the science go away, and you end up looking a fool and discrediting your faith in the eyes of more reasonable people. Or, if your faith really depends on that gap being a gap, and you honestly look at the science that's filling it in, you lose your faith. Or you look at the patent dishonesty and incompetence of those who keep trying to argue that the gap is really still a gap, and you get disillusioned with your co-religionists and lose your faith that way. Or you look for another gap.

Looking for another gap is certainly happening. Many Christians have come round to accepting evolution. Some of them, though, now hope to find a durable gap in "fine tuning" or the science of consciousness, or the origin of life. But then if those gaps start to get filled in, all you've done is postpone the problem.

So if you want a faith that's immune to getting beat up by scientific progress, just stay away from God of the Gaps arguments. Find God in the stuff that's understood. There's nothing incompatible with faith in any specifics of any branch of science. Life evolved - great, God set the conditions under which it could evolve. There turns out to be a reason why the physical constants could not be anything other than what they actually are - great, God set up the laws of physics to lead to those constants. Consciousness is an emergent property of physical collections of neurons in an adequately complex brain - great, God set up the world so that it would come out that way.

Tying your faith to some specific scientific result, or lack of one, is a recipe for disaster. Science is a moving target, and linking some particular, and inevitably transient, state of science to your faith, will either cause you to lose faith or turn you into a tendentious blatherer. Better not to go down that road at all.

[William Hyde]

So it is. Words have meaning.

Not intended polemically, rather
> to suggest that on the balance of evidence pre-Darwin, the more
> rational position was assume an intelligent designer.

But it wasn't rational, and also wasn't, and isn't, useful.

William Hyde

[zencycle]

On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 2:45:03 PM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> So if you want a faith that's immune to getting beat up
> by scientific progress, just stay away from God of the Gaps arguments.

Better to keep god away from the discussions of science at all.

[Mark Isaak]

Not "if" but "when". Unless you want to go the route of radical Islam
and make secular learning punishable by death.

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

MarkE on March 29 wrote,

>Just to clarify then:

>1. Do you think the
>existence of God (a
>supernatural creative agent)

>is a possibility at all? Y/N?

The existence of a person, place, or thing is already public. It is not a question about the possibility of existing, because they already exist. These existences, ∃ are in a domain that is not falsifiable. When we use nouns that are members of an existential set, it is only the grammar that negates the membership. It does not negate their existences. But when we DO say it negates their existences, a logical error has occurred. Therefore, the members in the set ∃ = Public domain. ∃ is beyond falsification, beyond possibility. ∃ means, there exists.

I would think that the word God would be a must in this set, ∃. Therefore, asking if it is a possibility is the wrong track of logical investigation.

SC RED

[Jonathan]

On 3/28/2018 7:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
> Hello again. As a creationist, I've always found the problem of the origin of life a strong pointer to the need for a creator.
>

> One exploration of a minimal free-living organism arrived at a 531,000-base, 473-gene bacterium. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-synthesize-bacteria-with-smallest-genome-yet/
>
> No doubt further research will take this lower. However, it highlights the gap between a postulated strand of self-replicating auto-catalysing RNA and several hundred thousand bases.
>
> The size of that gap seems under-acknowledged in this debate.
>
> Positing “molecular evolution” as a precursor to biological evolution aims to lessen the gap. But what would that look like? A naked strand of RNA (or some other information-bearing polymer) self-replicating with high fidelity using a sustained supply of constituent monomers.
>
> And how does it originate? "The odds of suddenly having a self-replicating RNA pop out of a prebiotic soup are vanishingly low," says evolutionary biochemist Niles Lehman is this article: https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39252/title/RNA-World-2-0/ The article goes on to discuss possible avenues to overcome this, but no real answers.
>
> In recognition of real problems with the RNA-world hypothesis, we have alternatives such as protein first:
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/life-rsquo-s-first-molecule-was-protein-not-rna-new-model-suggests/
>
> Or energy precedes information:
>
> https://www.quora.com/Which-hypothesis-has-the-most-evidence-for-the-origin-of-life-Metabolism-or-RNA-self-replication/answer/Drew-Smith-48

>
> It's a mistake to call down a god-of-the-gaps.
>

> I suggest it's also a mistake (and unwarranted) to exclude supernatural agency no matter how vanishingly small the probability of naturalistic explanations becomes.
>

We need to be more abstract. The answer to first life
/and/ deity should come from answering the following
question: how does a simple unorganized collection
of parts become a complex system capable of creating
and evolving?

The basic roadblock has been the classical reductionist
approach of reducing to the most basic parts or
general laws to understand how reality and nature
works.

That's the big mistake, the answer is in understanding
collective behavior, and the emergent properties
such complex systems naturally produce.

Emergent properties appear mysterious as they seem
to create without an apparent cause, helping to
form a rational definition of God.

And emergent properties create wholly new entities
suddenly once a system complexity reaches a
sufficient level.

For instance, a simple passing cloud resides at
the transition between it's opposites in
possibility, water and vapor, and as a result
all kinds of emergent creations are possible
such as rain, lightning or vortexes.

For instance, a society stands poised at the transition
between it's opposites of rules and freedom
(constitution and bill of rights) and as a result
begins adapting, problem solving and creating.

For instance, an idea stands poised at the
transition between it's opposites of facts
and imagination, as as a result novel ideas
are possible that can change the world.

The emergent creative properties that form
from complex collective behavior is the
ultimate source of all visible order, from
the universe, to evolution, society and even
ideas and spirituality.

See the following clear and concise intro
on the subject.

Emergence & Systems Thinking
video (8:12)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6SaRmF_8c&list=PLsJWgOB5mIMDRt8-DBLLVfh-XeKs2YAcg&index=4



And if you think this new science, complexity science
doesn't have very serious religious implications, here's
the Complexity page from the....Vatican.


The Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Complexity and Analogy in Science: Theoretical, Methodological
and Epistemological Aspects
http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/publications/acta/complexity.html



I suggest these papers from the Vatican page on complexity...


Complexity in Chemistry:
From Disorder to Order


"If we now return to the questions posed at the beginning,
clear answers can be given: The example of catalytic oxidation
of CO at a Pt(110) single crystal surface is certainly a
simple system for which the details of the
mechanism are known down to the atomic scale.

Nevertheless it exhibits all features of complexity from
pattern formation to chaos.
http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ertl.pdf




Complexity, Reductionism, and Holism
in Science and Philosophy of Science

"In the following, as an introduction to considerations
of a theoretical, methodological and epistemological
nature, which especially deal with aspects of complex
structures, I offer some brief explications of a
conceptual nature oriented towards the concepts of
complexity, reduction and holism."


1. In a comprehensive presentation of the role that the concept
of complexity plays in the development of modern science we read:

“Complexity determines the spirit of twenty-first century science.
The expansion of the universe, the evolution of life, and
the globalization of human economies and societies all involve
phase transitions of complex dynamical systems”.

1 And further: “The theory of nonlinear complex systems has become
a successful problem solving approach in the natural sciences –
from laser physics, quantum chaos, and meteorology to
molecular modelling in chemistry and computer assisted
simulations of cellular growth in biology.

On the other hand, the social sciences are recognizing that
the main problems of mankind are global, complex, nonlinear,
and often random, too. Local changes in the ecological,
economic, or political system can cause a global crisis.

Linear thinking and the belief that the whole is only the
sum of its parts are evidently obsolete”
http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-mittelstrass.pdf


--

"To paraphrase the Buddha — Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun; the moon; and the truth. ‬

~ Former FBI Director James Comey (12-1-17)


s

[MarkE]

Thanks for the references Jonathan. The interview with Kauffman on
emergence was interesting.

[Cubist]

That's nice. I repeat: How can I *tell* whether or not some arbtrary Event X is "supernatural"?

[MarkE]

Best just ask me. Blind faith in materialism makes it impossible to see the
supernatural from the ideology.

[Bill Rogers]

That kind of argument is not generally helpful. You say he's blind from his materialist ideology; he can say you're blind from your religious ideology. It goes nowhere. Better to just address the arguments at face value, even if you think the other guy is deluded or blinded by dogma. Attack the other guy's motivations for his beliefs and he can attack yours just as well.

[MarkE]

It wasn’t intended as an argument.

How do you *tell* if an event is supernatural? You make your own judgement
based on your confidence in the data, your model of reality, and a
probability assessment. These are subjectively conditioned by countless
factors particular to every person. This applies to us all. That’s not to
reject or minimise rational thought or scientific enquiry.

E.g., if you witnessed a limb regrow on an amputee you knew personally, you
might identify that as supernatural according to those criteria.

Or, if you witnessed a single cell in all its complexity and function, you
might conclude supernatural agency. Some do, some don’t.

Or, if you witnessed single cells aggregating by the trillions into a
human, you may find naturalistic explanations inadequate, and by
elimination infer a designer.

[Bill Rogers]

Well, yes, that's certainly true. In the case of the amputee, for example, you and I both might weigh the relative likelihood of a previously unknown biological phenomenon versus a miracle. But you'll get nowhere by telling me I end up rejecting the miraculous explanation because of my blind faith in materialism, anymore than I'd get anywhere by telling you that you end up rejecting the possibility of a new biological phenomenon because of your blind faith in the supernatural.

[jillery]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 13:40:41 -0000 (UTC), MarkE <elk...@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

You're entitled to your opinions, but then, so is everybody else. So
what makes your baseless opinion any better than anybody else's
baseless opinion?

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Robert Camp]

On 4/4/18 6:40 AM, MarkE wrote:
> Bill Rogers <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 8:15:04 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>> Cubist <xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 9:20:02 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:

<snip>

>>> Best just ask me. Blind faith in materialism makes it impossible to see the
>>> supernatural from the ideology.
>>
>> That kind of argument is not generally helpful. You say he's blind from
>> his materialist ideology; he can say you're blind from your religious
>> ideology. It goes nowhere. Better to just address the arguments at face
>> value, even if you think the other guy is deluded or blinded by dogma.
>> Attack the other guy's motivations for his beliefs and he can attack yours just as well.
>>
>>
>
> It wasn’t intended as an argument.
>
> How do you *tell* if an event is supernatural?

I think the more intellectually forthright question to ask oneself would
be; How do you evaluate another person's claim that an event is
supernatural - especially someone who's ideology differs from yours
(e.g., reincarnation)?

That's when you'll know if you are applying the tools of reason
consistently.

> You make your own judgement
> based on your confidence in the data, your model of reality, and a
> probability assessment. These are subjectively conditioned by countless
> factors particular to every person. This applies to us all.

That's intuition. And you have outlined exactly why it is an
inappropriate basis for causal inference; why it must be superseded by
rational inquiry.

> That’s not to
> reject or minimise rational thought or scientific enquiry.

Perhaps not, but you do seem to be inappropriately elevating intuition
and faith as epistemological methodologies.

> E.g., if you witnessed a limb regrow on an amputee you knew personally, you
> might identify that as supernatural according to those criteria.

If someone claimed to have seen this happen would you accept that as a
given, or expect independent confirmation? If the latter, doesn't that
suggest that personal identification of something as supernatural isn't
enough, even by your own standards?

> Or, if you witnessed a single cell in all its complexity and function, you
> might conclude supernatural agency. Some do, some don’t.
>
> Or, if you witnessed single cells aggregating by the trillions into a
> human, you may find naturalistic explanations inadequate, and by
> elimination infer a designer.

Surely you would agree that a "One man's ceiling is another man's floor"
approach leaves the entire process (identification of supernatural
phenomena) meaningless?

[Ernest Major]

On 04/04/2018 14:40, MarkE wrote:
> Or, if you witnessed single cells aggregating by the trillions into a
> human, you may find naturalistic explanations inadequate, and by
> elimination infer a designer.

You may not intend it, but you appear to be claiming that the human life
cycle, from conception to death, is supernatural.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

Serious question: Are you supernatural?

[MarkE]

>Well, yes, that's certainly true. In the case of the amputee, for example, you and I both might weigh the relative likelihood of a previously unknown biological phenomenon versus a miracle. But you'll get nowhere by telling me I end up rejecting the miraculous explanation because of my blind faith in materialism, anymore than I'd get anywhere by telling you that you end up rejecting the possibility of a new biological phenomenon because of your blind faith in the supernatural.

Bill, I get that. It was meant as a semi-humorous jibe, semi-serious
suggestion in response to Cubist's apparent unwillingness to engage
beyond simplistic negation.

"No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is
just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

[MarkE]

I would say that the human life cycle, from conception to death, is
matter obeying natural laws.

That matter has come to be arranged with this ability, I would say is
evidence of supernatual agnecy.

[MarkE]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:28:34 -0700, Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/4/18 6:40 AM, MarkE wrote:
>> Bill Rogers <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 8:15:04 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>>> Cubist <xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 9:20:02 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> Best just ask me. Blind faith in materialism makes it impossible to see the
>>>> supernatural from the ideology.
>>>
>>> That kind of argument is not generally helpful. You say he's blind from
>>> his materialist ideology; he can say you're blind from your religious
>>> ideology. It goes nowhere. Better to just address the arguments at face
>>> value, even if you think the other guy is deluded or blinded by dogma.
>>> Attack the other guy's motivations for his beliefs and he can attack yours just as well.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It wasn’t intended as an argument.
>>
>> How do you *tell* if an event is supernatural?
>
>I think the more intellectually forthright question to ask oneself would
>be; How do you evaluate another person's claim that an event is
>supernatural - especially someone who's ideology differs from yours
>(e.g., reincarnation)?
>
>That's when you'll know if you are applying the tools of reason
>consistently.

Note that I'm only restating Cubist's question here.

>> You make your own judgement
>> based on your confidence in the data, your model of reality, and a
>> probability assessment. These are subjectively conditioned by countless
>> factors particular to every person. This applies to us all.
>
>That's intuition. And you have outlined exactly why it is an
>inappropriate basis for causal inference; why it must be superseded by
>rational inquiry.

Ah, but that's my point.

There is no such thing as some ultimate, objective "rational inquiry".

Complete and reliable rational inquiry must condsier all the data and
intrepret it correctly. No human is capable of this (not even
collectively).

Sure, we can use the tools of reason and science. And some do this
more effectively than others. But regardless, the overwhelming volume
of data and its complexity leave each of us to make our conclusions
based on our own intuition.

Moreover, the question of origins implies the question of
destinations. The fire in this debate is really about competeing
worldviews (while enjoying discussion about science for it's own sake
along the way). So recognise it or not, we all come at the data with a
confirmation bias.

>
>> That’s not to
>> reject or minimise rational thought or scientific enquiry.
>
>Perhaps not, but you do seem to be inappropriately elevating intuition
>and faith as epistemological methodologies.
>
>> E.g., if you witnessed a limb regrow on an amputee you knew personally, you
>> might identify that as supernatural according to those criteria.
>
>If someone claimed to have seen this happen would you accept that as a
>given, or expect independent confirmation? If the latter, doesn't that
>suggest that personal identification of something as supernatural isn't
>enough, even by your own standards?

Let me ask you: if you saw this happen, spontaeously to someone you
knew, how would you interpret it?

>
>> Or, if you witnessed a single cell in all its complexity and function, you
>> might conclude supernatural agency. Some do, some don’t.
>>
>> Or, if you witnessed single cells aggregating by the trillions into a
>> human, you may find naturalistic explanations inadequate, and by
>> elimination infer a designer.
>
>Surely you would agree that a "One man's ceiling is another man's floor"
>approach leaves the entire process (identification of supernatural
>phenomena) meaningless?

Not meaningless, just not with objective certainty. Not in this life
at least.

[Ernest Major]

Personally I find development from zygote to adult more incredible that
evolution. It's certainly easier to understand the process of evolution
from microbe to man than to understand the process of development from
zygote to adult.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 05/04/2018 08:50, MarkE wrote:
>>> E.g., if you witnessed a limb regrow on an amputee you knew personally, you
>>> might identify that as supernatural according to those criteria.
>> If someone claimed to have seen this happen would you accept that as a
>> given, or expect independent confirmation? If the latter, doesn't that
>> suggest that personal identification of something as supernatural isn't
>> enough, even by your own standards?
> Let me ask you: if you saw this happen, spontaeously to someone you
> knew, how would you interpret it?
>

Depends on context. Was he the recipient of an experimental stem cell
treatment? (Why did mammals lose the ability to regenerate limbs?)

Predicting even one's own response to a counterfactual hypothetical is
hazardous, but with that caveat I think I was interpret it as an event
with an unknown cause - I am developing a sympathy for ignosticism and
that extends to thinking that supernatural is too poorly defined a
category to be useful.

--
alias Ernest Major

[MarkE]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:00:21 +0100, Ernest Major

It is incredible. As I've posted before:

If 8% of the human genome is functional (coding and other), then
that's the equivalent amount of data to 25 photos on your phone.

Think about that: The blueprint for the most complex assembly of
matter known*, specified in 64MB.

Additonal information is no doubt stored epigentically (i.e. in the
distribution of other material in the cell). But...

It is, simply, utterly, astonishing.


* Complexity does seem to be tricky to define and quantify. But we
know it when we see it. Let's take a subsystem of humans, our brain:

'The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together
form a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief
scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls the
brain "the most complex object in the known universe," and he's
mapping its connections in hopes of discovering the origins of
consciousness.'
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/14/191614360/decoding-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe
'According to physicist, Roger Penrose, What’s in our head is orders
of magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If
you look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains are
a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized
part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert
lump."'

'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3
billion synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the
neocortex range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number of
synapses in the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The
neocorex has the same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100
billion.

One researcher estimates that with current technology it would take
10,000 automated microscopes thirty years to map the connections
between every neuron in a human brain, and 100 million terabytes of
disk space to store the data.'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-intelligence-networks-identified-.html

[jillery]

Consider the following:

Person A: X is true.
Person B. X is false.

IIUC the above illustrates your complaint of "simplistic negation". If
so, not sure how person B's simplistic negation is any worse that
Person A's simplistic assertion.

If one allows the possibility the above is but a prelude to reasonable
discussion, the burden is on Person A to identify the basis for his
assertion, either initially at the time the assertion is made, or in
response to Person B's contrary simplistic assertion. The actual
breakdown in discussion is when person A fails to do either.

[MarkE]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 10:35:01 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

In terms of bare logic, I think I'd agree. But with real human
interaction, there's usually a lot more going on.

My claim is that, in this case, Person B had shown a pattern of
gainsaying, or at least showing no inclination for meaningful
engagement.

I welcome disagreement; it's why I post here in creationist minority.
I've been around t.o long enough to recognize when I'm wasting my
time. This was my way of expressing it on this occasion.

[Robert Camp]

My comments were general, not specific to any individual.

>>> You make your own judgement
>>> based on your confidence in the data, your model of reality, and a
>>> probability assessment. These are subjectively conditioned by countless
>>> factors particular to every person. This applies to us all.
>>
>> That's intuition. And you have outlined exactly why it is an
>> inappropriate basis for causal inference; why it must be superseded by
>> rational inquiry.
>
> Ah, but that's my point.
>
> There is no such thing as some ultimate, objective "rational inquiry".

I'm unaware of anyone claiming their methodology to be "ultimate" (other
than religious fundamentalists). But there are reliable, quantifiable
differences between the results of distinct methodologies such that we
can legitimately claim one to be superior to another for some specific
purpose.

When it comes to investigating and comprehending physical reality there
is no "way of knowing" that is remotely comparable to objective,
rational inquiry.

> Complete and reliable rational inquiry must condsier all the data and
> intrepret it correctly. No human is capable of this (not even
> collectively).

We don't have to know everything to know something. We don't have to
have perfect information to develop provisional understanding. Yes,
humans have cognitive constraints, but that doesn't mean we should
eschew critical analysis - it just means we have to collaborate in order
to dilute the influence of those constraints.

It seems to me you're still trying to create a contextual false
equivalence between scientific and religious methods - in this case by
suggesting, in so many words, that "science doesn't know everything."
That attempt diminishes both.

> Sure, we can use the tools of reason and science. And some do this
> more effectively than others. But regardless, the overwhelming volume
> of data and its complexity leave each of us to make our conclusions
> based on our own intuition.

Not really. It only leaves those who have some motivation to disregard
the consensus of experts to come to their own (flawed) conclusions. The
rest of us trust the aggregated scholarship of the particular field.

It's important to note here that this is something we all, including
religious believers, do every day in every walk of life. We assume the
validity of the consensus (i.e., 50 ton planes can fly, irradiated food
is safe to eat, doctors know what they're doing, etc.). The rub comes
when those same religious believers encounter some aspect of reality
that offends their ideology - which is why I made the comment earlier
about consistency of application of scrutiny.

> Moreover, the question of origins implies the question of
> destinations.

I don't see that that follows at all. Your likely response might be
something along the lines of, "Well, if something started somewhere that
means it must be going somewhere." But of course to say that something
which had a beginning will have an end is really just a truism. Using
the word "destinations," however, goes further by importing the
assumptions of your ideology into the statement.

> The fire in this debate is really about competeing
> worldviews (while enjoying discussion about science for it's own sake
> along the way). So recognise it or not, we all come at the data with a
> confirmation bias.

If you're talking about science and religion, then I'd have to disagree.
These "worldviews" are not in competition. Science has long since
displaced religion as the way to understand the world.

Here's what we need to recognize: scientific methodology is the only
"worldview" that can be (and is) used by all other worldviews. The only
belief barrier to entry is an assumption that the universe doesn't lie
to us.

>>> E.g., if you witnessed a limb regrow on an amputee you knew personally, you
>>> might identify that as supernatural according to those criteria.
>>
>> If someone claimed to have seen this happen would you accept that as a
>> given, or expect independent confirmation? If the latter, doesn't that
>> suggest that personal identification of something as supernatural isn't
>> enough, even by your own standards?
>
> Let me ask you: if you saw this happen, spontaeously to someone you
> knew, how would you interpret it?

If I saw this happen then the first thing I'd question is my own sanity.
I'd look for independent documentation of both the event and my healthy
mental condition. If both were confirmed then I'd have to consider it an
unexplained phenomenon.

Jumping beyond that to some sort of conclusion of non-natural agency
would be a logical and probabilistic error. "We don't know" is a
perfectly reasonable condition to acknowledge - in fact it usually leads
to further understanding.

>>> Or, if you witnessed a single cell in all its complexity and function, you
>>> might conclude supernatural agency. Some do, some don’t.
>>>
>>> Or, if you witnessed single cells aggregating by the trillions into a
>>> human, you may find naturalistic explanations inadequate, and by
>>> elimination infer a designer.
>>
>> Surely you would agree that a "One man's ceiling is another man's floor"
>> approach leaves the entire process (identification of supernatural
>> phenomena) meaningless?
>
> Not meaningless, just not with objective certainty. Not in this life
> at least.

Again, I can't agree. In your examples above you've divorced inferences
from evidence - leading to conditions in which contradictory conclusions
can be equally valid. This is the antithesis of reasoned analysis.

If one's epistemological heuristic reduces to personal whim, then the
results it delivers are meaningless outside of whatever internal
satisfaction they provide.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/5/18 12:50 AM, MarkE wrote:

There is no such thing as some ultimate, perfect time measurement of
events. Does that mean we should abandon the foot races at track and
field events? Or does that mean we should go with the best, most
objective measurements we have, while looking for ways to make them even
better?

> Complete and reliable rational inquiry must condsier all the data and
> intrepret it correctly. No human is capable of this (not even
> collectively).

That would be true if you said that no human is capable of doing this
perfectly. But perfection is not a requirement. Rational inquiry that
considers enough of the relevant data and interprets it far better than
random guessing is not only within our capabilities; it is a commonplace.

> Sure, we can use the tools of reason and science. And some do this
> more effectively than others. But regardless, the overwhelming volume
> of data and its complexity leave each of us to make our conclusions
> based on our own intuition.

Right now there are a lot of people using their intuition to decide not
to vaccinate children. And children are getting sick and dying as a
direct result. Do you see that as a positive alternative to the tools
of reason and science?

> Moreover, the question of origins implies the question of
> destinations. The fire in this debate is really about competeing
> worldviews (while enjoying discussion about science for it's own sake
> along the way). So recognise it or not, we all come at the data with a
> confirmation bias.

Were you aware that there are ways of reducing confirmation bias? Do
you think reducing it would be a good thing or a bad thing?

[Earle Jones]

On 2018-03-30 04:17:38 +0000, MarkE said:

>>>
>>> Suppose for a moment that we didn’t have the current theory of
>>> evolution (e.g. we’re living in the 1700s, or new evidence refutes the
>>> current theory). Would you be open to supernatural agency and/or a
>>> future naturalistic hypothesis?
>>
>> The state of science at any particular moment has no effect at all on my
>> openness to God. If I didn't have the problems with faith that I
>> mentioned in my previous post, nothing in science would interfere; nor
>> would I find the existence of lots of open questions in science an
>> argument in favor of God.
>>
>> If God's domain is the stuff we don't understand scientifically, then
>> God's domain is always shrinking. If you want to believe in God, better
>> to locate God right there in all the stuff we understand, too, rather
>> than to banish Him to the origin of life on earth or the Big Bang or
>> subatomic physics.
>
> I’m only suggesting science as a signpost to God, and largely only for
> those whose thinking is guided by science.
>
> The God of the Bible is not located at the margins: “For in him [Jesus
> Christ] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and
> invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things
> have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in
> him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:16-17)

*
I think that William Dembski would agree with you. He said:

"My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ
and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ."

--William Dembski, 'Intelligent Design', p 206

Reconciling science and religion is a difficult task. I think of the
problem as having two approaches. One is characterized by the guidance
from Bob Jones University on the teaching of science:

"The Christian teaching of science requires not only a good
command of basic subject matter, but also the spiritual perception
to discern truth from error in a great variety of contexts. As a
prerequisite for this, the Christian teacher of science must be
thoroughly grounded in the Word of God. Moreover, he must have
firmly implanted in his mind a biblical framework of truth which
serves as the touchstone for his decision making. True science
will fit that framework; anything that fails to fit the biblical
framework must be rejected as erroneous. The present discussion
demonstrates the need for a distinctively Christian philosophy of
science teaching and surveys the differences between Christian and
secular science education."

Get that: "...anything that fails to fit the biblical framework must be
rejected as erroneous."

A better way to reconcile science and religion, in my opinion, is given
by Edward O. Wilson:

"...I had no desire to purge religious feelings. They were bred in
me; they suffused the wellsprings of my creative life. I also
retained a small measure of common sense. To wit, people must
belong to a tribe; they yearn to have a purpose larger than
themselves. We are obliged by the deepest drives of the human
spirit to make ourselves more than animated dust, and we must have
a story to tell about where we came from, and why we are here.
Could Holy Writ be just the first literate attempt to explain the
universe and make ourselves significant within it? Perhaps science
is a continuation on new and better-tested ground to attain the
same end. If so, then in that sense science is religion liberated
and writ large."

Do you like that: "Science is religion liberated and writ large"?

I tend to agree with my favorite biologist, E. O. Wilson (Biology
Professor Emeritus at Harvard – two Pulitzer prizes).

I admit that I am particularly biased in Wilson's favor: We were both
born in Birmingham AL two years apart – 1929 and 1931. He studied
biology at the U of Alabama and then to Harvard. I studied Engineering
at Georgia Tech and then to Stanford (Harvard of the West!)

And just as I had, Wilson experienced falling away from religious
beliefs which he
had grown up with. He says he was more pious than the average teenager
in Birmingham, having been baptized "...laid back in the waters..." by
the Southern Baptist Church. My own church and baptism was by the
Southern Methodist Church – just a light sprinkle.

The earliest men sought answers to fundamental questions: Why are we
here? Where did we come from? Modern science seeks answers to the
same questions. Modern science has much, much better tools to work
with. Microscopes and telescopes have extended our range of
observation manyfold.

It is no wonder that our answers are better than theirs.

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

On 2018-03-30 04:14:01 +0000, MarkE said:

> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 6:20:03 PM UTC+9:30, Ernest Major wrote:

>> On 29/03/2018 00:16, MarkE wrote:
>>> It's a mistake to call down a god-of-the-gaps.
>>>

>>> I suggest it's also a mistake (and unwarranted) to exclude supernatural
>>> agency no matter how vanishingly small the probability of naturalistic
>>> explanations becomes.
>>

>> The practise of science requires the assumption that the world shows at
>> least statistical regularities. I don't go so far as to say that this
>> entails methodological naturalism, but it does mean that science can't
>> deal with unconstrained supernatural entities.
>
> Agreed, inasmuch as a frequently and capriciously interventionist deity
> would make science unworkable. God gaslighting scientists?
>
>> Science is the pursuit of empirical explanations for observables. Just
>> because something is conceivable (I know of no way one could assign a
>> meaningful probability to the existence of various conceivable Gods)
>> doesn't mean that it's a scientific concept. Scientists are going to
>> focus on productive hypotheses for the origin of life on earth -
>> hypotheses that can support research programs.
>
> A supernatural entity is by definition out of scope for naturalistic
> inquiry (i.e. science).
>
> It’s the boundary of science that I’m referring to, and the possibility
> that science itself leads us to that boundary and compels us to cross it.
> If we fail to find an adequate explanation within the system, then
> logically we look outside it.
>
> We search outside the material universe using theology, philosophy,
> metaphysics, etc. And/or we make sense of the universe using data provided
> from outside, i.e. special revelation.

*
The scientific method is well-understood approach to developing
knowledge about the natural world. It has specific steps and provides
for the continuing lack of certainty. In fact, there is no certainty
at all in the scientific method.

What is the supernatural method? How does one go about developing
knowledge about the supernatural world? What is "special revelation"
and how does one test it? Does this method bring certainty to its
findings?

Thanks,

earle
*

[Ernest Major]

On 30/03/2018 05:14, MarkE wrote:
>
> We search outside the material universe using theology, philosophy,
> metaphysics, etc. And/or we make sense of the universe using data provided
> from outside, i.e. special revelation.

The obvious problem with revelation as a source of knowledge is that
different people get different contradictory revelations.

--
alias Ernest Major

[MarkE]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:52:52 -0700, Robert Camp

Actually, I probably haven't been very clear. I'm not at all
intending to argue science vs intuition or religion. I'd agree the
scientific method and rational inquiry are the best means to form a
working model of the physical world.

I'm talking about how we interpret the findings of this inquiry and
form our own personal model of reality, i.e. metaphysical questions.
Is this all there is? Does this point to an intelligent designer? It's
a false dichotomy (and category error?) to label those who answer
'yes' to first question as rational and scientific, and those who
don't as subjective and religious.

I'm not a Christian because my own intuitive interpretation of
naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis or macroevolution compelled
me to turn to supernatural causes. I respect and enjoy science and
largely agree with its theories, but not in the area of origins.

>> Complete and reliable rational inquiry must condsier all the data and
>> intrepret it correctly. No human is capable of this (not even
>> collectively).
>
>We don't have to know everything to know something. We don't have to
>have perfect information to develop provisional understanding. Yes,
>humans have cognitive constraints, but that doesn't mean we should
>eschew critical analysis - it just means we have to collaborate in order
>to dilute the influence of those constraints.
>
>It seems to me you're still trying to create a contextual false
>equivalence between scientific and religious methods - in this case by
>suggesting, in so many words, that "science doesn't know everything."
>That attempt diminishes both.

See above.

>> Sure, we can use the tools of reason and science. And some do this
>> more effectively than others. But regardless, the overwhelming volume
>> of data and its complexity leave each of us to make our conclusions
>> based on our own intuition.
>
>Not really. It only leaves those who have some motivation to disregard
>the consensus of experts to come to their own (flawed) conclusions. The
>rest of us trust the aggregated scholarship of the particular field.
>
>It's important to note here that this is something we all, including
>religious believers, do every day in every walk of life. We assume the
>validity of the consensus (i.e., 50 ton planes can fly, irradiated food
>is safe to eat, doctors know what they're doing, etc.). The rub comes
>when those same religious believers encounter some aspect of reality
>that offends their ideology - which is why I made the comment earlier
>about consistency of application of scrutiny.

I'd define three categories of theories:

1. Established; non-contentious (e.g. law of gravity)
2. Emerging; reasonable uncertainty (e.g. climate change in the early
days)
3. Contended; unresolved (e.g. origin of the universe, life, humans)

There's room for healthy and rational dissent with cat 2 and 3.

>> Moreover, the question of origins implies the question of
>> destinations.
>
>I don't see that that follows at all. Your likely response might be
>something along the lines of, "Well, if something started somewhere that
>means it must be going somewhere." But of course to say that something
>which had a beginning will have an end is really just a truism. Using
>the word "destinations," however, goes further by importing the
>assumptions of your ideology into the statement.

If our beginning is impersonal, our destination may be nothing more
than material decomposition.

If our beginning is personal (i.e. God), our destination may be
personal, e.g. judgment or eternal benefit.

It would be irrational therefore to call the question of origins
unimportant.

I recall you've been hard to draw on this one in past (with some
merit). What about this scenario:

The amputee is your partner, who you knew before they lost their leg.
You've lived with them for 10 years, and their prosthesis.

One day, you witness their leg regrow in two seonds. The new limb
actually kicks you as you sit on the end of the couch. Your partner is
near-hysterical, and stands up and walks, runs and jumps.

As it so happens, the team of doctors who managed the amputation, alng
with family and friends were also present in the room to witness this.

The media run with the story. Medical experts are questioned and
baffled.

Your life with this person changes. their prosthetic leg is discarded.
You take up bushwalking together. Family and friends come over and
talk about the whole experience. The world marvels. A book is written.
What say ye, Robert Camp?


“I will not eat them in a house, I will not eat them with a mouse, I
will not eat them in a box, I will not eat them with a fox, I will not
eat them here of there, I will not eat them anywhere, I do not like
green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam-I-Am”
--Dr. Seuss, Green Eggs and Ham

[MarkE]

From my response to Robert:

I probably haven't been very clear. I'm not at all intending to argue
science vs intuition or religion. I'd agree the scientific method and
rational inquiry are the best means to form a working model of the
physical world.

I'm talking about how we interpret the findings of this inquiry and
form our own personal model of reality, i.e. metaphysical questions.
Is this all there is? Does this point to an intelligent designer? It's
a false dichotomy (and category error?) to label those who answer
'yes' to first question as rational and scientific, and those who
don't as subjective and religious.

I'm not a Christian because my own intuitive interpretation of
naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis or macroevolution compelled
me to turn to supernatural causes. I respect and enjoy science and
largely agree with its theories, but not in the area of origins.

>> Moreover, the question of origins implies the question of
>> destinations. The fire in this debate is really about competeing
>> worldviews (while enjoying discussion about science for it's own sake
>> along the way). So recognise it or not, we all come at the data with a
>> confirmation bias.
>
>Were you aware that there are ways of reducing confirmation bias? Do
>you think reducing it would be a good thing or a bad thing?

Yes and yes.

[MarkE]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:38:13 -0700, Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 2018-03-30 04:17:38 +0000, MarkE said:
>
>>>>
>>>> Suppose for a moment that we didn’t have the current theory of
>>>> evolution (e.g. we’re living in the 1700s, or new evidence refutes the
>>>> current theory). Would you be open to supernatural agency and/or a
>>>> future naturalistic hypothesis?
>>>
>>> The state of science at any particular moment has no effect at all on my
>>> openness to God. If I didn't have the problems with faith that I
>>> mentioned in my previous post, nothing in science would interfere; nor
>>> would I find the existence of lots of open questions in science an
>>> argument in favor of God.
>>>
>>> If God's domain is the stuff we don't understand scientifically, then
>>> God's domain is always shrinking. If you want to believe in God, better
>>> to locate God right there in all the stuff we understand, too, rather
>>> than to banish Him to the origin of life on earth or the Big Bang or
>>> subatomic physics.
>>
>> I’m only suggesting science as a signpost to God, and largely only for
>> those whose thinking is guided by science.
>>
>> The God of the Bible is not located at the margins: “For in him [Jesus
>> Christ] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and
>> invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things
>> have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in
>> him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:16-17)

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Wilson certainly had the edge with prose. It reminds me of Gould's
declaration of science and religion as "non-overlapping magisteria",
which could be taken as a valid reminder to recognise and respect how
to handle both fields, or a false separation and disingenuous
marginalisation of religion.

But I'd accept that ID proponents have over-reached at times.

>I tend to agree with my favorite biologist, E. O. Wilson (Biology
>Professor Emeritus at Harvard – two Pulitzer prizes).
>
>I admit that I am particularly biased in Wilson's favor: We were both
>born in Birmingham AL two years apart – 1929 and 1931. He studied
>biology at the U of Alabama and then to Harvard. I studied Engineering
>at Georgia Tech and then to Stanford (Harvard of the West!)

Great personal connection!

>And just as I had, Wilson experienced falling away from religious
>beliefs which he
>had grown up with. He says he was more pious than the average teenager
>in Birmingham, having been baptized "...laid back in the waters..." by
>the Southern Baptist Church. My own church and baptism was by the
>Southern Methodist Church – just a light sprinkle.
>
>The earliest men sought answers to fundamental questions: Why are we
>here? Where did we come from? Modern science seeks answers to the
>same questions. Modern science has much, much better tools to work
>with. Microscopes and telescopes have extended our range of
>observation manyfold.
>
>It is no wonder that our answers are better than theirs.

What about this approach? Science for how it works, religion for why
it's here.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/6/18 1:29 AM, MarkE wrote:
> [...]

> Actually, I probably haven't been very clear. I'm not at all
> intending to argue science vs intuition or religion. I'd agree the
> scientific method and rational inquiry are the best means to form a
> working model of the physical world.
>
> I'm talking about how we interpret the findings of this inquiry and
> form our own personal model of reality, i.e. metaphysical questions.
> Is this all there is? Does this point to an intelligent designer? It's
> a false dichotomy (and category error?) to label those who answer
> 'yes' to first question as rational and scientific, and those who
> don't as subjective and religious.

What is "this" in the first question? By some reasonable
interpretations, I can see justification for labeling those who answer
"no" rational and scientific, and those who answer 'yes' as subjective.

> [...]

> I'd define three categories of theories:
>
> 1. Established; non-contentious (e.g. law of gravity)
> 2. Emerging; reasonable uncertainty (e.g. climate change in the early
> days)
> 3. Contended; unresolved (e.g. origin of the universe, life, humans)
>
> There's room for healthy and rational dissent with cat 2 and 3.

You left out an important category:
4. Contended and resolved (e.g. origin of humans, evolution, contrails
as attacks)

>
>>> Moreover, the question of origins implies the question of
>>> destinations.
>>
>> I don't see that that follows at all. Your likely response might be
>> something along the lines of, "Well, if something started somewhere that
>> means it must be going somewhere." But of course to say that something
>> which had a beginning will have an end is really just a truism. Using
>> the word "destinations," however, goes further by importing the
>> assumptions of your ideology into the statement.
>
> If our beginning is impersonal, our destination may be nothing more
> than material decomposition.
>
> If our beginning is personal (i.e. God), our destination may be
> personal, e.g. judgment or eternal benefit.

And furthermore, if our beginning is impersonal, our destination may be

personal, e.g. judgment or eternal benefit.

If our beginning is personal, our destination may be nothing more than
material decomposition.

> It would be irrational therefore to call the question of origins
> unimportant.

It would be rational therefore to call the question of origins
unimportant (in the sense you mean). It is the stories you create for
yourself, as you did with your "if" statements just above, that are
important.

I'd say you are creating a story, and the story, not the regrown
amputation, is what's important.

[Robert Camp]

On 4/6/18 1:29 AM, MarkE wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:52:52 -0700, Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/18 12:50 AM, MarkE wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:28:34 -0700, Robert Camp
>>> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/4/18 6:40 AM, MarkE wrote:
>>>>> Bill Rogers <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 8:15:04 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>>> Cubist <xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 9:20:02 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:

<snip>

>>> There is no such thing as some ultimate, objective "rational inquiry".
>>
>> I'm unaware of anyone claiming their methodology to be "ultimate" (other
>> than religious fundamentalists). But there are reliable, quantifiable
>> differences between the results of distinct methodologies such that we
>> can legitimately claim one to be superior to another for some specific
>> purpose.
>>
>> When it comes to investigating and comprehending physical reality there
>> is no "way of knowing" that is remotely comparable to objective,
>> rational inquiry.
>
> Actually, I probably haven't been very clear. I'm not at all
> intending to argue science vs intuition or religion. I'd agree the
> scientific method and rational inquiry are the best means to form a
> working model of the physical world.
>
> I'm talking about how we interpret the findings of this inquiry and
> form our own personal model of reality, i.e. metaphysical questions.
> Is this all there is? Does this point to an intelligent designer? It's
> a false dichotomy (and category error?) to label those who answer
> 'yes' to first question as rational and scientific, and those who
> don't as subjective and religious.

Okay, I can accept that, with a few minor quibbles (e.g., I'm not sure
that wondering "Is this all there is?" says anything substantive about
anyone's rationality).

But where I suspect we might differ is the very next question. Wondering
"Does this point to an intelligent designer?" - especially in the
context of whatever "this" the individual is considering - might very
well give us evidence as to someone's rationality or religiosity.

An example is your suggestion in a previous post that one might observe
the complexity of cells, or their aggregation into organisms, and
reasonably infer an intelligent designer. I would argue this is very
likely religious, and certainly irrational (in the particular sense of
not being based upon reason).

There is nothing in an observation of the complexity of cells and
organisms that leads logically to an inference to supernatural causal
agency. That leap is entirely the result of prior convictions motivating
one's conclusions, and it can be defended as merely a personal
metaphysical inclination only as long as it is not offered as a valid
alternative to rational analysis.

> I'm not a Christian because my own intuitive interpretation of
> naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis or macroevolution compelled
> me to turn to supernatural causes. I respect and enjoy science and
> largely agree with its theories, but not in the area of origins.

That perspective is arbitrary and irrational. And your last sentence is
contradictory. It's an odd kind of "respect" for an analytical
methodology that can be withheld based upon whether the analysis offends
your faith.

That being said, I respect your ability to think clearly, but not on the
subject of science and religion.

>>> Sure, we can use the tools of reason and science. And some do this
>>> more effectively than others. But regardless, the overwhelming volume
>>> of data and its complexity leave each of us to make our conclusions
>>> based on our own intuition.
>>
>> Not really. It only leaves those who have some motivation to disregard
>> the consensus of experts to come to their own (flawed) conclusions. The
>> rest of us trust the aggregated scholarship of the particular field.
>>
>> It's important to note here that this is something we all, including
>> religious believers, do every day in every walk of life. We assume the
>> validity of the consensus (i.e., 50 ton planes can fly, irradiated food
>> is safe to eat, doctors know what they're doing, etc.). The rub comes
>> when those same religious believers encounter some aspect of reality
>> that offends their ideology - which is why I made the comment earlier
>> about consistency of application of scrutiny.
>
> I'd define three categories of theories:
>
> 1. Established; non-contentious (e.g. law of gravity)
> 2. Emerging; reasonable uncertainty (e.g. climate change in the early
> days)
> 3. Contended; unresolved (e.g. origin of the universe, life, humans)
>
> There's room for healthy and rational dissent with cat 2 and 3.

The problem isn't with your categories, it's with the items in those
categories. How do you suppose climatologists, cosmologists and
evolutionary biologists would react to your classifications above?

Once again, you are attempting to create a false equivalence by
diminishing the breadth and depth of scholarship in fields in which you
are clearly inexpert. Can you not see the hubris in that?

>>> Moreover, the question of origins implies the question of
>>> destinations.
>>
>> I don't see that that follows at all. Your likely response might be
>> something along the lines of, "Well, if something started somewhere that
>> means it must be going somewhere." But of course to say that something
>> which had a beginning will have an end is really just a truism. Using
>> the word "destinations," however, goes further by importing the
>> assumptions of your ideology into the statement.
>
> If our beginning is impersonal, our destination may be nothing more
> than material decomposition.
>
> If our beginning is personal (i.e. God), our destination may be
> personal, e.g. judgment or eternal benefit.

If that ambiguity is all you meant to imply by use of the word
"destination," then I withdraw my objection.

> It would be irrational therefore to call the question of origins
> unimportant.

In the case of the latter, sure. In the case of the former that is not
at all obvious (note - this doesn't mean I agree that anyone considers
the question of origins unimportant).

<snip>

I say if you're going to go to the time and trouble to craft a scenario
that essentially reduces to, "What if there really was a supernatural
creator, eh, what about that!?", then why not just save the effort and
say that?

I will give you a more straightforward answer, but first I want to ask:
doesn't the need for this much contrived fantasy and contortion of
natural law in order to cobble together something that might possibly be
taken as evidence for the supernatural suggest to you that your position
is way out in the deep end of the ideological pool?

I know you think you're demonstrating how intransigent and narrow-minded
a perspective like mine must be (witness the quote below). But what
you're actually showing (at least to me) is a mind that is so willing to
renounce reason - as long as it provides the desired metaphysical
comfort - that the requirements for evidence are conveniently reduced to
a level usually reserved for credulous children.

I also remember our previous conversation. At the time I believe I
emphasized your inability to recognize the assumptions that underlie
your certainty. This remains a central problem.

> “I will not eat them in a house, I will not eat them with a mouse, I
> will not eat them in a box, I will not eat them with a fox, I will not
> eat them here of there, I will not eat them anywhere, I do not like
> green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam-I-Am”
> --Dr. Seuss, Green Eggs and Ham

<snip>

[jillery]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 17:59:32 +0930, MarkE <elk...@tpg.com.au> wrote:


[...]

>I recall you've been hard to draw on this one in past (with some
>merit). What about this scenario:
>
>The amputee is your partner, who you knew before they lost their leg.
>You've lived with them for 10 years, and their prosthesis.
>
>One day, you witness their leg regrow in two seonds. The new limb
>actually kicks you as you sit on the end of the couch. Your partner is
>near-hysterical, and stands up and walks, runs and jumps.
>
>As it so happens, the team of doctors who managed the amputation, alng
>with family and friends were also present in the room to witness this.
>
>The media run with the story. Medical experts are questioned and
>baffled.
>
>Your life with this person changes. their prosthetic leg is discarded.
>You take up bushwalking together. Family and friends come over and
>talk about the whole experience. The world marvels. A book is written.
>What say ye, Robert Camp?

Assuming you're open to opinions from other than Robert Camp, I wish
to point out that real-life examples are rarely if ever so clear-cut.
My experience is that people don't actually experience such events,
even when they insist they have, but either hear of other people who
claim to experience such events, or convince themselves that such
events actually happened based on thin evidence and sloppy logic.

For example, I used to go to MUFON meetings. There was one person who
was a regular guest speaker, who claimed he was currently in contact
with extraterrestrials, and had been regularly experimented on.
Needless to say, his evidence was anecdotal and circumstantial at
best. Of course, that didn't stop the true believers from sucking up
every word as gospel.

So ISTM the relevant question isn't how one reacts to a truly
supernatural event, but instead is how one decides whether an event is
truly supernatural.

[MarkE]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 00:12:07 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

There are two issues here I think. I agree that verifying an event as
supernatural is problematic. Even more so via second or third hand
reports. Your MUFON example highlights this. This is the first issue,
and it's an important one.

The second issue, the one I'm trying to address, is what would it take
for somoene to seriously consider supernatural action? I get the
impression that some people here have completely ruled out the
supernatural a priori. My contrived scenario is an attempt to test
this hypothesis.

People are free to choose that position of course. And I could be
accused of rejecting materialism in a similar way.

[Bill Rogers]

I think it is a mistake to equate supernatural with "currently unexplained." You end up tying your faith to a certain state of scientific knowledge. Then you risk either losing your faith or becoming dishonest with yourself if the state of scientific knowledge changes. Better to avoid setting up a dichotomy between natural (=currently explained by science) and supernatural (=not currently explained by science). Find God in everyday things that already have a scientific explanation.

[Ernest Major]

Your contrived scenario would be a faulty attempt to test that
hypothesis. (It's a common creationist fault to confuse assumptions with
conclusions - a conclusion that the supernatural, probably, doesn't
exist, or that it's too poorly defined to be a useful concept, is not
ruling out the supernatural a priori.)

It's also a distraction from the positive evidence for, for example,
common descent.

>
> People are free to choose that position of course. And I could be
> accused of rejecting materialism in a similar way.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[MarkE]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 19:40:28 -0700, Robert Camp

There's your problem I think. Any number of scientists (a minority,
admittedly) have made this observation, and based on their rational
analysis, inferred supernatural agency.

Now, a large proportion of that group would presumably have had
previous religious beliefs. That does not intrinsically make their
inference less rational. And those who have had their atheism
overturned by the observation are not automatically irrational.

In both cases, there is a rational analysis of the explanatory power
of natural causes, with the conclusion they are inadequate. It is then
rational to infer causes beyond the natural domain.

Sure, you may believe their conclusion to be premature (ahead of some
future discovery or theory). Or, you may doubt the correctness of
their analysis, given that it differs from yours and the majority
scientific opinion. But neither of these objections logically lead to
the assertion of a "leap is entirely the result of prior convictions

motivating one's conclusions, and it can be defended as merely a

personal metaphysical inclination".

>> I'm not a Christian because my own intuitive interpretation of
>> naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis or macroevolution compelled
>> me to turn to supernatural causes. I respect and enjoy science and
>> largely agree with its theories, but not in the area of origins.
>
>That perspective is arbitrary and irrational. And your last sentence is
>contradictory. It's an odd kind of "respect" for an analytical
>methodology that can be withheld based upon whether the analysis offends
>your faith.
>
>That being said, I respect your ability to think clearly, but not on the
>subject of science and religion.

Thanks; your clear-thinking counter-perspectives are appreciated.

But you seem to be disallowing as irrational any dissent from the
majority opinion.

I recognise that the burden of proof falls on me if I want to take a
minority position, especially as a non-expert. But as I've argued
above, this doesn't automatically demonstrate a lack of clear thinking
or a reaction to offended religious belief.

I sometimes chastise climate changes skeptics on their presumption to
know better than an overwhelming majority of expert opinion.

To repeat: I do recognise that the burden of proof falls on me if I
want to take a minority position, especially as a non-expert. Is there
hubris in that? Possibly. But one reason I post here is to have my
position tested, so I'll claim some measure of humility!

Let me say, the quote was intended as a friendly and humorous prod.
But yes, my contrivance is aimed at calling you on what I see as not
just intransigence, but of a wrong understanding of the relationship
between science and metaphysics, and of what constitutes rational
analysis and inference (as explained above).

[Wolffan]

On 04 Apr 2018, Mark Isaak wrote
(in article <pa3ore$2md$1...@dont-email.me>):

By Crom, I certainly am.

[Burkhard]

That's a problem first identified by Hume, I think. He discussed
miracles in his Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, where he framed
the issue this way: By definition, miracles are extremely rare
violations of natural laws. But there you have the problem: because they
are so rare, indeed unique, so that they do not form a pattern (because
as soon as they did, it would just be another law), it is always more
rational to doubt our observation than the account of the miracle. After
all, we know that our observations are sometimes mistaken.

The observations I made in physics class in high school e.g. would
easily have falsified almost all of physics as we know it - the
explanation that we had ancient and badly maintained equipment, used
inexpertly by someone who was really a PE teacher at heart, is much more
parsimonious.

Similarly, I have most certainly observed things that taken at face
value are impossible given the laws of physics as we know them - but I
also know that at the time I was in a...less than ideal epistemic
condition, let say, involving... entheogenic plan materials.

And we observe of course all sorts of mental illness in others, enough
to have the more self-reflexively inclined worried on occasions.

Note that this line of argument is valid whether or not you are a
theist, it is simply a consequence of the definition of miracle. So
reasoning backwards from an observation to a supernatural cause can't
work, as a matter of principle - you need to establish the supernatural
cause independently.

[Robert Camp]

And they are wrong to have done so. Why? Because, as I said, there is
nothing in natural phenomena that can imply supernatural causation. It
is a category error. If you disagree, feel free to identify for me any
(even hypothetical) causal chain of reason and evidence that could
possibly lead from an observation of cellular complexity to
transcendental agency. In every case you, Francis Collins, and every
other believer who tries to bridge the inevitable epistemological gap
between reality and faith will, I'm confident, come up short.

Again, understand what I'm *not* saying. I'm not saying one cannot be
religious and be a scientist. I'm not saying that it is wrong (morally,
philosophically, personally) to believe something that is at odds with
critical analysis. I'm simply saying that it is not rational. This is
the critical distinction between the ability of science or religion to
offer insight into the natural world. One methodology is simple,
rigorous, repeatable and independent of personal conviction. The other
is not.

> Now, a large proportion of that group would presumably have had
> previous religious beliefs. That does not intrinsically make their
> inference less rational.

I agree. The lack of rationality is revealed by the illogical rhetoric.

> And those who have had their atheism
> overturned by the observation are not automatically irrational.

To the degree their newfound faith is based upon inferring the
supernatural from the observation of nature, then it certainly is
irrational. It cannot be otherwise. And to repeat, I do not mean this
(irrational) as an epithet, just as an evaluation of an argument.

> In both cases, there is a rational analysis of the explanatory power
> of natural causes, with the conclusion they are inadequate. It is then
> rational to infer causes beyond the natural domain.

It is absolutely and unequivocally *not* rational to do so. That
inference is definitionally irrational. Epilepsy is not caused by
demons, gods don't cause lightning and thunder, and races are not more
or less successful because Yahweh favored one over the other. Your
approach has never in the history of humankind provided a successful
epistemological conclusion - despite having a long record of attempts.

This is a clear and overwhelmingly rebutted fallacy that is employed
only by those desperately wishing to establish rational justification
for a plainly irrational impulse.

> Sure, you may believe their conclusion to be premature (ahead of some
> future discovery or theory). Or, you may doubt the correctness of
> their analysis, given that it differs from yours and the majority
> scientific opinion. But neither of these objections logically lead to
> the assertion of a "leap is entirely the result of prior convictions
> motivating one's conclusions, and it can be defended as merely a
> personal metaphysical inclination".

In fact, that's what my objections directly lead to. That was the point.

>>> I'm not a Christian because my own intuitive interpretation of
>>> naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis or macroevolution compelled
>>> me to turn to supernatural causes. I respect and enjoy science and
>>> largely agree with its theories, but not in the area of origins.
>>
>> That perspective is arbitrary and irrational. And your last sentence is
>> contradictory. It's an odd kind of "respect" for an analytical
>> methodology that can be withheld based upon whether the analysis offends
>> your faith.
>>
>> That being said, I respect your ability to think clearly, but not on the
>> subject of science and religion.
>
> Thanks; your clear-thinking counter-perspectives are appreciated.
>
> But you seem to be disallowing as irrational any dissent from the
> majority opinion.

I am not. And I try very hard to communicate just that fact. I am
disallowing as irrational any dissent that relies on counterfactual,
illogical argument.

> I recognise that the burden of proof falls on me if I want to take a
> minority position, especially as a non-expert. But as I've argued
> above, this doesn't automatically demonstrate a lack of clear thinking
> or a reaction to offended religious belief.

I still agree. There is nothing automatic in any of my observations. But
I'm getting the impression that you're more interested in protesting
about the tenor of my comments than responding to them substantively. I
can only say again that I try very hard to direct my remarks to the
content of the argument. If there seems to be any discourtesy involved I
claim it's the fault of the medium - well, that and my refusal to use
smilies.

In my previous post I neglected to offer the promised straightforward
answer, so here it is:

My reaction to your scenario above would be to consider any of a
multitude of possible explanations, including,

- I was dreaming
- I was clinically mentally ill
- I was experiencing the effects of a brain tumor
- I was in a coma that allowed my active mind to create an alternative
reality
- I was under the influence of some sort of drug that induced a
hallucinatory state
- I was involved in an elaborate ruse perpetrated upon me by cultists in
an effort to get me to convert
- I was on an alien holodeck, being led through a contrived story in a
nefarious ploy to extract vital information from me regarding the
earth's defensive resources
- I was witnessing the accidental pollution of my partner's DNA by that
of Curt Connors, one of Spiderman's greatest enemies

All ridiculous you might say. And you might be right - except when
compared with an inference to supernatural agency. No matter how
far-fetched, all of the above at least occupy some conceptual space in
our known natural reality (okay, maybe not the last one). Magical,
non-natural deities do not.

>> I say if you're going to go to the time and trouble to craft a scenario
>> that essentially reduces to, "What if there really was a supernatural
>> creator, eh, what about that!?", then why not just save the effort and
>> say that?
>>
>> I will give you a more straightforward answer, but first I want to ask:
>> doesn't the need for this much contrived fantasy and contortion of
>> natural law in order to cobble together something that might possibly be
>> taken as evidence for the supernatural suggest to you that your position
>> is way out in the deep end of the ideological pool?
>>
>> I know you think you're demonstrating how intransigent and narrow-minded
>> a perspective like mine must be (witness the quote below). But what
>> you're actually showing (at least to me) is a mind that is so willing to
>> renounce reason - as long as it provides the desired metaphysical
>> comfort - that the requirements for evidence are conveniently reduced to
>> a level usually reserved for credulous children.
>>
>> I also remember our previous conversation. At the time I believe I
>> emphasized your inability to recognize the assumptions that underlie
>> your certainty. This remains a central problem.
>
> Let me say, the quote was intended as a friendly and humorous prod.

Fair enough.

> But yes, my contrivance is aimed at calling you on what I see as not
> just intransigence, but of a wrong understanding of the relationship
> between science and metaphysics, and of what constitutes rational
> analysis and inference (as explained above).

I'm open to being shown how I am wrong about this. But that needs to
happen by way of reason and evidence.

[jillery]

My impression is you confuse metaphysical and methodological
naturalism. There are some here who assume there are nothing but
natural elements, principles, and relations, but others like me
exclude supernatual on epistemological grounds. I allow the
possibility of supernatural cause as a matter of principle, but all
supernatural conjectures I have heard are ad hoc and don't explain
anything.

[MarkE]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:13:15 -0700, Robert Camp

Ok. Could rational analysis and scientific inquiry reasonably lead to
a search for explanations beyond this universe, beyond the domain of
the scientific method? I understand you're saying no.

But the answer is yes.

"In chapter 12 of his book [The Logic of Chance], Dr Koonin proposes
that the simplest self-reproducing system would be composed of at
least 13 separate, complex RNA strands with an aggregate of 1,800
nucleotides. Anything smaller could not self-replicate."

"This has creationists drooling, because it means that the simplest of
all possible self-reproducing systems is so incredibly complex that it
almost certainly could not arise by chance. It appears to be an
example of irreducible complexity that discredits the theory of
abiogenesis."

"Dr Koonin anticipated this reaction. In his book he says,
“spontaneous emergence of complex systems that would have to be
considered virtually impossible in a finite universe becomes not only
possible, but inevitable under MWO.” (page 385) MWO is short for Many
Worlds in One, also known as the multiverse theory, and often used
together with the anthropic principle to support naturalism."
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Koonins-scientific-critique-of-abiogenesis

Koonin is a recognised expert in the field of evolutionary and
computational biology. And he's anti-ID. And he's saying, let's get
metaphysical.

I'm not defending his science. Feel free to disagree with that. But
his appeal to a metaphysical explanation is the result of rational
analysis and scientific inquiry. I predict this to be a growth
industry in science.

Sure, the multiverse/MWO is currently beyond the reach of science (and
may always be). The multiverse-of-the-gaps? No, the multiverse of the
growing problem of finding naturalistic explanations within this
universe.

Of couse, it is also offered as a solution to the fine-tuning problem:

"The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of
nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the
strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the
cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the
expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range
that allows life to exist. Multiverse theory claims that there are
billions of unobservable sister universes out there in which all
possible values of these constants can occur. So somewhere there will
be a bio-friendly universe like ours, however improbable that is."

"Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an
explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of
the cosmological constant — known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than
the value predicted by quantum field theory — is difficult to explain,
for instance."
https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

Welcome to the new order of the multiverse or God. A new order ushered
in by science itself.

[MarkE]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 00:24:47 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

There's possibly a parallel between the distinction you're making, and
a distinction with Christian theology. Some say miracles ceased with
the apostles ("ceasationists"), and some say miracles can and do
happen today ("continuationists").

There are those who conclude that a hard ceasationist position is
theological untenable as a matter of principle ("God is free to do
whatever he wants, so we can't rule out miracles today"), but have no
real interest or expectation in or of them occurring. This is the
"functional ceasationist" position.

Is your position something like the equivalent of this?

[MarkE]

Correction: "cessationist"

[MarkE]

Evidence is gathering that it's either a mulitiverse or God (both
"superuniversal"). My response to Robert Camp elaborates.

[MarkE]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 19:17:19 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I can see where he's coming from.

>The observations I made in physics class in high school e.g. would
>easily have falsified almost all of physics as we know it - the
>explanation that we had ancient and badly maintained equipment, used
>inexpertly by someone who was really a PE teacher at heart, is much more
>parsimonious.
>
>Similarly, I have most certainly observed things that taken at face
>value are impossible given the laws of physics as we know them - but I
>also know that at the time I was in a...less than ideal epistemic
>condition, let say, involving... entheogenic plan materials.

Haha, but point taken.

>And we observe of course all sorts of mental illness in others, enough
>to have the more self-reflexively inclined worried on occasions.
>
>Note that this line of argument is valid whether or not you are a
>theist, it is simply a consequence of the definition of miracle. So
>reasoning backwards from an observation to a supernatural cause can't
>work, as a matter of principle - you need to establish the supernatural
>cause independently.

Does abiogenesis, if scrutinised as a potential suerpatural, escape
some of these problems?

Evidence is gathering (e.g. doubts about naturalistic explanations for
origin of life and fine-tuning of the universe) suggesting that it's

[MarkE]

Does my most recent response to Robert Camp help explain that what I'm
not doing is equating supernatural with "currently unexplained"?

[Bill Rogers]

Not in the least. In fact, your recent response to Robert Camp involves finding a source who will suggest that some phenomena are not scientifically explainable. You are again tying faith in God to the current state of science.

There is no growing body of evidence that either "fine tuning" or the origin of life are insoluble scientific problems. Multiverses were not dreamt up to fix the "fine tuning problem" - they are a consequence of some versions of "cosmic inflation." And cosmic inflation is simply a theory that accounts for a bunch of astronomical observations including the details of the tiny inhomogeneities in the cosmic background radiation.

It is, I think (or at least the ex-Christian in me does), a serious theological mistake to look for evidence of God in things that science cannot explain.

Science has a good track record of explaining things that it once counldn't explain. So if you base your faith on some "gap" in what science can explain - the values of the fundamental physical constants, the origin of human beings, the origin of life, consciousness, then you have a problem when science starts to explain them. You either lose your faith, retreat to some different, as yet unexplained phenomenon, or end up like lots of the creationists here making silly arguments against strong scientific evidence.

It's far better not to tie your faith to some particular state of scientific knowledge (or ignorance). Find God in gratitude for your existence, in awe at the beauty, complexity, and scale of the universe, in relationships with your fellow human beings, not as a stop-gap for open scientific questions.

You may be familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, protestant theologian killed by the Nazis. He rejected the God of the gaps, finding sch arguments likely to destroy faith in the end. This quotation is from his Letters and Papers from Prison.

"How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our
knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and
further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back
with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what
we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not
in unsolved problems but in those that are solved."

[Burkhard]

[Burkhard]

Don't think so - see below:

>
> Evidence is gathering (e.g. doubts about naturalistic explanations for
> origin of life and fine-tuning of the universe)

What nature do these "doubts" have? I see two possible answers:

One is merely that currently, there is no satisfactory naturalistic
explanation - for a given and largely subjective value of "satisfactory".

In that case you simply have an argument from ignorance, and a pretty
bad one to boot (AfIs can work reasonably well if we "should" know
something if it were there, and then find it isn't). Theologically, you
tie yourself to a contingent state of our knowledge - there was a time
where explaining lightning seemed impossible (and there are surprisingly
big gaps in our knowledge even today on it), hence Zeus Astrapios. Not
the most stable of beliefs, for obvious reasons.

The other is an actual theory why naturalistic explanations can't work.
But how would such a theory have to look like? It would need to
establish constraints for any possible naturalistic theory, present and
future. And then show that these constraints in particular would have to
be violated by any theory that explains origins of life/the universe.
Furthermore, it would have to be a non-naturalistic theory itself I
guess (because otherwise it would simply be a contingent and falsifiable
account of current knowledge), and yet you'd need it to be as
metaphysically neutral as possible (or else would risk begging the
question) The only type of theory that fits that bill currently is
mathematics, which might explain all the bad math that is bandied
around in creationist circles. Because it would have to be pure math,
not some probability theory with values for contingent events made from
whole cloth. And precisely because it would be pure math, it is
difficult to see how it would constrain empirical theories about the OOL
so that no possible theory would comply with it.

So for this reason alone, I can't see that work. But there is another
issue: such a theory presupposes a fixed notion of what counts as
"naturalistic", and we have good reasons to believe such a thing does
not exist, which leads to the next point:

> suggesting that it's
> either a mulitiverse or God (both "superuniversal"). My response to
> Robert Camp elaborates.
>

Well, first there is a significant meaning shift here, from
"superuniversal" to "non-naturalistic/supernatural"

Would a MV theory be "non-naturalistic"? Even asking that question
assumes we have a fixed list of characteristics to call a theory
"naturalistic". This is problematic. Newton's theory e.g was seen by
quite a number of hos contemporaries as "not naturalistic enough" and a
back-throw to bad old metaphysics - the action at a distance for them
irreconcilable with a proper naturalistic - and that meant for them
mechanistic, explanation.

But of course we don't think of it like that any more, quite on the
contrary, we consider his theory as the paradigmatic case for a
mechanistic explanation. Larry Laudan makes this point quite forcefully
and I'd say convincingly: Like all history, history of science is
written by the victors. If a concept is naturalistic or not is decided
after the fact and from the perspective of hindsight: if a concept
worked out, it always was naturalistic, if it failed, it always was not
- you just never know in advance.

So the moment (at the very latest) when MV works, we'll find it not any
more supernatural/non-naturalistic than we find action at a distance, or
atoms, or quarks, and as an argument for divine intervention it will be
just as odd as evoking atoms etc.

The next issue then would be, under what conditions would we accept MV,
when does it "work"? Now, if it simply were an attempt to answer
perceived problems with theories about the OOL, or the origin of the
universe, I'd agree, it would be hardly any better than evoking one or
several deities. It might give the subjective warm fuzzy feeling to have
something explained, when in reality it is just a place filler, you
could as well call it Qorzl.

But this is not how MV came about. MV is explored and discussed because
it follows from some other theories for which we have good empirical
support, it is the mathematical (or deductive) closure of theories which
have nothing to do with OOL, or fine tuning. Now, once you have such
independent reasons to accept MVs into your ontology, you can of course
ask what else they might do for you, and one of these things could be to
address problems with other theories. Now, personally I'm not convinced
that they are a good argument for fine tuning, mainly because I'm not
convinced that FT is a problem, and if it is one, a problem that is best
expressed in probabilistic terms. But in any case, the argument for MV
would have to be made independently from its role for OOL theories.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/8/18 12:29 AM, MarkE wrote:
> [...]

The only argument you have presented is that abiogenesis did not rely on
RNA strands to achieve self-replication. That still leaves abiogenesis
possibly relying on anything or everything else. In fact, my
understanding of abiogenesis research as of a couple decades ago was
that many people were expecting something other than RNA to be the first
replicator.

And whoever said that something incredibly complex cannot arise by
chance is just plain blind. Complexity arises from less complex things
all the time. Maybe not from hydrogen gas to NATO overnight, but from
hydrogen to stars to planetary systems to oceans and plate tectonics to
organic chemistry and oligomers to replication to primitive bacteria to
multicellularity to NATO (with additional steps in between). Complexity
happens naturally, in all kinds of settings. Don't deny it.

> Sure, the multiverse/MWO is currently beyond the reach of science (and
> may always be). The multiverse-of-the-gaps? No, the multiverse of the
> growing problem of finding naturalistic explanations within this
> universe.
>
> Of couse, it is also offered as a solution to the fine-tuning problem:

> [...]

There is no fine-tuning problem. There is a perspective which some
people like to make into a problem.

> Welcome to the new order of the multiverse or God. A new order ushered
> in by science itself.

If I believed in the God you depict, I would call myself an atheist.

[jillery]

Accepting the possibility of supernatural cause is a necessary
consequence of recognizing that we don't know, and can't know,
everything. However, if there are supernatural causes, said causes
don't lend themselves to scientific investigation, and so shouldn't be
conflated with naturalistic explanations.

IIUC your concept of "ceasesationists", God personally intervened at
one time, but no longer does. This sounds similar to the position of
many ID proponents. In any case, I don't see how it has anything to
do with any opinions I expressed.

Since you mention miracles, their existence depends on one's
definition. From Dictionary.com:
*****************************
1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is
held to be supernatural in origin.

2. A fortunate outcome that prevails despite overwhelming odds against
it.
3.An awesome and exceptional example of something
******************************

Assuming 1., the existence of miracles are necessarily tied to the
existence of supernatural causes.

Assuming 2. or 3., miracles include sunsets and rainbows, as a
reaction of personal delight, nothing supernatural required.

[MarkE]

Like I said, "I'm not defending his science. Feel free to disagree
with that."

>And whoever said that something incredibly complex cannot arise by
>chance is just plain blind. Complexity arises from less complex things
>all the time. Maybe not from hydrogen gas to NATO overnight, but from
>hydrogen to stars to planetary systems to oceans and plate tectonics to
>organic chemistry and oligomers to replication to primitive bacteria to
>multicellularity to NATO (with additional steps in between). Complexity
>happens naturally, in all kinds of settings. Don't deny it.

A fundamental issue being debated here is, can highly functional
complex systems (i.e. life) arise by natural processes alone?

I know you strongly believe the answer to be yes. But a sequence of
assertions concluding with "Don't deny it" is not going to encourage a
dialogue. Much less convince anyone.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/8/18 11:59 PM, MarkE wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 14:58:35 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

> [...]

>
>> And whoever said that something incredibly complex cannot arise by
>> chance is just plain blind. Complexity arises from less complex things
>> all the time. Maybe not from hydrogen gas to NATO overnight, but from
>> hydrogen to stars to planetary systems to oceans and plate tectonics to
>> organic chemistry and oligomers to replication to primitive bacteria to
>> multicellularity to NATO (with additional steps in between). Complexity
>> happens naturally, in all kinds of settings. Don't deny it.
>
> A fundamental issue being debated here is, can highly functional
> complex systems (i.e. life) arise by natural processes alone?

As I said, if you answer No, you are blind. We see functional increase
in complexity happen with every hurricane. We have excellent reason to
believe it happens in the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets. We
see it happening with cave formations. We see it happening with plate
tectonics. We see it happening with economics. We have no reason to
expect that organic chemistry is an exception.

> I know you strongly believe the answer to be yes. But a sequence of
> assertions concluding with "Don't deny it" is not going to encourage a
> dialogue. Much less convince anyone.

What you would say to the person who insists that skies are never cloudy?

[Robert Camp]

On 4/8/18 12:29 AM, MarkE wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:13:15 -0700, Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/18 9:28 AM, MarkE wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 19:40:28 -0700, Robert Camp
>>> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/6/18 1:29 AM, MarkE wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:52:52 -0700, Robert Camp
>>>>> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/5/18 12:50 AM, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:28:34 -0700, Robert Camp
>>>>>>> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/4/18 6:40 AM, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bill Rogers <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 8:15:04 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Cubist <xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 9:20:02 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:

<snip>

>>> But yes, my contrivance is aimed at calling you on what I see as not
>>> just intransigence, but of a wrong understanding of the relationship
>>> between science and metaphysics, and of what constitutes rational
>>> analysis and inference (as explained above).
>>
>> I'm open to being shown how I am wrong about this. But that needs to
>> happen by way of reason and evidence.
>
> Ok. Could rational analysis and scientific inquiry reasonably lead to
> a search for explanations beyond this universe, beyond the domain of
> the scientific method? I understand you're saying no.

Before you proceed based on a false premise let me clarify what I'm saying.

For me, the meaning of "universe" in this context ("beyond this
universe"), is non-technical and very broad. I mean the use of phrases
like, e.g., "this universe", "the world", etc., to signify all of
natural reality - known and unknown.*

[*This is a very awkward thing to define. And you might, not
unreasonably, protest that I seem to be rejecting "supernatural" out of
hand. I would argue that the truth is more existentially fundamental:
since modern monotheistic religions characterize the creator god as
outside of known reality, they force that definitional problem. Anything
that is, by definition, beyond natural, must be an ontological oxymoron.]

In any case, you can see by my usage above that (anticipating the whole
multiverse thing) I would not have a problem with causal agency from
beyond our particular universe (i.e., from some-verse else).

And while I have no problem accepting that there might be explanations
that will forever remain inaccessible to our limited human brains, I
would, I think, have a problem with the notion that these things might
be "beyond the domain of the scientific method" - at least in principle.
I see scientific methodology as simply being a reflection of the laws
that govern our particular universe. It is a simple, observational tool
for discovering uniformitarian phenomena. Therefore, I'd expect (though
I'd never assert it with certainty) that scientific methodology would
pertain in any (other) universe from which agency might have influenced
our own. Surely that would require a universe with at least some measure
of reliably repeatable natural law.

> But the answer is yes.
>
> "In chapter 12 of his book [The Logic of Chance], Dr Koonin proposes
> that the simplest self-reproducing system would be composed of at
> least 13 separate, complex RNA strands with an aggregate of 1,800
> nucleotides. Anything smaller could not self-replicate."
>
> "This has creationists drooling, because it means that the simplest of
> all possible self-reproducing systems is so incredibly complex that it
> almost certainly could not arise by chance. It appears to be an
> example of irreducible complexity that discredits the theory of
> abiogenesis."
>
> "Dr Koonin anticipated this reaction. In his book he says,
> “spontaneous emergence of complex systems that would have to be
> considered virtually impossible in a finite universe becomes not only
> possible, but inevitable under MWO.” (page 385) MWO is short for Many
> Worlds in One, also known as the multiverse theory, and often used
> together with the anthropic principle to support naturalism."
> https://www.quora.com/What-is-Koonins-scientific-critique-of-abiogenesis
>
> Koonin is a recognised expert in the field of evolutionary and
> computational biology. And he's anti-ID. And he's saying, let's get
> metaphysical.

Perhaps he says that elsewhere, I haven't read the book, but he's
certainly not saying it in your quote above. The only thing
"metaphysical" about multiverse theory is the misunderstandings of it
that come from creationists.

> I'm not defending his science. Feel free to disagree with that. But
> his appeal to a metaphysical explanation is the result of rational
> analysis and scientific inquiry. I predict this to be a growth
> industry in science.

No, it's a growth industry in pseudo-science, due to the continued
misapprehension of the origin and nature of multiverse theory that comes
from people who wish support irrational beliefs.

> Sure, the multiverse/MWO is currently beyond the reach of science (and
> may always be). The multiverse-of-the-gaps? No, the multiverse of the
> growing problem of finding naturalistic explanations within this
> universe.

All of recorded history stands in opposition to that last sentence. Are
you quite sure you want to make such obviously counterfactual claims?

> Of couse, it is also offered as a solution to the fine-tuning problem:

There is no fine-tuning problem. This is yet another misapprehension
that has grown out of several things; natural anthropocentric human
instinct, misunderstanding of the anthropic principle, and creationist
pseudo-science.

> "The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of
> nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the
> strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the
> cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the
> expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range
> that allows life to exist. Multiverse theory claims that there are
> billions of unobservable sister universes out there in which all
> possible values of these constants can occur. So somewhere there will
> be a bio-friendly universe like ours, however improbable that is."
>
> "Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an
> explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of
> the cosmological constant — known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than
> the value predicted by quantum field theory — is difficult to explain,
> for instance."
> https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
>
> Welcome to the new order of the multiverse or God.

This fallacy arises directly from a misunderstanding of the concepts
involved. Multiverse theory is a product of physics. It was never
conceived, nor is it in any way needed, to rescue rationality from an
inference to God.

In other words, even without multiverse theory there is still no
"fine-tuning problem."

> A new order ushered in by science itself.

And very badly misconstrued by those who wish to defend their
irrationality.

[Pro Plyd]

MarkE wrote:
> Hello again. As a creationist, I've always found the problem of the origin of life a strong pointer to the need for a creator.

It is not. It is, instead, a cop out, a substitute for research
and logic.

[MarkE]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 14:00:13 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

This has been the case with various phenomena in past (as you
indicate), so it's a valid caution in principle. How do I know these
instances are different? I don't with certainty. So I won't rest my
belief of them. I would however suggest they have considerable
potential, and are worthy of serious consideration, within those
caveats.

From Wikipedia (don't judge me):

'In Dublin in 1952, Erwin Schrödinger gave a lecture in which he
jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might
"seem lunatic". He said that when his equations seemed to describe
several different histories, these were "not alternatives, but all
really happen simultaneously".'

As you suggest, there is a degree to which it the equations of physics
and the eternal inflation model predict a MV. It may be more accurate
to say that for some at least it is a theory that provides alternative
solutions to OOL and FT as a bi-product.

But...on the other hand, FT seems to be given serious recognition as a
problem its own right:

"Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem
in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists
see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of
perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast
multi­verse."

At the very least, those with a commitment to materialism now have
some freedom to admit there may be real problems FT or OOL. Koonin's
proposal of a MV as a solution to OOL is an example of just that.

[MarkE]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:20:47 -0700, Mark Isaak

<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 4/8/18 11:59 PM, MarkE wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 14:58:35 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> And whoever said that something incredibly complex cannot arise by
>>> chance is just plain blind. Complexity arises from less complex things
>>> all the time. Maybe not from hydrogen gas to NATO overnight, but from
>>> hydrogen to stars to planetary systems to oceans and plate tectonics to
>>> organic chemistry and oligomers to replication to primitive bacteria to
>>> multicellularity to NATO (with additional steps in between). Complexity
>>> happens naturally, in all kinds of settings. Don't deny it.
>>
>> A fundamental issue being debated here is, can highly functional
>> complex systems (i.e. life) arise by natural processes alone?
>
>As I said, if you answer No, you are blind. We see functional increase
>in complexity happen with every hurricane. We have excellent reason to
>believe it happens in the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets. We
>see it happening with cave formations. We see it happening with plate
>tectonics. We see it happening with economics. We have no reason to
>expect that organic chemistry is an exception.
>
>> I know you strongly believe the answer to be yes. But a sequence of
>> assertions concluding with "Don't deny it" is not going to encourage a
>> dialogue. Much less convince anyone.
>
>What you would say to the person who insists that skies are never cloudy?

'According to physicist, Roger Penrose, What’s in our head is orders
of magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If
you look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains are
a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized
part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert
lump."'

[MarkE]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 10:08:29 -0700, Robert Camp

Are you defining 'truth' as only what we can observe? And thus the
supernatural by definition is an "ontological oxymoron"? (nice phrase
btw).

Would "observable region" be a workable definition here of "the
universe"? And would therefore other (non-observable) regions of the
multiverse also be ontological oxymorons?

Surely a condition of existence is not present observability by us?
Note that I include "present" here. Other non-observable regions of
the (alleged) multiverse may become obersavable in the future (though
generally won't). Similarly, a God may come into view in new ways in
the future, i.e. the appearing of Christ at the close of this age.

My inference, based on assessments like this (not by creationists
you'll note):

"As physicists spelunk deeper into the heart of reality, their
hypotheses—like the multiverse—become harder and harder, and maybe
even impossible, to test ... Physicists are now debating whether that
problem moves ideas like the multiverse from physics to metaphysics"
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-physicists-ever-prove-multiverse-real-180958813/

>> I'm not defending his science. Feel free to disagree with that. But
>> his appeal to a metaphysical explanation is the result of rational
>> analysis and scientific inquiry. I predict this to be a growth
>> industry in science.
>
>No, it's a growth industry in pseudo-science, due to the continued
>misapprehension of the origin and nature of multiverse theory that comes
>from people who wish support irrational beliefs.
>
>> Sure, the multiverse/MWO is currently beyond the reach of science (and
>> may always be). The multiverse-of-the-gaps? No, the multiverse of the
>> growing problem of finding naturalistic explanations within this
>> universe.
>
>All of recorded history stands in opposition to that last sentence. Are
>you quite sure you want to make such obviously counterfactual claims?

I'm prepared to provisionally call the stalling of OOL progress and
the FT problem as significant new exceptions.

>> Of couse, it is also offered as a solution to the fine-tuning problem:
>
>There is no fine-tuning problem. This is yet another misapprehension
>that has grown out of several things; natural anthropocentric human
>instinct, misunderstanding of the anthropic principle, and creationist
>pseudo-science.

Really?

“Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing
again and expanding indefinitely? ... Thus one either has to appeal to
the anthropic principle or find the physical explanation of why the
universe is the way it is.”
--Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose

>> "The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of
>> nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the
>> strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the
>> cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the
>> expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range
>> that allows life to exist. Multiverse theory claims that there are
>> billions of unobservable sister universes out there in which all
>> possible values of these constants can occur. So somewhere there will
>> be a bio-friendly universe like ours, however improbable that is."
>>
>> "Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an
>> explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of
>> the cosmological constant — known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than
>> the value predicted by quantum field theory — is difficult to explain,
>> for instance."
>> https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
>>
>> Welcome to the new order of the multiverse or God.
>
>This fallacy arises directly from a misunderstanding of the concepts
>involved. Multiverse theory is a product of physics. It was never
>conceived, nor is it in any way needed, to rescue rationality from an
>inference to God.
>
>In other words, even without multiverse theory there is still no
>"fine-tuning problem."

Elaboration on Hawking and Penrose's statement of the unsolved FT
problem:

“Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing
again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are
now, the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically
accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had
been less by one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would
have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by
one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would have been
essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it
have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to
appeal to the anthropic principle or find the physical explanation of
why the universe is the way it is.”

>> A new order ushered in by science itself.
>
>And very badly misconstrued by those who wish to defend their
>irrationality.

Please, no more redefining the term "rational" to mean "methodological
naturalism". That's just giving you a free hit every time you then
describe any religious belief as "technically" irrational.

[Robert Camp]

I wasn't really defining truth. I was attempting to offer a definitional
approach to phrases (e.g., nature/reality/the world/the universe) that
provide the foundational concept off of which "supernatural" plays.

But yes, unless you're using the word "supernatural" in idiosyncratic
ways (i.e., as a label for unknown phenomena or processes), I do think
common usage is definitionally paradoxical.

> Would "observable region" be a workable definition here of "the
> universe"? And would therefore other (non-observable) regions of the
> multiverse also be ontological oxymorons?

No, that was my point above. Multiverse theory is perfectly compatible
with rational inquiry, as well as my personal epistemology.
Non-observable regions of the multiverse are not, in principle,
unknowable (if they were, there would be no theory which leads us
there). The supernatural, on the other hand, is beyond nature, beyond
theoretical conceptualization and physical investigation, and is
therefore, in principle, unknowable. Thus, inference to the supernatural
is epistemologically vacuous.

> Surely a condition of existence is not present observability by us?

Not at all. I go on to say just that below.

> Note that I include "present" here. Other non-observable regions of
> the (alleged) multiverse may become obersavable in the future (though
> generally won't). Similarly, a God may come into view in new ways in
> the future, i.e. the appearing of Christ at the close of this age.

You offer these possibilities ("multiverse may become observable," "a
God may come into view") as if they are epistemologically equivalent.
They are not. The former is a rational postulate - it infers no
phenomena outside of reality, it requires no faith. The latter (unless
you are using "God" in a non-standard fashion) is an irrational
postulate - it is rooted entirely in the desires of believers.

And until that debate (the truth of which I'll assume for the sake of
argument) is resolved you will find no rational person offering
multiverse theory as a valid inference resulting from scientific
methodology.

>>> I'm not defending his science. Feel free to disagree with that. But
>>> his appeal to a metaphysical explanation is the result of rational
>>> analysis and scientific inquiry. I predict this to be a growth
>>> industry in science.
>>
>> No, it's a growth industry in pseudo-science, due to the continued
>> misapprehension of the origin and nature of multiverse theory that comes
>>from people who wish support irrational beliefs.
>>
>>> Sure, the multiverse/MWO is currently beyond the reach of science (and
>>> may always be). The multiverse-of-the-gaps? No, the multiverse of the
>>> growing problem of finding naturalistic explanations within this
>>> universe.
>>
>> All of recorded history stands in opposition to that last sentence. Are
>> you quite sure you want to make such obviously counterfactual claims?
>
> I'm prepared to provisionally call the stalling of OOL progress and
> the FT problem as significant new exceptions.

I'll take your backpedal from the very broad "naturalist explanations"
to "OOL progress and the FT problem" as a bit of contrition. But I'd
still like to know, is it your deep expertise in evolutionary biology,
geology and abiogenesis research that allows you to conclude that origin
of life progress has stalled, or is it your comprehensive reading of the
literature in the relevant journals that has lead you to this conclusion?

If the latter, would you mind producing a list of cites?

>>> Of couse, it is also offered as a solution to the fine-tuning problem:
>>
>> There is no fine-tuning problem. This is yet another misapprehension
>> that has grown out of several things; natural anthropocentric human
>> instinct, misunderstanding of the anthropic principle, and creationist
>> pseudo-science.
>
> Really?
>
> “Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing
> again and expanding indefinitely? ... Thus one either has to appeal to
> the anthropic principle or find the physical explanation of why the
> universe is the way it is.”
> --Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose

What is it about that quote that you think contradicts my perspective?

Before you answer, go read up on the anthropic principle, paying special
attention to the differences between weak and strong versions.

"Rational: (adjective) based on or in accordance with reason or logic."

What is is I'm redefining? What do you see as the salient differences
between "rational" and "methodological naturalism"?

Moreover, I do not describe any religious belief as irrational. I
describe any faith-based belief as irrational. And I take pains to say
that this is a "technical" evaluation because I acknowledge that all
humans are irrational in one way or another. The difference comes from
how those impulses influence our lives and the lives of others.

When I rail at the golf-gods for putting my approach shot in the sand,
it's a moment of irrationality that at worst annoys my friends and
results in a bent club. When you publicly deny science because it
offends your ideology, you diminish, if only in a small way, the
progress of reason in human society.

I'm quite comfortable with my use of the word. Perhaps your discomfort
actually has little to do with some imagined rhetorical advantage I've
gained?

[MarkE]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:59:39 -0700, Robert Camp

Perhaps this author has expressed my argument better:

'There at least two general ways in which God might operate within the
universe in detectable ways. First, God might directly intervene to do
something beyond the laws of nature to bring about life or some
intended feature of nature. This could be detected by finding some
feature of nature that seems generally in accord with God’s purposes
but which is very unlikely to be the product of natural processes.
Secondly, God might setup the natural processes themselves and/or the
initial conditions to bring about His purposes. This “fine-tuning”
would be detectable evidence for God if these natural laws or initial
conditions were constrained to a tiny range among possibilities. Some
leading atheist thinkers agree that it’s possible to have this type of
scientific evidence for God although they obviously resist the
conclusion. Stephen Hawking admits in Brief History of Time that
fine-tuning is possible evidence of “a divine purpose in Creation and
the choice of the laws of science (by God)” Peter Millican, a
prominent philosopher at Oxford, conceded in a debate with William
Lane Craig that “if there is an inexplicable coincidence in the
fundamental constants of nature whose values have to be
precisely-tuned within a wide range of otherwise available
possibilities that would make a complex universe possible then this
constitutes a phenomenon that very naturally invites explanation in
terms of a cosmic scale designer.”'
https://crossexamined.org/counts-evidence-god-science/

The article goes on to warn against simplistic argument from
incredulity, god-of-the-gaps, etc.

Hawking concedes FT as possible evidence for a designer. That's what
I'm suggesting--not proof, just evidence. Choose the mulitverse
instead if you will, or some other "physical explanation." But I think
Hawking (and many others) are saying that explanations such as "it
just is" are, in view of the scientific evidence, irrational.

I suggest the issue here is not a distinction between weak and strong
versions of the anthropic principle, but rather between weak and
strong versions of an priori commitment to atheism. And perhaps neatly
defining atheism as rationalism.

That's not what I'm protesting. Rather, your implication that anything
outside "methodological naturalism" is irrational.

>Moreover, I do not describe any religious belief as irrational. I
>describe any faith-based belief as irrational. And I take pains to say
>that this is a "technical" evaluation because I acknowledge that all
>humans are irrational in one way or another. The difference comes from
>how those impulses influence our lives and the lives of others.
>
>When I rail at the golf-gods for putting my approach shot in the sand,
>it's a moment of irrationality that at worst annoys my friends and
>results in a bent club. When you publicly deny science because it
>offends your ideology, you diminish, if only in a small way, the
>progress of reason in human society.
>
>I'm quite comfortable with my use of the word. Perhaps your discomfort
>actually has little to do with some imagined rhetorical advantage I've
>gained?

Not at all. But just to be even-handed, I'd like to use the term
"incompetent" according to my own "technical" definition: "an
epistemological framework which a priori excludes the possibility of
the existence or relevance of anything not strictly subject to the
scientific method."

However, I remain willing to engage with your incompetent thinking (no
offence intended of course; just using the term in a technical sense).