New Quote Mine Item

gary...@cox.net

unread,

Jul 5, 2021, 4:41:07 PM7/5/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

I was demanded by a creationist to address Richard C. Lewontin admitting "We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism and that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." The implication is that we evilutionsits hate God.

The source material was “Billions and Billions of Demons" Richard C. Lewontin, January 9, 1997 New York Review of Books. He was reviewing : The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan (1995 Random House)

The "cut-n-paste" source used by creationists follows in full;

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

There is a great cartoon that illustrated this problem perfectly. Two scientists (we know they are scientists because they are bald men wearing lab coats) are looking at a blackboard covered in math equations. The left is labeled "Part 1," and the right part is "Part 3." Part 2 in the middle is "And then a miracle happens."

The caption is "Part 2 needs work."

Science is about physical events with physical causes. There cannot be "miracles" dropped into play to cover for gaps in our knowledge or understanding.

Dale

unread,

Jul 5, 2021, 5:41:07 PM7/5/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/5/2021 4:40 PM, gary...@cox.net wrote:
> Science is about physical events with physical causes. There cannot be "miracles" dropped into play to cover for gaps in our knowledge or understanding.

"the whole" has "nothing" at its disposal?

such a disposal can result in "something" from "nothing"?

magic?

miracles?

--
Mystery -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

RonO

unread,

Jul 5, 2021, 5:46:07 PM7/5/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Quote mines are likely unnecessary. You can likely find a lot of
atheists that voice the opinion in the way that creationists would like
them to, but the fact is that the "materialism" creationist stupidity
has been understood to be stupidity for a very long time. The type of
materialism that science depends on is just the type that everyone
depends on to keep breathing, eating and walking down the street.
Science has to depend on the same senses that everyone else depends on
because science is done by humans. Scientists can't deal with the
religious supernatural claims any better than any other humans can.
Science can't deal with things that might not exist, and that no one can
demonstrate exists. It is that simple.

Ask the IDiots what type of materialism failed IDiocy. It wasn't the
philosophical materialism that they can't deal with it is the every day
working materialism that anyone with a functioning brain and sensory
system can deal with. The same materialism that keeps creationists
breathing is the type of materialism that they can't deal with in terms
of their beef with science. Science is simply limited to what does
exist. It doesn't matter if anything else may or may not exist, if its
existence can be detected and studied science can be used to understand
it. The whole point of the creationist intelligent design scam was to
claim that intelligent design could be detected and studied in nature.
It turned out that no IDiot creationist wanted to understand intelligent
design in nature, so no intelligent design science was ever attempted.
Creationists figured out that they didn't want to know the answers that
they can get.

The whole reason why no IDiot ever tried to verify claims like
irreducible complexity was because they didn't want to know what their
intelligent designer was supposed to have done over a billion years ago
to design something like the flagellum. Behe could have done the
research and may have found his 3 neutral mutations required for the
evolution of the flagellum, but no IDiot creationists would have bought
the book because most of them don't want to even believe that there was
an "over a billion years ago time period" to talk about.

Ron Okimoto

Wolffan

unread,

Jul 5, 2021, 6:21:07 PM7/5/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 2021 Jul 05, Dale wrote
(in article<Et6dnc71VZeA4X79...@supernews.com>):

> On 7/5/2021 4:40 PM, gary...@cox.net wrote:
> > Science is about physical events with physical causes. There cannot be
> > "miracles" dropped into play to cover for gaps in our knowledge or
> > understanding.
>
> "the whole" has "nothing" at its disposal?
>
> such a disposal can result in "something" from "nothing"?
>
> magic?
>
> miracles?

And Dale has, yet again, no time to address replies to threads he started,
but plenty of time to post nonsense to other threads. Now why, oh why, would
this be? ’Tis a puzzlement.

Robert Carnegie

unread,

Jul 6, 2021, 10:46:08 AM7/6/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

If that's the quote, it does seem to me to express
prejudice, although a prejudice that I tend to share.
The "prior commitment" mentioned, to exclude
"god did it" "explanations".

The first thing that may need to be pointed out is that
this isn't Carl Sagan talking. Carl Sagan died in 1996.
Conceivably this is Richard Lewontin trying to interpret
Carl Sagan's book or his own understanding of
Carl Sagan's opinions. If the paragraph isn't in reference
to the book then it could be superfluous in a review,
except for describing the context in which scientific
investigation tends to reject "god did it" as "the answer".
That context is that it is more useful to discover an
explanation that "the natural world works that way",
if there is one to be found, since that is going to be
applicable in more cases and is, if found and tested,
evidently the truth. What does it tell us that god did it?
God does what he likes. Tomorrow, god might do
something different.

Also, it's tiresome, even for god probably, that
once an explanation in the natural world has been
found, goddists still prefer to say "god did it" and
to remain ignorant of what actually happened.
And to look stupid in front of the people who know.

And that is why scientists and goddists should
call for help from God only when it is absolutely
necessary to do so.

jillery

unread,

Jul 6, 2021, 12:16:07 PM7/6/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:40:21 -0700 (PDT), "gary...@cox.net"
<gary...@cox.net> wrote:

>I was demanded by a creationist to address Richard C. Lewontin admitting "We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism and that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." The implication is that we evilutionsits hate God.
>
>The source material was “Billions and Billions of Demons" Richard C. Lewontin, January 9, 1997 New York Review of Books. He was reviewing : The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan (1995 Random House)

"Demon-Haunted World" is an excellent explanation of the naturalistic
paradigm.

>The "cut-n-paste" source used by creationists follows in full;
>
>"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant
>scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

My impression is Lewontin is describing above metaphysical naturalism,
which is different in emphasis from methodological naturalism. While
the former presumes supernatural cause doesn't exist, the latter says
science can't say anything about supernatural cause. By analogy it's
similar to anti-theism and agnosticism.

And no, the above does not mean science can't examine supernatural
claims. To the contrary, most supernatural claims result from
ignorance, and science addresses that ignorance.

>There is a great cartoon that illustrated this problem perfectly. Two scientists (we know they are scientists because they are bald men wearing lab coats) are looking at a blackboard covered in math equations. The left is labeled "Part 1," and the right part is "Part 3." Part 2 in the middle is "And then a miracle happens."
>
>The caption is "Part 2 needs work."

I'm almost certain you refer to my favorite Sidney Harris cartoon:

<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/1-Then-a-Miracle-Occurs-Harris-2010_fig1_344201300>

<https://tinyurl.com/2hzrrm54>

The actual caption is even more sardonic than your paraphrase of it.
The cartoon captures the essential problem with all pseudo-scientific
lines of reasoning, whether from pandering academics or Creationists
with phony doctorates or citizens with a passion for made-up crap or
simply willfully stupid Usenet trolls.

>Science is about physical events with physical causes. There cannot be "miracles" dropped into play to cover for gaps in our knowledge or understanding.

Correct. Invoking supernatural cause is incompatible with scientific
inquiry. So for example when cdesign proponentsists like Michael Behe
claim "natural cause can't explain X, therefore Goddidit", they lose
any right to call themselves scientists, or even rational thinkers.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

gary...@cox.net

unread,

Jul 6, 2021, 3:46:07 PM7/6/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Lewontin's attempt is to tell to scientists why creationists are not stupid. Science is difficult. Science is not obvious. Science is not comforting. Science is not complete.

And he is also pointing to the fact that real science cannot simply plug in a few miracles to cover over the gross absurdities we can find and call it good. This is the gap between real medicine and exorcisms. It is the difference between science and mysticism. This is the difference between now, and Boston Puritans burning 'witches" in the 1600s.

I'll also note that Lewontin died yesterday. He, Gould, and Lynn Margulis had been friends since the 1960s. The various "disputes" they shared in print need to be interpreted in that context as well.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Jul 6, 2021, 4:11:08 PM7/6/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/6/21 9:11 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:40:21 -0700 (PDT), "gary...@cox.net"
> <gary...@cox.net> wrote:

> [...]

>> Science is about physical events with physical causes. There cannot be "miracles" dropped into play to cover for gaps in our knowledge or understanding.
>
> Correct. Invoking supernatural cause is incompatible with scientific
> inquiry. So for example when cdesign proponentsists like Michael Behe
> claim "natural cause can't explain X, therefore Goddidit", they lose
> any right to call themselves scientists, or even rational thinkers.

I take slight exception to saying that invoking the supernatural is
incompatible with scientific inquiry. It's true in practice, but in
principle, after someone says, "God does this", the scientist could ask,
"How?" It is the refusal to answer that "how?", or the declaration that
no answer is possible, that makes the supernatural incompatible with
science.

Of course, if someone *does* investigate the "how" and finds deeper
rules governing the initial phenomenon, I would say the explanation is
no longer supernatural, but now qualifies as natural.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

jillery

unread,

Jul 6, 2021, 6:01:07 PM7/6/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

The sixties messed up a lot of people.

jillery

unread,

Jul 6, 2021, 6:01:07 PM7/6/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:10:05 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:

>On 7/6/21 9:11 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:40:21 -0700 (PDT), "gary...@cox.net"
>> <gary...@cox.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Science is about physical events with physical causes. There cannot be "miracles" dropped into play to cover for gaps in our knowledge or understanding.
>>
>> Correct. Invoking supernatural cause is incompatible with scientific
>> inquiry. So for example when cdesign proponentsists like Michael Behe
>> claim "natural cause can't explain X, therefore Goddidit", they lose
>> any right to call themselves scientists, or even rational thinkers.
>
>I take slight exception to saying that invoking the supernatural is
>incompatible with scientific inquiry. It's true in practice, but in
>principle, after someone says, "God does this", the scientist could ask,
>"How?" It is the refusal to answer that "how?", or the declaration that
>no answer is possible, that makes the supernatural incompatible with
>science.

Your exception is exactly why I wrote what you deleted:
*********************************

And no, the above does not mean science can't examine supernatural
claims. To the contrary, most supernatural claims result from
ignorance, and science addresses that ignorance.

**********************************

Now Cates and friends have one more "back-and-forth" to blame on me.

>Of course, if someone *does* investigate the "how" and finds deeper
>rules governing the initial phenomenon, I would say the explanation is
>no longer supernatural, but now qualifies as natural.

--

unread,

Jul 6, 2021, 10:51:07 PM7/6/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On 7/6/2021 10:19 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> Is ... supernatural? ...

super isn't beyond?

jillery

unread,

Jul 7, 2021, 12:56:07 AM7/7/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 19:19:13 -0700, Mark Isaak

You have a different understanding of "supernatural" than I do. I say
what you describe above are cases where things were asserted to be
supernatural but aren't. That's why further study showed them to be
natural.

I acknowledge gravity was once thought supernatural. In fact, almost
all of the forces in the world were once thought supernatural, thus
pantheons of gods. Newton showed the cause of things moving on Earth
was the same cause of things moving in the heavens. Gravity never
*was* supernatural.

Merely claiming X is supernatural doesn't mean X actually *is*
supernatural. That's just perception. OTOH if X actually *is*
supernatural, then no amount of studying is going to make X natural. X
will remain inexplicable and beyond natural cause, ex. God.

Some people seek out things which they think are poorly explained, in
order to declare them supernatural aka acts of God. A contemporaneous
discussion on fine-tuning illustrates exactly that.

jillery

unread,

Jul 7, 2021, 12:56:07 AM7/7/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Super!

Kalkidas

unread,

Jul 7, 2021, 8:46:06 AM7/7/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

A long time ago, some demon created a game called "materialism" that
appealed to some people. They have been playing it for so long that they
have forgotten it's just a game and that the rules are arbitrary.

jillery

unread,

Jul 7, 2021, 2:16:06 PM7/7/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 12:41:50 -0700 (PDT), "gary...@cox.net"
<gary...@cox.net> wrote:

>Lewontin's attempt is to tell to scientists why creationists are not stupid.

Several Youtube bloggers identify themselves as former Christians. A
few of them have criticized those who call Creationists "stupid". A
common argument is they say they used to believe the same things as
Creationists, and they (the former Christians) are not especially
smarter now than they were before. My counterpoint to that argument
is, their point may be technically correct, but they are definitely
more knowledgeable than they were before, and that is the relevant
distinction wrt stupidity, in the sense of knowing what one is talking
about.

RonO

unread,

Jul 7, 2021, 7:06:06 PM7/7/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

You are likely wrong again. The "materialism" that you don't like,
likely existed long before the organized religion that is your demon and
makes you what you are. Humans likely only went with the supernatural
religious stuff when when they couldn't figure out a working explanation
for something, like where did babies come from, and who opens up the
firmament and lets the rain come down. They didn't know about sperm,
eggs, and embryos, and they hadn't figured out the water cycle. Only
the religious rules were arbitrary, so that they could be bent to
explain anything. It takes hard work and quite a lot of materialistic
observations in order to figure out what nature really is.

Why were you an IDiot for so long? Why are you no longer interested in
the creation research? Why did you have to run from the Top Six of
IDiocy? Shouldn't you understand how arbitrary your religious rules are
by now?

Ron Okimoto

gary...@cox.net

unread,

Jul 7, 2021, 9:26:06 PM7/7/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Isaiah 55: 10-11 is an interesting rejection of what we know as the “hydrological cycle,”
10. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11. So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Jul 8, 2021, 12:16:08 PM7/8/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

After more thought on this, I agree with you. The problem is that
"supernatural" is frequently used as if it points to the cause of a
phenomenon, when in fact it refers only to the phenomenon's
inexplicability. Once you decide something is supernatural, to say
*anything* about its cause is to enter the realm of fiction writing.
That holds even if -- especially if -- the reputed cause (e.g., god) is
itself supernatural.

The supernatural can still be investigated, but if it's really
supernatural, the investigations will lead nowhere (except to works of
fiction). More commonly the investigations lead to the conclusion that
there is nothing supernatural at work. The word "supernatural" can
still be usefully applied to the original claims, but all such claims we
can actually talk about are fictions.

Robert Carnegie

unread,

Jul 9, 2021, 6:21:08 AM7/9/21

to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

I dispute that investigation in the context of "supernatural"
factors is intrinsically impossible. But perhaps we disagree
on the definition of "supernatural".

My take: space, time, matter, and energy exist, and constitute
the "natural system". This phrase already has other uses, so
please bear with me. Elements of this natural system interact
naturally, and, in general, the behaviour of the system can be
explained completely by understanding the principles of these
interactions; that is to say, the laws of nature. These principles
include mathematical relationships. They do not include
hidden intelligence. They seem to include random events
at the scale of atoms, which is awkward if we want to have
definite conclusions, but is manageable if events actually
are random.

"Supernatural" then means any behaviour of the natural
system that deviates from natural law. This may come from
outside the natural system, or from entities within the natural
system that can produce an un-natural influence.

For instance, a human body appears to be natural, but
religion usually treats human identity as including a "soul"
that has supernatural properties, such as preserving
personal identity after you die. Indeed, evidently your
identity resides in this supernatural object, and acts that
you perform with your physical body are somehow
initiated by a supernatural interaction between your soul
and your body.

Testing this is tricky. Attempts to distinguish a body with
a soul and a body without one have been unsatisfactory.
Also, your identity does seem to reside mainly in your
physical body. I think it is fair to call it unproven that a
human being has a soul of the type that I suggested.

Transubstantiation should be another supernatural event.
Bread on a plate and wine on a glass are converted into
human tissue and blood - before they enter a living human
body. (To convert bread and wine into human tissue after
they enter a human body is not supernatural.) However,
they do not in any evident way become flesh and blood,
except that a priest tells us that they have. Examination
of this material is furiously discouraged because it's sacred.
Breadcrumbs are treated with great reverence. And people
who are allergic to bread or to wine are not excused from
the ceremony. After all, the material is transubstantiated!
But if the original material is different, then it doesn't work!

I do not believe that transubstantiation happens. I think it
is a long term misunderstanding. It certainly is not proven,
partly because doing it in a laboratory isn't allowed.
Materialism 2, The Supernatural, 0.

It is a pity, because it would be a really good way to impress
unbelievers. A god could do it, presumably, while the material
was in someone's hand. If that /was/ allowed to scientists,
then I expect it would be extremely reliable. Just what scientists
like.