More incredible chutzpah from John Mark Reynolds

It's always a pity when these Christians decide to lie for God. Funny that God doesn't want this, Romans chapter 3.

Humans with consistent world-views that have no connection to reality are usually found in asylums!

Everyone knows (I hope) that theology is "theory and value laden." I hope everyone knows the same thing about science. No idea formation takes place in an ideological "clean room."

My own beliefs sometimes conflict like two programs that will not run on my computer at the same time. This is not good and I am working hard to fix this. However I would not trade my problems philosophically and scientifically for those of a true secularist who must reduce everything (including ideas) to matter and energy or who must create his own morality. This appears to me to be an operating system level of difficulty!

"A Christian knows why math works..."

Too bad for anyone who is a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, an atheist, or a Pastafarian...

2 + 2 = 5!

My own beliefs sometimes conflict like two programs that will not run on my computer at the same time. This is not good and I am working hard to fix this.

Uh... if this is related to "the universe exists because God created it for us," and I think it is ("Math works for us because God wants it to"?), I just found out that the universe exists because Bruce Schneier needed a reference platform!

Once we get over sputtering at the spectacle of creationists banging their heads against walls of their own making, we can look at the bright side: these guys are part of the ID movement and the "critical analysis of evolution" movement. Their touch is political and constitutional death in terms of getting the antievolutionists' junk science taken seriously in the public schools, and is academic death in terms of getting it taken seriously in the universities.

If that is the case, do you disagree with Mooney's strategy to avoid debating technical details? I'd presume if the facts were on one's side, one would much rather argue facts.

Yeah, Sal. I've found that employing facts to justify a point of view or a position on just about anything is useful, efficient, succinct and rather enjoyable. The enjoyment is the gravy served over a thick cut of understanding. I have observed that some seem to prefer the gravy over the main course. I guess that is because it is so much easier to chew and it can evoke levity and good humor when it runs down one's chin and vest.

Well, Sal, perhaps Darwinists will lose the high ground when ID can come up with a theory that can be tested using the scientific method, or at least come up with some data that "Darwinism" cannot explain.

So where's the evidence?

Do let us know when you've got something.

Comment #169100 Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on April 10, 2007 6:31 PM (e) | kill Hiya Nick, I think Darwinists and the NCSE don't have to worry about creationism nor/ID officially invading the the public schools system any time soon. As far as the universities, there probably won't be any creationist nor ID classes en masse anytime soon either.

I think Darwinists and the NCSE don't have to worry about creationism nor/ID officially invading the the public schools system any time soon.

I just found out that the universe exists because Bruce Schneier needed a reference platform!

— Monado

"A Christian knows why math works..."

since, in your view, universal acceptance of Darwinism must be inevitable since Darwinist control the high ground in the universities and public schools.

Does this mean Meyer's textbook project is moribund?

Re "because π = 3.2."

But π is a circular argument. ;)

So if that's the case, and if (as Silly Sally says) the DI is no longer interested in worming ID into public schools, this is for the homeschool market then?

Forgive me if this is old news.

I don't see how this would advance the Wedge strategy, really; any homeschoolers who'd be prone to teaching ID already are (if they're not teaching full-bore YEC), and there are are plenty of such texts already. I guess the DI just wanted a slice of that pie?

Explore Evolution is a "critical analysis of evolution" book. It pretends it's not about ID or creationism, and instead it just bashes evolution with the usual bogus creationist arguments and quote-mining of real experts who would never in a thousand years support the spin being put on their work.

The book is certainly aimed at the public schools, in fact it was probably designed specifically for Kansas and Ohio, before they tossed their "critical analysis of evolution" policies.

But you're right about the Discovery Institute and it's fellows like Paul Nelson. They have been pretending for the last year or two that they don't want to teach ID in the public schools, that they just want to make their case to the scientific community, and that they don't think court cases are a good way to settle issues. Explore Evolution proves that all of that was just BS produced for media consumption. They're relabeling their creationist junk yet again for another try. It worked great before, why not try again?

You'll probably see a lot more about this next week.

Looking forward to it. Thanks, Nick!

Nick wrote: Sadly, I will be going to school in the fall and so I won't be able to spend much time annoying creationists. So get it while the getting's good.

Sal said: ... you'll be able to retire from the debate and PT can pack up shop since, in your view, universal acceptance of Darwinism must be inevitable since Darwinist control the high ground in the universities and public schools.

Do you disagree with Mooney's strategy to avoid debating technical details? I'd presume if the facts were on one's side, one would much rather argue facts.

I would not trade my problems philosophically and scientifically for those of a true secularist who must reduce everything (including ideas) to matter and energy or who must create his own morality. This appears to me to be an operating system level of difficulty

Let me point you to the Brick Testament, which illustrates the bible in Lego(tm) blocks and Playmobil(tm) people in a very straightforward way. The Fate of Judas points out that the 'inerrant' bible has Judas dying in two different ways.

Sorry, Nedlum. Here's the link for "The universe exists because Bruce Schneier needed a reference platform."

And here's "The Other Fate of Judas" from the Brick Testament.

He said "Christianity has a general view of the world that accounts for why science works", but you responded as if his assertion were "Christianity has a general view of the world that best fits with current scientific paradigms." You've completely missed the point.

The point is, you're using some kind of framework that says what "hard data" is, what types of inferences can be justly drawn from such data, that following such methods will result in the best chance of approaching truth, and so forth. One of those inference-types that science requires is inductive inference (--abstracting from specific phenomena to general laws), which in turn presupposes the uniformity of nature (an "ordered" cosmos). Without such a framework ("philosophy of science"), and all that it presupposes (e.g., uniformity of nature), doing science is impossible.

Everyone agrees that Christians and non-Christians do science (i.e., science is possible), but, Reynolds says, only Christians have a worldview that allows for it (as the adage says: everyone can count; not everyone can account for counting). So before you can ask anything about the meaning of "hard data" or how some datum should be interpreted and so on, you have to first get the airplane of the runway and show how science is possible in the first place, given a non-Christian worldview.

Anyhow, I'm not really interested in arguing the point here (I just wanted to clarify his actual argument); and I think that Reynolds and ID are ultimately inconsistent with the argument anyhow (though I believe the argument itself is sound), because they pretend that science and scientists are neutral and so are IDers, so they shoot themselves in the foot at that point (science can't both presuppose the Christian worldview and not presuppose it--if it does, then all facts are God-created, Christian facts; if it doesn't then they are non-created, non-Christian facts--can't have it both ways).

How does one distinguish between "Christian fact" and "non-Christian fact"? I thought that a statement that asserts something would be either correct or incorrect.

Well, without getting into the higher level differences between various theories of truth, theories of fact, models of inquiry, &c., and which of those is consistent with the Christian view of man and the world; just simply considering the most fundamental level, the difference is this:

When a Christian sees a rose in the garden, part of the meaning (or concept, or idea, or whatever you wish to call it) of the rose is "created by the Christian God for a rational purpose in His plan for history." This is obviously not compatible with a different fundamental view of the rose that includes (or presupposes) propositions like "not-created by the Christian God" or "no purpose in history" or "reason is a pragmatic category created by humans." So a "Christian rose" is different from a "non-Christian" rose.

Certainly, Christians and non-Christians both communicate about the same rose and understand each other perfectly well, even though, theoretically, they are *not* speaking of the same rose at all. Various explanations are offered for how this is possible, from Wittgenstein's idea of "family resemblance" and semantic overlap, to Van Til's view that non-Christians are actually subconsciously assuming the Christian view, and so on.

So, in other words, MonkeeSage, the Old Testament is wrong because it was not written by Christians, and all historical events recorded by all peoples before the advent of Jesus Christ are false?

I don't believe so. Perhaps we have a different view of Biblical Theology and Salvation History. In my view, the Old Testament was written by authors who held the same basic worldview as Christians do. I don't believe the NT presents any fundamentally different cosmology, or different relationship between God and man, or what-have-you. The precise understanding of God's nature and salvation is be expressed more clearly in the NT, but I don't see that clarification as any kind of revolutionary new view of the world, man or God.

"is be" <- wow...you might be a redneck if...heh. I should learn to type. :)

"is be"

^ wow...you might be a redneck if...heh. I should learn to type. :)

Then can you explain why it is relevant to science to think of everything in terms of "salvation"? How would parsing everything as it relates to Christianity help one understand the physiology of, say, the Chinese agnathans known as galeaspids?

And how would you prevent such a way of thinking from leading people to destroy what they deemed as irrevelant to Salvation, like the way Christians have been going about through history vandalizing and or burning every thing, place and person deemed "pagan"?

I only ask, as, I knew this one person who devoted himself to a "Christian way of thinking," and told me that learning and knowledge (and all of their products) are irrelevant and useless because in the next life, we won't need to use what we learned in this life.

I think there is some confusion here (if it is due to my comments being unclear, I apologize). To say that the Christian worldview is the precondition of science (i.e., if science is possible, it is because the world is the way Christianity says it is), does not mean it guides any particular inquiry or field of study, except in a very broad way.

Similarly, if one takes sense experience, or human reason, or anything else, as an ultimate epistemological starting point, that is not overly relevant to any particular study of physiology. It is only relevant in the very general sense that it determines what types of things should be included in the inquiry, what types of inferences can be justly made from the data, and so on.

In other words, if the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition of science (and hence the inquiry into physiology you mention), then anyone who behaves *as if* it were true (whether they profess it as true or deny it), would be able to carry out such an inquiry. The rub would be in justifying such behavior on whatever view of the world they hold.

Now on the topic of ethics (e.g., whether pagan books or temples or whatever should be destroyed by Christians), that's a very complex issue (as any ethicist, coming from any background, will attest). I don't think a simple blurb will be helpful. I will only say that I believe the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for absolute morality, and that, therefore, there is no such thing as a "moral objection" to Christian morality (if it is rightly interpreted and carried out--and therein lies the problem, of course).

As for your friend, I would say that they are actually denying the Christian worldview, since it is stressed numerous times in the Bible that God intends for us to think rationally about the world, and to know Him through such discursion. By their view, they shouldn't even read the Bible, since there will be no Bible in heaven. Or, more practically, they shouldn't dodge a speeding car, since dodging speeding cars won't be included in heaven.

MonkeeSage said: He said "Christianity has a general view of the world that accounts for why science works", but you responded as if his assertion were "Christianity has a general view of the world that best fits with current scientific paradigms." You've completely missed the point.

MonkeeSage said: I will only say that I believe the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for absolute morality...

In other words, if the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition of science (and hence the inquiry into physiology you mention), then anyone who behaves *as if* it were true (whether they profess it as true or deny it), would be able to carry out such an inquiry. The rub would be in justifying such behavior on whatever view of the world they hold.

@Everyone:

You're all assuming off the bat that the Christian worldview is *extraneous* to scientific knowledge--i.e., we can understand the world perfectly well apart from the presuppositions of Christianity. But that is the very point in contention. *How* can we understand the world apart from Christian presuppositions?--that's what Reynolds was driving at. What are facts? Why are observable facts better than feelings for guiding our quest for knowledge? Are our ideas simply the product of the chance collocation of past events (i.e., had the Minoans flourished, would we view the world completely differently?), or is there some telic purpose to human experience? These are not just peripheral considerations, they go to the very heart of our view of God, man and the world. In order to claim that science proves X, Y or Z as the most probable option, you must first be able to account for the preconditions of science (e.g., inductive inference; abstract, universal laws; and so on).

… or is there some telic purpose to human experience? These are not just peripheral considerations, they go to the very heart of our view of God, man and the world. In order to claim that science proves X, Y or Z as the most probable option, you must first be able to account for the preconditions of science (e.g., inductive inference; abstract, universal laws; and so on).

>> What religion does such behavior stem from?

Or, perhaps a better question--is such behavior meaningful at all--and if so, why? If, at the end of the day, it's because of a certain view of the world, a view which is excluded by non-Christian thought, then we have our answer. Why should we buy into the 'great chain of being' in the first place? As C. S Lewis argues (_God in the Dock_, p. 137):

Perhaps this may be even more simply put in another way. Every particular thought (whether it is a judgment of fact or a judgment of value) is always and by all men discounted the moment they believe that it can be explained, without remainder, as the result of irrational causes. Whenever you know what the other man is saying is wholly due to his complexes or to a bit of bone pressing on his brain, you cease to attach any importance to it. But if naturalism were true, then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat.

Or, perhaps a better question–is such behavior meaningful at all–and if so, why?

But if naturalism were true, then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat.

MonkeeSage said: >> What religion does such behavior stem from? Or, perhaps a better question--is such behavior meaningful at all--and if so, why? If, at the end of the day, it's because of a certain view of the world, a view which is excluded by non-Christian thought, then we have our answer. Why should we buy into the 'great chain of being' in the first place? As C. S Lewis argues (_God in the Dock_, p. 137): Perhaps this may be even more simply put in another way. Every particular thought (whether it is a judgment of fact or a judgment of value) is always and by all men discounted the moment they believe that it can be explained, without remainder, as the result of irrational causes. Whenever you know what the other man is saying is wholly due to his complexes or to a bit of bone pressing on his brain, you cease to attach any importance to it. But if naturalism were true, then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat.

Sorry for the delay, I was out of town for a job interview. I'll try reply tomorrow (well, later today actually, since it's after 2:30 am here).

MonkeeSage said: Every particular thought (whether it is a judgment of fact or a judgment of value) is always and by all men discounted the moment they believe that it can be explained, without remainder, as the result of irrational causes. Whenever you know what the other man is saying is wholly due to his complexes or to a bit of bone pressing on his brain, you cease to attach any importance to it. But if naturalism were true, then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat.

@Everyone:

Sorry again for not getting back to you sooner, but I do wish to continue this discussion. I'm in the process of moving, in connection with the job interview I mentioned before, so I'm very short on time right now. I'll try to reply later today. I think you've raised some important points, and I definitely want to discuss them further. I hope you'll forgive my tardiness.

While I have a moment, I'll respond briefly.

----

@Mike:

You said:
>>It’s meaningful to the animal. It makes a difference to the animal whether it lives or dies.

So "meaning" is simply reduced to "usefulness"? If meaning is simply equivalent with pragmatics, then you must give up such "lofty" concepts as "true" or "right," and must follow after Dewey to find what "works" the best. Maybe Christianity "works the best" for some people, even if it's not "true"--that would mean that, for them, it would be "right"--yes?

You said:
>>Evolving complex systems of molecules, especially organic systems of molecules, have a myriad of emergent properties that are contingent and not predictable from the underlying physics and chemistry.

This would have to be attributed ignorance on our part. The epiphenomenal result of some combination of fundamental properties would have to be predictable. If it were not, then we would either not know the real properties of the constituents, or else the laws of nature would be variable rather than constant.

You said:
>>It is the old misconception that atoms and molecules have no capability to cluster into more complex systems with rapidly emerging properties.

That's completely missing the point. A river is more complex than a pebble, in terms of the many physical interactions involved in flowing water (fluid mechanics / fluid dynamics). But we don't somehow think that the greater complexity adds *meaning* to the river over the pebble. When a person says that the gurgling of the river told them to do X, Y or Z, we would generally hold that such a person is mentally unstable. But you want to make a difference between the gurgling of rivers and the actions of chemicals in brains. Why? So what if one is more complex than they other--the river is a more complex system than the pebble. You privilege brains over rivers--but why?

----

@Stanton:

You said:
>>You are conflating philosophical materialism...

No, I'm not. I've only stated that Reynold's argument is asking for an intelligible account of science on a non-christian worldview, and recited an argument to show that naturalism has problems providing such an account.

I'm not sure I understand your second point. Please explain.

----

@Science Avenger:

You said:
>>As Mike has been so eloquently explaining, for those of us without your theological presumptions, that’s enough, just like it is enough for the other 99.9% of the living world.

Again, you seem to miss the point. Why is avoiding harm something that is desirable? Well, obviously, because you are looking out for your well-being. But why do you believe that such relationships exist (between his fist and your nose?), and why do you believe that your perceptions are trustworthy, &c. You can *say* that you simply deal with the facts, but you never really escape from the necessity of an epistemology and ontology, however much you may try to conceal it and push it from your mind. Humans have worldviews that affect how they interpret every fact of experience--that's simply a psychological fact. So all of us must account for why we believe the world is they way in which we behave as if it is.

Humans have worldviews that affect how they interpret every fact of experience–that’s simply a psychological fact. So all of us must account for why we believe the world is they way in which we behave as if it is.

MonkeeSage said: Again, you seem to miss the point.

Why is avoiding harm something that is desirable? Well, obviously, because you are looking out for your well-being. But why do you believe that such relationships exist (between his fist and your nose?), and why do you believe that your perceptions are trustworthy, &c.

You can *say* that you simply deal with the facts, but you never really escape from the necessity of an epistemology and ontology, however much you may try to conceal it and push it from your mind.

Humans have worldviews that affect how they interpret every fact of experience--that's simply a psychological fact. So all of us must account for why we believe the world is they way in which we behave as if it is.

Holy cow. We are entering Hausamland. Mikey Dolenz here wants science to "mean something" beyond what it is used for. We're just trying to figure out how things work. So far it looks like everything follows the same rules. If it doesn't please show us, the Nobel is waiting.

Mickey, not Mikey.

So “meaning” is simply reduced to “usefulness”?

If meaning is simply equivalent with pragmatics, then you must give up such “lofty” concepts as “true” or “right,” and must follow after Dewey to find what “works” the best.

This would have to be attributed ignorance on our part. The epiphenomenal result of some combination of fundamental properties would have to be predictable. If it were not, then we would either not know the real properties of the constituents, or else the laws of nature would be variable rather than constant.

That’s completely missing the point. A river is more complex than a pebble, in terms of the many physical interactions involved in flowing water (fluid mechanics / fluid dynamics). But we don’t somehow think that the greater complexity adds *meaning* to the river over the pebble. When a person says that the gurgling of the river told them to do X, Y or Z, we would generally hold that such a person is mentally unstable. But you want to make a difference between the gurgling of rivers and the actions of chemicals in brains. Why? So what if one is more complex than they other–the river is a more complex system than the pebble. You privilege brains over rivers–but why?

You can *say* that you simply deal with the facts, but you never really escape from the necessity of an epistemology and ontology, however much you may try to conceal it and push it from your mind.

Humans have worldviews that affect how they interpret every fact of experience–that’s simply a psychological fact. So all of us must account for why we believe the world is they way in which we behave as if it is.

Holy cow. We are entering Hausamland.

Here is an even simpler system made up of only one element: predict how large collections of mercury atoms will behave at various energies.

. But if naturalism were true, then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat.

Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless.

stevaroni said:

Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless.

Imagine, for a moment, a morning in some far-off land in East Asia, One of the smaller, resource poor countries that's still struggling to feed everybody. Now imagine that a botanist - who also happens to be a monk in a religion that pointedly does not do spirit-in-the-sky stuff - wakes up with an idea that will dramatically increase crop yields, significantly reducing hunger in his country. Is his idea "worthless" because he firmly believes it came from nothing more than natural human intellect, because he believes that's all we have?

MonkeeSage is off the rails from get-go by referring to "the" Christian world view. The simple fact is, there are many Christian world views. Some, but not all, of these Christian world views are compatible with scientific inquiry. There are also many non-Christian world views that are compatible with scientific inquiry.

As long as one believes that the universe has properties amenable to scientific inquiry, it doesn't really matter why one believes it.

SWT said: As long as one believes that the universe has properties amenable to scientific inquiry, it doesn't really matter why one believes it.

Eric

As long as one believes that the universe has properties amenable to scientific inquiry, it doesn’t really matter why one believes it.

Eric Finn said: Indeed, and this metaphysical belief is an axiom behind all the science.

What's metaphysical about "we can learn things"???

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Science as a method have AFAIK never been formalized, even less axiomatized. Would be interesting to see attempts, though.

Wikipedia:

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

Wikipedia:

In philosophy, ontology (from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: of being (part. of εἶναι: to be) and -λογία: science, study, theory) is the most fundamental branch of metaphysics. Ontology is the study of being or existence and its basic categories and relationships. It seeks to determine what entities can be said to "exist", and how these entities can be grouped according to similarities and differences. Ontology is distinguished from epistemology, the study of knowledge and what can be known.

Eric

Eric Finn said: We take it for granted that a universe (at least one universe) exists and that it has properties amenable to scientific inquiry. This is an ontological assumption and thus part of metaphysics.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: But first we would need a formalized description (definition), and AFAIU everyone has failed. I believe philosophers call their own failure to understand science as "the demarcation problem".

Eric

Axiom 1. We can do observations. Axiom 2. Scientific observations are repeatable.

Henry J said: This isn't an axiom, more like a method,