(via)
Science is limited by its refusal to make stuff up
December 21, 2008 By 90 Comments
Comments
Trackbacks
-
[...] finally, a succinct demonstration of the difference between religion and [...]
-
[...] Very interesting, intruiging and loaded discussion about science versus religion on the blog of Daniel Florien : Science is limited by its refusal to make stuff up [...]
Yep that’s pretty high up on my list of annoyances with believers. They seem to think that if science doesn’t yet have the answer they can just make stuff up as ‘fact’. This is of course then made more annoying by the tendency to rubbish ‘facts’ from other types of believers. I’ve yet to hear a single argument as to why the FSM should not be respected in the same way that non-believers are expected to respect main stream religions yet I can’t see any real difference between them or maybe Santa to make it more topical.
The premise of this comic is not entirely true.
Science does, in fact, make stuff up!
Sometimes a bit of data comes along that is not explained by the current model of things. So, what do scientists do? They invent, out of thin air, an explanation of reality that is consistent with the new data. In fact, there may be several rival explanations that exist at the same time.
A current example of competing explanations, neither of which is fully accepted, are string theory and loop quantum gravity. Also, there are competing explanations for the nature of quantum mechanics. Two of these being the Copenhagen interpretation, and the MWI (many-worlds interpretation). Cosmologists have invented the idea of “dark energy”, even though they really have no idea what exactly that might be. The history of science is littered with explanations that were rejected. Sometimes, they were initially rejected, and then accepted, and then superseded by new explanations.
When there are rival explanations, it is then through more data gathering and experimentation that one of these explanations survives, and the other ones are rejected. But this is only a temporary state, as all explanations ultimately give way to a new and better explanation.
It is the *process* of the scientific method that we respect, not necessarily the current set of explanations — because these have never been complete or static. And part of the process of science is using the imagination to reach beyond what is currently understood. So, scientists do, in fact, make stuff up. If they didn’t, no progress would be made.
Johnny,
Apparently you have no idea how a scientist thinks, or the process used to “make up a new hypotheses”… When a scientist proposes a new hypotheses, it’s not “made up out of thin air, but rather based on observations and how they think it can be best explained. You have the process rather backwards really.
Yes, there are often numerous competing ideas out there, but it’s not just a whim or wild imagination that serves as a basis for those theories, but what has been observed. The *process* starts long before an idea is even presented!
Making stuff up out of thin air is the realm of theologians. Making stuff up based on observations is the realm of scientists. I hope you can appreciate the difference, however slight…
http://larianlequella.com/blogimages/flow.jpg
@Johnny,
It’s hardly accurate to compare multiple competing theories and making stuff up. The clear distinction being, as you’ve said, consistency with known data, something that clearly does not limit the religious and superstitious.
“A current example of competing explanations, …”
The problem here is that you’re drawing from the extreme edges of modern physics. This is where theorizing has exceeded our ability to test theories. That makes the whole process of science come unhinged, and critics like Lee Smolin (“The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next “) and David Lindley (“The End Of Physics: The Myth Of A Unified Theory”) have pointed this out. See also Peter Woit’s blog “Not Even Wrong” http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
A theory that is not falsifiable is not really a scientific theory. Thus, many people maintain that string theory is not a scientific theory.
The Copenhagen Model and the Multiple Universe Model are both models rather than theories or hypotheses. They do not seek to describe reality, they only seek to provide ways of looking at the equations. Heisenberg & Bohr were less interested in depicting what was actually happening, and more interested in using the predictive power of their new equations. This is what really riled up Einstein and Schrodinger.
Anyway, these are not accurate examples of the everyday workings of science. In labs throughout the country, scientists are following the basic “observation-hypothesis-test” method of science. String theory and its variants are aberrations.
Larian:
Sorry — I didn’t mean to turn this into an argument about wording. I’ll concede that the words “invent out of thin air” are somewhat trite and do not reflect the complexity of the process. You are right — it is not an arbitrary process. That said, it does take a mental leap to get from point A to point B. A new explanation is created where one did not previously exist. In that respect, there is an element of creativity involved.
I am in firm agreement with Einstein when he said:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.”
VorJack:
“A theory that is not falsifiable is not really a scientific theory. Thus, many people maintain that string theory is not a scientific theory.”
Who says string theory is not falsifiable? Just because we currently lack the means to falsify it does not mean that we never will. Does not string theory make unique predictions about reality that at least, in principle, can be tested? In particular, might the results of the LHC give some kind of indication as to the accuracy of some of the predictions made regarding tightly wound additional dimensions?
“Heisenberg & Bohr were less interested in depicting what was actually happening, and more interested in using the predictive power of their new equations. This is what really riled up Einstein and Schrodinger.”
Aren’t *you* interested in the explanations behind the theories, and not just in their power to make predictions? I certainly am. Contrary to popular belief, NO theory is guaranteed to make accurate predictions in all situations going forward, regardless of how well it has worked in the past. However, the more accurate the underlying explanation, the more accurately it will tend to do so.
“Anyway, these are not accurate examples of the everyday workings of science. In labs throughout the country, scientists are following the basic “observation-hypothesis-test” method of science.”
Yes. And I don’t want to downplay the benefits of that method or the usefulness of their results. What I am trying to convey is that the “hypothesis” part of this process must involve some kind of create leap. If it doesn’t, then it is engineering, not science.
“Does not string theory make unique predictions about reality that at least, in principle, can be tested? ”
To my knowledge, string theory and its variants (M-theory, brane theory, etc.) have not yet made a claim or a prediction that was testable. According to Peter Woit: “My conclusion, as you’d expect, is that string theory is not testable in any conventional scientific use of the term. The fundamental problem is that simple versions of the string theory unification idea, the ones often sold as “beautiful”, disagree with experiment for some basic reasons. Getting around these problems requires working with much more complicated versions, which have become so complicated that the framework becomes untestable as it can be made to agree with virtually anything one is likely to experimentally measure.” March 17th, 2007
String theory has lasted this long largely on the beauty of its mathematics. Increasingly we find people saying that this isn’t enough.
Certainly there are theories that are not falsifiable but may become so in the future. These are called “pseudosciences.” At the end of the day, science is about *doing stuff*. Theories are maps that help us go places we haven’t been yet.
So in order for a theory to be useful, it has to make predictions. A theory that doesn’t make predictions is about as useful as a map that only shows the ground on which you’re standing. Once a theory makes a prediction, this can be tested. A theory that makes predictions that can’t be tested is about as useful as a map of Narnia. Pretty, and maybe an accurate presentation of what was in CS Lewis’ mind, but it’s not like we’re ever going to go there. What’s the point?
Daniel
Right, like scientists aren’t making up RNA or DNA or a protein forming itself in abiogenesis (since such a thing has never been observed). And they aren’t making up stories with no support to how the universe forms out of non-universe, especially the stuff that allows you guys to disregard the Singularity (The Cyclic Model). Yup, those things are STEEPED in evidence.
But, you know, it’s not that they make it up, not really. It’s that they call these naturalistic stories “science” and then mock, berate, and look down upon anyone who doesn’t blindly subscribe to such stories as “science”. Yea, I’m going to feel REAL bad about finding an all-powerful creator more realistic than the naturalistic answer of “we don’t know how nature did it, or how it happened at all, but we DO know that God DIDN’T do it.”
I think @Eric Kemp is a Poe. You should have stuck to abiogenesis. It’s a standard for creaotards. But, DNA and RNA? Even morons the likes of Ken Ham wouldn’t choose that as something to deny the existence of. Keep it up, though. You’re make me laugh. ;)
@Johnny Fargo, I think you are trying too hard to find something deep about a cartoon. I think the intent was to make fun of the tendency for the religious to make up their own versions of “data”. While scientists may go through a process to come up with theories that explain observed data, they don’t make up the data itself. But see? When you try and explain a joke, it becomes unfunny. Try enjoying the simple things in life instead of over-analyzing them.
really cute….and I sort of agree
Funny
@Johny Fargo:
Like many jokes this is a generalisation that has an element of truth and like many jokes the premise is not completely accurate. Then again it’s a joke and not a scientific paper! For comic effect try turning it on its head and having the scientists saying they have the edge because they make stuff up – nope it’s not funny anymore is it?
@Eric,
What a sad world you live in. You have so little intellectual integrity that you just cannot say, “I don’t know.” and insist that, “goddidit!” and basically stop any line of inquiry. Are you afraid of discovery, or just unimaginative?
“Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so.” – Bertrand Russell
“A believer is not a thinker and a thinker is not a believer.” – Marian Noel Sherman, M.D.
“Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate.” – F. M. Knowles
“Faith: not wanting to know what is true.” – Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan
“Our ignorance is god; what we know is science.” – Robert Ingersoll
Science DOES make things up, it does not do the right experiments, it neglects the proper documentation, and oversight, it is full of personal opinion, etc.
How do you think we get drugs on the market that are “FDA approved” yet kill people?
“I think you are trying too hard to find something deep about a cartoon. … Try enjoying the simple things in life instead of over-analyzing them.”
I understand the point of view here. Believe me — nobody enjoys the simple things in life more than I do.
While I got the message, I personally didn’t find much humor in this cartoon. Pitting one group of people against another generally falls into that category for me.
Presumably, this blog has a deeper purpose than simply making jokes. Why pass up the opportunity to have a deeper discussion? If all someone wants is a laugh, they’re free to skip the comment section.
Religion means to “relay” information. Of principles, boundaries and universal truths. Of moral civility, civil order and civilisation. Without which would be chaos. Its the deception in mans intoxication of power, that confounds the facts. Scripture isn’t a books of science, but a books of principle, boundary and universal truth. That opens the mind of those who genuinely apply and deprogram those religious suggested interpretations that distort the facts. Realising the grand illusion of this world and the reality within. Sound mind is absolutely dependent upon self confidence. Self confidence is absolutely dependent upon self respect and dignity. The man who is persuaded by woman is concerned with immediate sensual gratification without consideration for outcome. Without dignity of confidence in his own mind. But the man who considers and applies the truth, avoiding participation with the obvious hypocrisy. Demonstrates sound rational value and security for the wise woman. http://www.SacredWarrior.org
“For comic effect try turning it on its head and having the scientists saying they have the edge because they make stuff up – nope it’s not funny anymore is it?”
You know why its not funny anymore? It’s because its Accurate.
Step 1 – Based on your current understanding, Make stuff up.
Step 2 – Test it.
Step 3 – Publish.
Rinse, repeat.
Your lack of understanding of the scientific method is whats funny, you twit.
“we don’t know how nature did it, or how it happened at all, but we DO know that God DIDN’T do it.”
We “know” this in the same manner that knowing that Blue Invisible Intangible Spirt Unicorns didn’t do it.
Baka
You are purposefully misunderstanding. I suggest you make sure of what someone is saying before you insult them. THAT’S the funny part.
My statement was that some of the theories within abiogenesis include RNA, DNA and proteins forming themselves, something that has never been observed and is therefore something scientists have made up.
Do you have an counter-argument?
Larian
“What a sad world you live in. You have so little intellectual integrity that you just cannot say, “I don’t know.” and insist that, “goddidit!” and basically stop any line of inquiry.”
But I DO know what happened. An all-powerful creator IS an explanation. Just because something isn’t a scientific explanation, doesn’t mean it’s not an explanation. Or are you of the opinion that scientific inquiry is the only way to true knowledge?
But see, that’s what you’re doing. You’re saying you don’t know how it happened at the same time as saying you KNOW that God didn’t do it. Isn’t this a bit inconsistent?
“Are you afraid of discovery, or just unimaginative?”
Science has discovered many amazing things. Bring on the discovery. But I’m not going to pretend that EVERYTHING is in the realm of scientific discovery like you do. Phenomena that happened in the unobservable past, and phenomena that we’ll never be able to reproduce (abiogenesis, the beginning of the universe, and God) are outside the bounds of science. You basically have faith that “one day” science will be able to discover “everything” while having no evidence that this is true and ignoring the limitations of scientific inquiry.
Larian, so instead of forming an argument, you’re just going to quote other people? Please, you can do better than that, think for yourself instead of blindly following.
But the part that your leaders are ignoring is that they are believers TOO. They are believers in naturalism, materialism, empiricism and uniformitarianism. These beliefs are essential for believing in no God, yet these beliefs are outside the bounds of science. You’re a believer too in your own faith based system. What’s the difference?
@braveman7:
Um, are you claiming that the word “religion” literally means to pass on information?
Because that’s wrong. First, the word itself originated from the Latin “religio”–reverence/piety.
Secondly, what religion passes on is a structure of belief predicated on a worldview that’s based on a false and irrational first principle.
I have some good news for you. Society is perfectly capable of coming up with its own laws and codes, and many of them will be superior to those ordered by invisible spirits.
@Baka:
Troll, Poe, godbot, or whatever, I suspect that if Kemp did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
@Eric:
We already discussed the scientific method earlier. You just kept plucking your one note: “The universe exists. Therefore goddidit!”
Any luck finding on shred of evidence for your pet theory?
Let’s suppose the scientific method (i.e. actually thinking about stuff for a few minutes at a time) wasn’t enough. What could possibly convince anyone that an invisible super-being invented it all?
{Cue Eric saying: “Well I don’t have any evidence, have no research that supports my position, and wouldn’t change my mind if I found evidence directly contradicting it; but that makes my theory as good as any other!”}
Can I just skip to “Epic Fail” immediately and save time and comment space?
Sunny Day
But you DON’T know that Blue Invisible Intangible Spirit Unicorns didn’t do it. Why do you get to exclude on the outset? Especially if there is evidence of such Unicorns?
The correlation is that God IS an explanation. He allows us to explain many things that science can’t. In fact, He explains many assumptions that science is useless without assuming. There is also natural evidence for an all-powerful creator. Why do you get to exclude at the outset and yet still consider yourself “searching for the truth” and logically consistent?
Metro
You have made it very clear that you have no desire to enter into a cordial and respectful discussion. I reserve the right to ignore a discussion with anyone who can’t put away their condescending sarcasm long enough to have an honest discussion. If your tone changes, I’d be more than happy to discuss the scientific method with you.
“My statement was that some of the theories within abiogenesis include RNA, DNA and proteins forming themselves, something that has never been observed and is therefore something scientists have made up.”
By that standard, every historical disciple has to “make stuff up.” I am studying the early days of a particular learned society. It was one of the first in the nation, and unique in its composition, so there is no exact analogue. I cannot go back in time to observe it’s formation, but I hardly think that I am making stuff up when I write about it.
We can compile evidence and consider probabilities, and derive theories from that. It’s a bit subjective, but it’s not exactly making stuff up. In the case of RNA formation, we have a growing understanding of complex adaptive systems that makes it seem very probable that chains of self-replicating molecules could form in a variety of situations – in clays, between sheets of mica, etc. Computer modeling shows that such molecules could replicate and even expand.
These ideas are not being pulled out of the blue. They are based on our understanding of CAS, and are constantly being checked against what we know about molecular biology and chemistry. If these are “made up”, then everything we know about what happened in the past is “made up.”
Both fields are similar in that if you get too deep into the detailed nitty gritty then things get really boring.
I used to get really passionate about these kinds of things, but I realized that my opponents kept bringing up more and more annoying things like “facts” and “logic” to the point I’d concede from sheer lack of comprehension.
Also, I love how religion and science, faith and skepticism, are put into neat little categories that have to battle for domination. How about having both in one’s life?
How does one relate to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html the Kalama Sutta?
“Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ ”
So basically Buddha tosses out the basis for most religion and science. What are you gonna do now, bitch? :)
I mean it seems like there’s some kind of race to be the most skeptical, and that way lies madness. Enjoy the ride! :)
I was reading a book by Richard Feynman. In it he mentioned that Science doesn’t necessarily propose exact conclusions – he considers that a “naive” assumption. Instead, he viewed science is something that gets us in the ballpark of things.
At the same time from other theories (within physics) we also note that a very small change may lead to great change in the long run of things. (the butterfly effect – see Wikipedia).
So, if science is not exact this means that there may be quite a lot of “small differences” that may lead to “small changes” and in the long run to “big changes” with “big differences”.
“So basically Buddha tosses out the basis for most religion and science. What are you gonna do now, bitch? :)”
Wait … isn’t this a strange loop? If we’re not supposed to trust another based ability or authority – then why should we trust the man telling us not to trust – another based ability or authority – which could mean we *should* trust another based ability or authority – which would mean we *GAAAH*
“The following statement is true.”
“The previous statement is false.”
Daniel
Although we disagree, congratulations on being the “hawt post”!
To reply to the original post’s general idea and not the following masturbatory theater…
Of course science has an imagination. It’s called science fiction.
If it weren’t for Star Trek we would have been less enthusiastic about developing the laser. Or the idea of space travel. Or designed space ships out of cardboard. Or toupee use in the future on aging, marginally talented actors.
Either way we’ll progress best without religion marginalized or completely out of the picture.
@Eric: Thanks! I’m surprised. Not one I would have expected to be that popular. I think I like the conversation more than the comic, though I thought the comic was funny.
We still need it to be part of our imagination, but not our reality.
Scientific advancement has invariably come about through random chance. In physics Newton’s apple gave us the idea of gravity and Edison apparently tried 10,000 different materials before stumbling on tungsten filament. In medicine, Pasteur’s discover of the cowpox vaccine was entirely accidental. Dawkins’ idea of the blind watchmaker is interesting, but it is not God who is blind.
I love this cartoon. I’m a christian* but I don’t confuse religion with anything that is quantifiable.
Have you listened to this episode of Radiolab?
http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2008/07/29/tell-me-a-story/
*=believes in the God/concept of God but doesn’t take the bible as true unadulterated word of God
Vorjack
“I am studying the early days of a particular learned society. It was one of the first in the nation, and unique in its composition, so there is no exact analogue. I cannot go back in time to observe it’s formation, but I hardly think that I am making stuff up when I write about it.”
How do you know? I mean, based on the history of that society, aren’t there certain things you “can” know? This is not the case with abiogenesis, there has never been any observation of the things that are being claimed (RNA, DNA and proteins forming themselves randomly).
But you realize your own limitations, and what you don’t know in regards to this ancient society. Why can’t naturalists do the same with the beginning of life, why make up naturalistic stories and exclude the supernatural at the outset when you obviously just don’t know?
“We can compile evidence and consider probabilities, and derive theories from that. It’s a bit subjective, but it’s not exactly making stuff up.”
The only reason you’re saying it’s “not exactly making stuff up” is just a matter of bias. You admit it’s subjective, but you won’t go as far as I do just because you don’t want to, not because you have any evidence that the theories stop short of “making stuff up”. But I don’t want you to get the impression that I think all theories are bunk, that’s not true. Naturalists should just be a bit, ok a lot, more self reflective about the scope of science. In short, they extend that abilities of science to lengths it just doesn’t go, this is why naturalism has become a religious type belief.
“In the case of RNA formation, we have a growing understanding of complex adaptive systems that makes it seem very probable that chains of self-replicating molecules could form in a variety of situations – in clays, between sheets of mica, etc. Computer modeling shows that such molecules could replicate and even expand.”
“very probable” is again a matter of bias. You have no evidence to support that this is probable, since you haven’t seen it take place. There just is no precedence. Computer programs are designed by intelligent beings, can’t you see how any evidence given by a computer program could be just as much evidence for a designer than anything else?
“If these are “made up”, then everything we know about what happened in the past is “made up.””
I will admit that my phrasing of “made up” has everything to do with Daniel’s posted comment. Scientists are obviously not pulling stuff out of their butts. In the same way, neither is Christianity. I’ve actually never used the phrase “made up” before when discussing this topic. However, I stick by my statements that they are naturalistic stories that have never been observed and are actually outside the scope of science.
Naysa
I have a question. If the Bible isn’t the Word of God, then what is it? What if the Bible claims to be the Word of God, is it lying? Also, the apostles claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the dead, were they wrong or right?
Great discussion, folks !
About scientific methods :
The normal method : 1)observe, make up a theory about those observations, 2)gather enough information to thoroughly test the theory, 3)publish.
But I suspect a lot of researchers to twist this method a bit to : 1)gather information, 2)calculate a lot of correlations, models, whatever, until you find something statistically significant, 3)make up a theory to explain it, publish.
And then there is the “new” scientific method : data mining:
1) take a database and calculate the best possible model(s) on one sample of the data 2) take another sample of the data to test the model(s), 3) (if there is time and if you want to :) try to explain the validated model and publish it.
About God and the like :
As scientific methods are limited to pinpoint patterns that are not likely to occur by chance (the meaning of statistically significant), it is impossible to really prove that an effect is NOT there. So scientifically spoken, it is not impossible that something like a god has had the effects where religious people believe in. They cannot prove god exist, but scientists cannot prove god does not exist !
So we are in a nice deadlock situation where the only possible solutions are : 1) belief (either in the one or in the other) and keep on discussing or 2)simply admit that we do not know (yet).
zyxo – “They cannot prove god exist, but scientists cannot prove god does not exist !”
The problem with this, as I’m sure many people here will tell you, is that there is an infinite number of things that could exist and cannot be disproven. This simple point explains the joke behind all the Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Invisible Pink Unicorns, etc.
Given that it is generally impossible to disprove something, the burden of proof must rest on the person making the assertion that an entity exists. Any other path results in a complete breakdown in science. It is impossible to account for the infinite number of solutions possible for any problem if we have to accept the existence of every entity based on mere assertion.
As a result, a scientist doesn’t have to disprove the existence of God, the FSM, pixies, etc. They merely have to say, “Due to a lack of evidence, we must provisionally render a verdict that this entity does not exist. Until better evidence comes to light, this must be our stance.” This, you’ll notice, is quite different than a simple “I don’t know.”
“But you DON’T know that Blue Invisible Intangible Spirit Unicorns didn’t do it.”
When you understand why YOU are excluding Blue Invisible Intangible Spirit Unicorns, you will also understand why WE exculde god.
“Why do you get to exclude on the outset? Especially if there is evidence of such Unicorns?”
We’re still waiting on your evidence. I’m sure you will get around to it eventually. Or is that gobbledygook about matter not existing the best you can do?
“The correlation is that God IS an explanation.”
Bald assertation with no supporting facts.
“He allows us to explain many things that science can’t. In fact, He explains many assumptions that science is useless without assuming. ”
Yah, back to that “assuming matter exists” thing, Stupidity right on its face. If you’re not going to assume matter exists why get out of bed?
“There is also natural evidence for an all-powerful creator. Why do you get to exclude at the outset and yet still consider yourself “searching for the truth” and logically consistent?”
Ah, yes your sentient mudpuddle argument. With the same standards you use, we can say BIIS Unicorns, Magical Firehydrants, Vishnu, Mbombo, Unkulunkulu, Viracocha, or Pangu did it.
Even if we were to amuse you and shut down our brains for a brief while and say that a goddid it, which one didit?
Sunny Day,
I think you’re confusing mythology and truth.
(Science actually does make a lot of stuff up, mostly involving zygotes, stem cells and the like. It’s made stuff up about cholesterol too).
Steve
“(Science actually does make a lot of stuff up, mostly involving zygotes, stem cells and the like. It’s made stuff up about cholesterol too)”
It’s also self correcting. If you find something wrong, then hit the lab, gather your data, and publish. Or is that too complicated for you?
As Sunny Day is pointing out, the god assumption has exactly the same net result as the blue unicorn assumption: is replaces a finitely complex problem with an infinitely complex solution. It is also an answer that leads to nothing. Once you tag a problem with the ‘goddidit’ solution, you end inquiry. It’s a way of writing off the problems while adding nothing to our actual store of knowledge. And, finally, as Sunny Day points out, it is an answer that requires (and provides) absolutely no evidence to support itself, nor does it lead to falsifiable propositions.
I used to be a fundie, so I know how hard it is to see past that, but once you actually do, it is incredibly liberating.
I still live in a universe with a lot of unanswered questions, but now I know that every finite question has a finite answer. That just means we haven’t found all the answers yet.
But those answers are out there. And writing the whole question off with a nonsensical non-answer won’t help us find them.
“Why can’t naturalists do the same with the beginning of life, why make up naturalistic stories and exclude the supernatural at the outset when you obviously just don’t know?”
There are a number of different levels to that question. First off, I suppose that naturalists have gotten used to the fact that we’ll never know much of anything with certainty. At least since Hume pointed out the problem of induction, we’ve had to content ourselves with just being pretty sure. Without exploring the whole of the universe we can’t even be absolutely certain about the theories of gravity or relativity. The overall philosophy of science is pragmatism. Scientists – and historians – aren’t looking to find the (capital T) Truth, we’re just looking to find the best the provisional theory we can.
Once you accept that you can’t provide the final answer, you’re free to speculate a bit more. Why not tackle that intractable problem and formulate a theory? It may be crap, but hopefully you’re successor will be able to refine it a bit, and their successor will have some better data, and the next generation will have better instruments, and so on. Science is progressive as it builds on itself. But you’ve got to start somewhere.
In the case of abiogenesis, it’s still early days. We’ve still only got sketchy answers about the composition of the early earth and its atmosphere. But, hey, you never know until you try, right? We might find that only one theory really accounts for all the data.
Honestly, I tend to think that the whole natural/supernatural divide is a red herring. Supernatural is one of those words that are only defined in the negative: not natural. If something has an effect on the natural world, then that effect should be detectable and measurable. The cause may remain a black box –like gravity – but we can still work with it. If something doesn’t have an effect of the world, then it doesn’t matter as far as science is concerned. So anything that effects the natural world is natural. The supernatural, if it exists, is meaningless to the discussion.
I’m beginning to wonder if the atheists who read this site are even capable of being cordial when discussing with someone who disagrees with them. How about it atheists? Consider it a challenge.
Daniel, I think you’re getting too many of the belligerent “Atheist Central” crowd.
Sunny Day
“When you understand why YOU are excluding Blue Invisible Intangible Spirit Unicorns, you will also understand why WE exculde god.”
That’s not a counter-argument. My position is that science is supposed to be the search for truth, no matter where the truth leads. This isn’t true if you’re excluding God at the outset. Again, why do you get to exclude at the outset and still call it science?
“Yah, back to that “assuming matter exists” thing, Stupidity right on its face. If you’re not going to assume matter exists why get out of bed?”
You and the rest of your friends can mock it all you want, but you can’t form a counter-argument against it. The bottom line is that science can’t provide evidence that matter actually exists. If that thought is too deep for you, don’t mock it, actually ponder it.
But I’ll provide you with another argument. Metro, are you listening?
Materialism is the position that only the material exists. All atheists are materialists wether they want to admit it or not. So, if only the material exists, how do you explain the existence of immaterial, abstract and universal laws? That is, the Laws of Logic, such as the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Non-contradiction, exist and they are immaterial. How do you explain this?
“Even if we were to amuse you and shut down our brains for a brief while and say that a goddid it, which one didit?”
I’m curious, isn’t that what you’re asking me to do? Shut down my brain and pretend that SOMEHOW nature accounts for EVERYTHING, a position you have no evidence for?
“I’m curious, isn’t that what you’re asking me to do? Shut down my brain and pretend that SOMEHOW nature accounts for EVERYTHING, a position you have no evidence for?”
It has so far. Every question we have answered with a natural scientific explanation at one time had a supernatural explanation.
So far, ‘goddidit’ hasn’t been the right answer even once. That’s why the ‘god of the gaps’ proposition is so problematic. How many times will you keep shrinking god down so he fits in the few remaining gaps?
“You and the rest of your friends can mock it all you want, but you can’t form a counter-argument against it. The bottom line is that science can’t provide evidence that matter actually exists. If that thought is too deep for you, don’t mock it, actually ponder it.”
Because it leads nowhere. Solipsism is an interesting mental exercise with no useful arguments to make. Another thing most atheists are whether they admit it or not is utilitarians when it comes to science. Is something useful in some way? Does it add to our store of knowledge? Does it lead to further avenues of exploration?
God and solipsism share the same fatal flaw in that they do none of those things. They are an arbitrary end point, not a starting point.
“This isn’t true if you’re excluding God at the outset. Again, why do you get to exclude at the outset and still call it science?”
This is false. God was the assumed answer right from the beginning. God hasn’t been excluded right from the start, he’s been gradually excluded because he keeps not being the right answer. Science didn’t start out atheistic. Quite the opposite.
“If that thought is too deep for you, don’t mock it, actually ponder it. ”
I won’t speak for anyone else, but you have yet to say anything that’s been ‘too deep’.
“All atheists are materialists wether they want to admit it or not.”
Not necessarily. There are many spiritual atheists. Not believing in God doesn’t meant that you are a materialist. For example, several streams of Buddhism, and even a few of Hinduism, reject the notion of gods while maintaining a belief in supernatural forces.
I’m a materialist, of course. But I’m also pedantic.
“So, if only the material exists, how do you explain the existence of immaterial, abstract and universal laws?”
This is a philosophical matter. The best treatment I’ve seen of it comes from Stephen Law on his blog. He had a long discussion with a Van Til style presuppositionalist, to which he had several responses. One is here: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/missing-foundations-of-logic.html
Click the label (“Sinner Ministries”) at the bottom for the whole discussion.
As long as we’re on the science vs. religion bent, I’ve got a question: how do you choose between competing religious claims?
I’ve got a decent handle on historiography, so I know the criteria for choosing between historical claims. I have an inkling of the ethic of science, so I basically understand the criteria for judging between competing scientific theories. But for the life of me I don’t see how you can objectively judge between competing religious claims. Unless the two claimants share a catechism, I don’t see how it can be done.
So person A says that God – singular – created the universe. Person B says that Gods – plural – created the universe. Both claim to be Christian. How do you judge?
Person A might give the standard Aristotelian explanation about how there can be only one supreme being. But Person B might respond that the creators need not be supreme. The creators might be separate from the supreme being (Gnosticism) or might be participants in the meta-divine realm. Person B might reject Aristotelian religion entirely, or muddy the waters with something like process theology. Person B might point to St. Anselm, who said that God can only be described via analogy, or Tillich, who emphasized the symbolic nature of God. Why not use multiple Gods as an analogy or symbol for the various aspects of the divine?
And so on. All of these explanations have roots in the Christian tradition. Neither side is capable of producing experimental data that can be compared against reality. How on earth do you decide between them? Robert M. Price, a doctor of theology, says that in theology you just have to go with what “feels right.” Surely there must be something more than that.
Vorjack
You bring up some worthy points that I’m glad we get to discuss.
“First off, I suppose that naturalists have gotten used to the fact that we’ll never know much of anything with certainty. At least since Hume pointed out the problem of induction, we’ve had to content ourselves with just being pretty sure.”
Agreed. So why do you think atheists feel they can get away with “knowing” anything? Especially the existence of God and the belief that one day science will “solve” all of life’s mysteries?
“Without exploring the whole of the universe we can’t even be absolutely certain about the theories of gravity or relativity. The overall philosophy of science is pragmatism. Scientists – and historians – aren’t looking to find the (capital T) Truth, we’re just looking to find the best the provisional theory we can.”
Again, correct. So the “best provisional theory” could be that we are really just fish in a bowl looking out and we can’t really know ANYTHING for sure about the universe, couldn’t it? So then why do we get to say we “know” anything? Much less specifically that God doesn’t exist? Or more specifically that “there is no evidence” for God?
“In the case of abiogenesis, it’s still early days. We’ve still only got sketchy answers about the composition of the early earth and its atmosphere. But, hey, you never know until you try, right? We might find that only one theory really accounts for all the data.”
Sorry, I’ve got to be sarcastic about this. At what point do you think we’ll be able to build a time machine and go back two billion years to the beginning of life and test out the primordial atmosphere and soil?
Sarcasm over. The point is that at no point will we be able to bring the rigors of science to bear on the unobservable past. To pretend otherwise is just that . . . pretending.
Another point; Creationists are oft chided for deciding their conclusion at the outset, that God exists. It’s an accurate charge. However, naturalists do the same. This is more evident, than anywhere else, in the theories of abiogenesis. At what point would a biochemist, looking at observable phenomena, conclude, “You know, based on what I just saw, I bet that life could come from chemicals.” There is no precedence for such a thing, and in fact the very idea violates a law of biology. Being atheists, science decided that life MUST HAVE come from non-life, and have formed unsupported theories to explain their already decided belief, that God did NOT do it.
“If something has an effect on the natural world, then that effect should be detectable and measurable. The cause may remain a black box –like gravity – but we can still work with it. If something doesn’t have an effect of the world, then it doesn’t matter as far as science is concerned. So anything that effects the natural world is natural. The supernatural, if it exists, is meaningless to the discussion.”
I’m going to answer this point in the context of epistemology. How do you know that “everything” that affect the natural, including a hypothetical supernatural creator, should be detectable and measurable? Can scientific inquiry tell you that “everything” is detectable and measurable? Of course not, such a belief, as you probably agree, is outside the bounds of science. So then how do you know this is true? What source of knowledge told you this?
@Eric
You say: “But I DO know what happened. An all-powerful creator IS an explanation. Just because something isn’t a scientific explanation, doesn’t mean it’s not an explanation. Or are you of the opinion that scientific inquiry is the only way to true knowledge?”
The distinct difference is that you would never accept new data. If something else came along that challenged your belief, you’d never even consider it. And you only think you know because someone told you. There was nothing to support that.
I could say I KNOW there is a fire-breathing dragon in my garage (that’s invisible, levitates, is the same temperature as ambient temperature, and in in all other ways undetectable). I can insist it’s real, and counter any argument you have as to why it’s not, and yet it won’t make it any more true than your bronze age collection of fables. Sure, it’s an explanation, just like the stork explains babies. Neither are correct, nor are they supported by anything.
You use the words “true knowledge”. That’s a red herring argument. Science determines what we do know, and indicates to us the many things we don’t know. However, it allows us to discover new things!
Some more applicable quotes that may state things better than I do:
In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]
There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That’s perfectly all right; they’re the aperture to finding out what’s right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. [Carl Sagan, Cosmos television series]
Is it fair to be suspicious of an entire profession because of a few bad apples? There are at least two important differences, it seems to me. First, no one doubts that science actually works, whatever mistaken and fraudulent claim may from time to time be offered. But whether there are any miraculous cures from faith-healing, beyond the body’s own ability to cure itself, is very much at issue. Secondly, the expose’ of fraud and error in science is made almost exclusively by science. But the exposure of fraud and error in faith-healing is almost never done by other faith-healers. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]
“So why do you think atheists feel they can get away with “knowing” anything? Especially the existence of God and the belief that one day science will “solve” all of life’s mysteries?”
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that atheists feel that science will solve all of life’s mysteries. In fact, I suspect we rather hope it doesn’t. If it did, all those scientists would be out of a job.
More seriously, there is nothing magical or all powerful about science. It’s just “organized skepticism”, as the saying goes. I don’t think it will ever solve all the world’s problems. Some scientists disagree. Most of them physicists.
As for “knowing” that God doesn’t exist, that’s another multi-level question. Mostly because ‘God’ is such an ill-defined concept. There are thousands of different understandings of the nature of God – more perhaps, one for every believer. How can one “know” that Tillich’s ‘Gound of All Being’ and ‘Ultimate Other’ don’t exist? How can one even know what these mean?
One level takes the usual philosophy of religion definition of God – omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent – and examines it in light of reality. Most atheists find it wanting for some reason or another; the problem of evil is the most common. Their are other philosophical contradictions, like the conflict between God as “fully actualized” and the classic understanding of a personal God. Process theology tries to explain this, but many people find it unconvincing.
Hence atheists say they “know” that God -at least as defined in this way – doesn’t exist. The definiton is self contradictory, or fails in like of the evidence. Note, however, this is the classic God of Christianity and greek philosophy. I’ve read Jewish works, for example, that would beg to differ with the omnibenevolent part. But for the most part we find ourselves arguing with Christians, so that doesn’t come into play.
Another level deals with what I’d call ‘default assumptions.’ There are an infinite number of entities that could plausibly exist. It is considered impossible to prove a negative, so we cannot “know” that these entities don’t exist. In any sane world, this means that the burden of proof must fall on the person making the assertion that a specific entity exists. The ‘default assumption’ is that an entity does not exist until sufficient evidence has been presented to change that assumption. Atheists consider the evidence presented for God and return the Scottish verdict: not proven. Hence we render the provisional conclusion that God does not exist.
Eric does ask an honest question though. Sadly he approaches it backwards like most theists do. ;) One needs to understand the ORIGINS of ALL Abrahamistic faiths (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity), and how they relate to the world into which they evolved. Before they were Abrahamistic, they were a tribal totem worshiping people who adored a ram or a bull (it’s not really clear at this time).
Nearly every single concept in the Abrahamistic mythos is stolen and adapted from other mythos. Christianity is the worst of the three in not only stealing ideas of its founding, but also incorporating later ideas into its doxology. The thing that xtians had going for them was a good PR department and people who traveled a lot.
The only basis for the foundation of the entire religion is a wholly flawed book that can’t stand up to middle school logical rigor. If that is the foundation you build it on, no wonder people start to question it, especially in an age where information starts to really become available to all who dare seek it.
The list of individual items that stack against the Abrahamistic god makes the theory that it’s all made up very sound. If there is any sort of intelligence that is responsible (which I highly doubt), I am as close to certain as one can be that humanity hasn’t figured it out yet. And given the more and more we understand about how the universe works, the less there needs to be any sort of intelligence. Given the infinite possibilities, it’s almost inevitable that chance brought us about (as long as it follows the observable laws of physics as they exist in this particular corner of reality).
I know it’s not very satisfying, and death is just the end for us, but why deceive ourselves with fairy tales?
Eric,
Your answer to abiogenesis: MAGIC!
Science’s answer to abiogenesis: Well, based on the things we DO know about (biology, chemistry, geology, every-ology), this is the most likely hypothesis. We need to learn more before we can settle on a more testable hypothesis and develop an actual theory. Let’s DO SCIENCE!
Sure, your answer is short and easy, but that doesn’t make it any more right, and with any rigor applied it’s rather flimsy. :)
Larian
“The distinct difference is that you would never accept new data. If something else came along that challenged your belief, you’d never even consider it. And you only think you know because someone told you. There was nothing to support that.”
You didn’t answer my question, are scientific explanations the ONLY viable explanations? This speaks to the heart of why you claim “you’d never accept new evidence.”
“I could say I KNOW there is a fire-breathing dragon in my garage (that’s invisible, levitates, is the same temperature as ambient temperature, and in in all other ways undetectable). I can insist it’s real, and counter any argument you have as to why it’s not, and yet it won’t make it any more true than your bronze age collection of fables.”
You’re the only one claiming that God is, by definition, undetectable. So this argument doesn’t apply. In fact, you done so a priori, with no evidence for why. You exclude at the outset, and then go “see! He can’t exist!”, it’s circular.
“You use the words “true knowledge”. That’s a red herring argument. Science determines what we do know, and indicates to us the many things we don’t know. However, it allows us to discover new things!”
It’s not a red herring, it’s a very basic epistemological question of how you know what you know. If you consider science the “only” way to knowledge, then that changes the way our discussion can go.
“One needs to understand the ORIGINS of ALL Abrahamistic faiths (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity), and how they relate to the world into which they evolved. Before they were Abrahamistic, they were a tribal totem worshiping people who adored a ram or a bull (it’s not really clear at this time).”
Oh, this old stuff. I love how you guys exclude the Bible as an informative tool a priori and then go about trying to discover what Judaism was a few thousand years ago. Why not consult the text written to describe the religion? Just because you read the Bible, doesn’t mean you believe it. It won’t bite.
“Your answer to abiogenesis: MAGIC!”
All the old atheistic canards rolled into one! The funny thing is, even if I give you that I believe in magic, you believe in magic TOO! Nothing even close to resembling abiogenesis has ever been observed yet you believe it happened. MAGIC!
“Science’s answer to abiogenesis: Well, based on the things we DO know about (biology, chemistry, geology, every-ology), this is the most likely hypothesis. We need to learn more before we can settle on a more testable hypothesis and develop an actual theory. Let’s DO SCIENCE!”
I’ll ask the same question I asked Vorjack. At what point do you believe that we’ll develope a time machine to go back 2 billion years to the beginning of life? How can we “do science” if we can’t observe or test the past? Making guesses about phenomena that has never been observed is science? Every piece of evidence from biology and chemistry points to abiogenesis being impossible. Science? Only if you fool yourself into believing it.
“Sure, your answer is short and easy, but that doesn’t make it any more right, and with any rigor applied it’s rather flimsy.”
My answer is a viable explanation, even in the hypothetical. IF there is an all-powerful God, He certainly has the power to create. On the other hand, your’s is a naturalistic story that we have no idea if it’s even possible, nor any way to test it. Which is ok, if only you would stop calling it “science”.
@Eric Kemp said,
“Baka
You are purposefully misunderstanding. I suggest you make sure of what someone is saying before you insult them. THAT’S the funny part.”
Heh. Thanks for making it even funnier for pointing out that I was purposefully making fun of you, as if that were somehow an astute observation on your part. You’re right, that is the funny part. ;)
“Do you have an counter-argument?”
For what? Your assessment that I purposefully misunderstood you in order to ridicule you because your opinions are laughable and good only as fish in barrels that the commenters on this thread might shoot for fun? No. I think I agree with your read of the situation. Thus always unto trolls.
Of course I’d accept new evidence. Although, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Your evidence is non-existent. Rather disappointing really.
Show me evidence for your all powerful god. Show me evidence for life after death. You are arguing from a flawed starting point that has your entire self worth tied up in it. You do not see that it’s your arguments that need to be defended. And there is nothing in my statements that go against science, so why should I not call it science? Is it because I may be corrected in my views?
And I will admit that there is certainly science out there that may appear to be magical. However, you accept magic, and don’t bother to delve further to demystify that magic into knowledge. Your faith is an admission of defeat of your intellect, instead of magic being the challenge or mystery you want to solve.
As for abiogenesis, I am unsure that we’ll ever develop a hypothesis beyond a theory in our lifetimes given our single datapoint. Should we find evidence of past (or even existing) life on Mars, Europa, Enceladys, Titan, etc. we may have something more to work with. And the time-machine argument is sillier than your argument warrants. I don’t know exactly what sort of laboratory experiment we could possibly come up with to work on the hypothesis. That doesn’t mean we give up and concede defeat to magic (way to totally miss the point of the comparison… It’s a wonder I even bother to reply to you since you are being deliberately obtuse. I can only hope someone with more intellectual integrity reads this and learns, since you obviously refuse to do so). Understanding what primitive humans once thought was magic is the whole bloody point now isn’t it?
Your answer has no supporting evidence. I claim that you are an Arcillian Spymaster from the Crystal City. It’s a viable explanation to your lack of understanding of English, but I make that claim with no supporting evidence. If you care to introduce evidence, we can talk. Until such time, you are deluded and talking in circular reasoning and winding yourself tighter than a 2 penny watch… Your explanation is whimsy. My explanation at least has thousands of experiments that point to there being a possibility. That’s just the start, you can stay at the starting line, I’d prefer to go down the track towards a goal. Maybe it’s a hurdle, maybe it’s a relay race, maybe it’s an answer and a finish line. At least I am going there.
“Every piece of evidence from biology and chemistry points to abiogenesis being impossible.”
Could you clarify this?
I’m not clear on which potential steps you think are impossible, and why.
Way to go Eric! You are surrounded by the arrogant mockers and yet you just keep making sense…must drive ‘em crazy! Power to you m’man!
@Ness
Eric won’t be clarifying that statement anytime soon, but I predict a response feigning being hurt and affronted that you would dare question his encyclopedic knowledge of the life sciences. It will probably be accompanied by some sort of insistence that his simple assertions are equivalent to theories with data in support of them and none contradicting them.
Prove me wrong, Eric. Bring on the crazy! :)
@Dwight Whitsett
I agree with your glee over Eric’s continued posting! Go Eric! With every comment, you open new vistas of ignorance. Go Eric, Go! Dance, m’man! Dance!
“You exclude at the outset, and then go “see! He can’t exist!”, it’s circular.”
Funny, a creationist accusing you of circular logic.
He must be dizzy.
Dwight Whitsett:
I love your pom poms, where did you get them?
Vorjack
“I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that atheists feel that science will solve all of life’s mysteries. In fact, I suspect we rather hope it doesn’t. If it did, all those scientists would be out of a job.”
Let me rephrase the question. It’s a common rebuttal to Christians who claim “godidit” that “we don’t know YET what happened, but that doesn’t mean godidit”. So, how can you know that science is ABLE to solve all of life’s mysteries so that “Godidit” isn’t an answer? How do you know that EVERYTHING is within the scope of science?
“There are thousands of different understandings of the nature of God – more perhaps, one for every believer. How can one “know” that Tillich’s ‘Gound of All Being’ and ‘Ultimate Other’ don’t exist? How can one even know what these mean?”
Ah yes, Dawkin’s “which God?” canard. In this context, ANY, all-powerful benevolent creator will do.
“Most atheists find it wanting for some reason or another; the problem of evil is the most common. Their are other philosophical contradictions, like the conflict between God as “fully actualized” and the classic understanding of a personal God. Process theology tries to explain this, but many people find it unconvincing.”
You know, I agree with you here. I think that Darwin’s most basic question that led him to the theory of evolution was about the problem of evil.
“Note, however, this is the classic God of Christianity and greek philosophy. I’ve read Jewish works, for example, that would beg to differ with the omnibenevolent part. But for the most part we find ourselves arguing with Christians, so that doesn’t come into play.”
Yea, exactly, that was Darwin’s misconception too. That God was all-nice. I’ve never claimed this, and any Christian that does has only read the part of their Bible that they “like”.
“The ‘default assumption’ is that an entity does not exist until sufficient evidence has been presented to change that assumption.”
This is another one of the oft used atheistic canards. There is no “neutral” starting position. There are no “brute” facts. Everything must be interpreted by our starting presuppositions. That’s the main Creationist position. The atheists have constructed an imaginary neutral ground that they believe they stand on, which allows them to fool themselves into thinking they don’t have to provide evidence for their position since it’s the “default” position. This ignores their most basic presuppositions when reasoning through evidence that is put before them. Only under these metaphysical presuppositions (there are several) is the case for the evolution of all life convincing.
This brings me back to my previous question. How do you know that only the natural exists? Did scientific inquiry tell you this? If so, how? If not, then how do you know?
Baka
“Heh. Thanks for making it even funnier for pointing out that I was purposefully making fun of you, as if that were somehow an astute observation on your part. You’re right, that is the funny part.”
Actually, I was pointing out that you were purposefully misunderstanding IN ORDER TO make fun of me. It wasn’t that my point wasn’t clear, it was that you pretending to not understand my point, so that you could mock. In fact, you just did it again.
“For what? Your assessment that I purposefully misunderstood you in order to ridicule you because your opinions are laughable and good only as fish in barrels that the commenters on this thread might shoot for fun?”
Again, you purposefully misunderstand. In my first comment to you I said, “My statement was that some of the theories within abiogenesis include RNA, DNA and proteins forming themselves, something that has never been observed and is therefore something scientists have made up.”
THAT’s what I was asking if you have a counter-argument to. So . . . do you?
Larian
You’re like an atheistic robot, spitting out all the canards I’ve heard about a hundred times! It’s actually kinda cute.
“Although, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Your evidence is non-existent. Rather disappointing really.”
An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence is one of the biggest hunks of bull I’ve ever heard. It allows the one saying it to arbitrarily decide what is defined as “extraordinary” and what isn’t. This is guided by the individual’s starting presuppositions. For instance, I find the prospect of an all-powerful God being able to create the universe as a “duh! He’s all powerful right?”. And I find the prospect of nature being able to form itself to be the extraordinary claim. The labeling of which phenomena is “extraordinary” is completely arbitrary, rendering the “extraordinary evidence” requirement completely useless.
But again, you didn’t answer my question. Are scientific conclusions the ONLY valid conclusions? (This is called empiricism)
“Your faith is an admission of defeat of your intellect, instead of magic being the challenge or mystery you want to solve.”
So are you saying that you solved the mystery of abiogenesis? Or are you saying that you will “one day” solve the mystery of abiogenesis?
“way to totally miss the point of the comparison… It’s a wonder I even bother to reply to you since you are being deliberately obtuse. I can only hope someone with more intellectual integrity reads this and learns, since you obviously refuse to do so”
I understood the comparison and showed you how it was bunk. Science is based upon observation and testing. At what point will we be able to observe and test the beginning of life? A time machine is the only viable way I see of doing this. Do you have another solution?
“If you care to introduce evidence, we can talk.”
How can I offer evidence to you if I don’t know what you would accept as evidence? That’s why you should answer my first question about scientific explanations (empiricism). But the more important question is this, why would I attempt to offer evidence to you when our starting presuppositions are so different? We must filter the evidence we get through those presuppositions, so why discuss the evidence, why not discuss the presuppositions? That’s what I’m attempting to get at with my questions.
Ness
I had said: “Every piece of evidence from biology and chemistry points to abiogenesis being impossible.”
You said: “Could you clarify this?
I’m not clear on which potential steps you think are impossible, and why.”
Anything is possible. That’s why I didn’t say that “abiogenesis is impossible”. Anything is possible. However, notice what I DID say, which is that “every piece of evidence . . . points to abiogenesis being impossible”. There is an important difference.
Whenever we observe biochemical interactions, they are in the context of living organisms. Every time we see life “starting” it’s in the context of biogenesis, or life coming from life (there is a biological law called the Law of Biogenesis that atheistic biologists don’t like to talk about). We’ve never observed life coming from non-life. Sure, any naturalistic story a scientist would like to come up with makes the idea of abiogensis “possible” along the same lines as time travel may one day be “possible”.
However, we can’t call such speculation “science” because science is based upon observation and testing. The only things that have been observed falls within the Law of Biogenesis and proposing some natural phenomena that violates that law fits directly into the definition of “supernatural”. I’ve made this argument in more detail here (http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/an-atheistic-creation-story-in-action-the-origin-of-the-genetic-code/)
But, I’d like to get at the heart of your question, and ask you a question. Don’t you find it a tad bit dishonest of you to demand evidence of me in regards to the impossibility of abiogenesis? I’m only claiming that which I see, which is the Law of Biogenesis in action around me everyday. Isn’t the burden of proof upon you, since abiogenesis has never been observed?
Dwight
Thanks for the encouragement, it’s nice to hear once and a while.
Sunny Day
“I love your pom poms, where did you get them?”
That’s hilarious Sunny, what do you think this entire site is about? It’s an atheistic rally! And you’re going to mock a Christian for encouraging someone who agrees with him? Do you have ANY self-reflectiveness?
*Sigh*
Eric, the reason we can’t have a discussion is that you don’t offer any supporting argument as to why I should include your particular superstition as a basis for my worldview.
If you have some reason to include god as an assumption, other than the Kalam fallacy, other than gut feelings, please produce it.
Why can’t we discuss the presuppositions? Because “goddidit” is not a reasonable starting point. Why not? Well because there’s not a shred of evidence for any god, spirit, djinn, pixie, boggle, ghostie, ghoulie, or long-legged beastie, empirical or otherwise.
We’ve covered that ground exhaustively. But the problem with trying to discuss these things with you is that you retreat from the argument into either trying to redefine the fundamental terms of that debate, or simply bring the argument around in a circle. It’s not valid discussion, it’s not nice, and it’s not honest.
If you find me rude, it’s because that’s how I see your argumentation. I’m merely replying in kind.
Peace be upon you, and all that.
@Metro:
Seriously why do you bother with replying to Kemp when he has shown him self to have no integrity either intellectually or otherwise. You summed him up very nicely with your post as he offers nothing to any threads expect the same old mumbo-jumbo with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. Well unless you count the evidence that he would give but you have to believe in god to believe the evidence that he has for god – he deserves to be mocked just on this statement let alone all the other rubbish he has posted. He’ll just carry on doing what he does which can be summed up as making the same length but flawed arguments over and over again in slightly different ways and then redefining what words actually mean.
Metro
You continue to throw around the word “evidence” as if we all know what you’re talking about. Would you please be more specific. Are you talking about empiricial evidence, logical evidence, metaphysical evidence? Are you trying to say that the only valid “evidence” is of the empirical (scientific) variety?
If you clarify than I can respond.
@Eric:
No, Eric. You tell us what constitutes evidence for the presence of a deity to you. Start from there and let’s see what follows, eh?
@Jabster:
Masochism, maybe? Perhaps as a sometime-solipsist, I rely on Eric to reassure me that I am not the only being in this universe. Because why would I argue with myself that way?
Eric
[Even if we were to amuse you and shut down our brains for a brief while and say that a goddid it, which one didit?”
I’m curious, isn’t that what you’re asking me to do? Shut down my brain and pretend that SOMEHOW nature accounts for EVERYTHING, a position you have no evidence for?"]
Translation: Dodge, shuck, jive.
Mark this up as ANOTHER time Eric has refused to answer a question he plainly understands. Which creator deity didit? All of them, some of them, or only one?
“My position is that science is supposed to be the search for truth”
The Truth without evidence is Just Making Stuff Up.
“Again, why do you get to exclude at the outset and still call it science?”
We exclude the things for which we have no evidence. You got any?
“You and the rest of your friends can mock it all you want, but you can’t form a counter-argument against it.”"
I don’t have to. Unless you are willing to admit the world is real, there is no talking to you. We might as well be voices in your non-existent head.
“The bottom line is that science can’t provide evidence that matter actually exists. ”
The Bottom line is, you don’t have any evidence that the god you keep prattling on about is more real than any other Mythological Gods, Critters and Demons.
“I’m curious, isn’t that what you’re asking me to do? Shut down my brain and pretend that SOMEHOW nature accounts for EVERYTHING, a position you have no evidence for?”
No I’m asking you to tell me which Faerie Tale Creature created everything. Then tell me how it’s different than the other Faerie Tales.
Well, Metro
You can’t say I didn’t try. I asked an honest clarification question so that I could respond to you and you have no desire to give me an honest answer.
@Eric:
Thank you so much, so very, very much, for that coffee-all-over-my-keyboard moment.
Truly you are a disciple of Karl Rove: “Accuse your opponent of that which you yourself are doing.”
Fortunately, the history of this dicussion is abundantly on my side. And, unlike god, I have witnesses who are a) currently alive, b) verifiable, and c) not currently under medical care for mental-health-related issues to back me up.
I asked you for your evidence–let’s skip for now the question of what I consider acceptable evidence. Just let’s read here what it is that you, Eric Kemp, consider evidence for the existence of a god.
What convinces you? In the moments when your faith is weak, what do you hug to your breast as you say to yourself “I believe“?
Come to that–which god do you follow?
@Eric: How about empirical evidence. The logical/philosophical/metaphysical arguments are mostly word games and always end in semantics and imagination.
If this god of yours exists and is involved in the affairs of men on a daily basis, where is he? Where are all the miracles? Where are the revelations? We have video cameras everywhere. Why aren’t they recording all these interactions with men? Or did he just happen to stop once we had the technology to actually show to people he exists, instead of relying upon testimony (of which exists for every god and religion)?
I’m also interested in your response to Metro’s question. What evidence convinces you so strongly that there is a god — and not just any God, but the Judeo-Christian God?
“And you’re going to mock a Christian for encouraging someone who agrees with him?”
No, I mock someone who adds nothing more to the conversation than a mindless, go team go!
Daniel
“How about empirical evidence.”
Thank you, let’s go with that.
“I’m also interested in your response to Metro’s question. What evidence convinces you so strongly that there is a god — and not just any God, but the Judeo-Christian God?”
Alright, I’ll try to tie it all together.
So, I’m sure you would all agree that God’s existence is one of my most basic presuppositions. Meaning, that I use my belief in God’s existence to interpret the evidence which I recieve. For instance, as I’m sure you realized of any Christian, it doesn’t matter how much empirical evidence for evolution you give me, I’m just not convinced. Why is that? Because my belief in God is a presupposed belief.
In the same way, in order for any of you to believe that God doesn’t exist and didn’t create the universe, there are some basic presuppositions that you must begin with. I’ll mention three of them for brevity but there are a few others. The three main ones are naturalism, materialism, and empiricism.
So, I don’t have any direct empirical evidence for God. There I said it. But you knew that didn’t you? You knew that God is a metaphysical proposition that can’t be verified by empirical evidence. However, I’m not in such dire straights as all of you would want me to be because of this admission. Why? Because you do the same. Naturalism, materialism and empiricism cannot be verified with empirical evidence either. Let me explain.
Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena are natural phenomena. You must admit that science can’t confirm such an ALL statement. Yet, this you must believe this in order for God to not exist. Materialism is is the belief that only matter exists. Again, this belief is necessary yet how could science possible prove an absolute positive? Empiricism is the belief that only our sense experience (science) can give us verifiable knowledge. Again, science cannot prove that science is the only way to knowledge. It’s circular. So, in short, empirical evidence cannot verify the atheist presuppositions EITHER.
So then, my question to you guys is, how do you know you’re right? Especially if your criteria for believing in God is empirical evidence, and yet you have none for naturalism, materialism and empiricism. Doesn’t this seem a bit inconsistent within your own belief system? Also, doesn’t it seem a bit dishonest of you to demand empirical evidence for the Christians most basic presupposition when you have none for yours? In fact, your very insistence upon empirical evidence assumes empiricism, which empirical evidence can’t verify is true!
To answer your other question. I find the notion of an all-powerful benevolent creator allows me to explain things that I must take on blind faith without Him. To name just one: Science depends upon the assumption that nature is uniform. That is, that nature acts the same way everywhere at all times. It’s an assumptions because science could never prove such a thing. If only empiricism leads us to knowledge, then we could never know that nature is uniform because we would never observe such a thing.
So, with out an all-powerful benevolent God that told us He created the world to act law-like and uniform, we must take on blind faith that nature is so. Not only must we take it on faith without God, we can’t explain why nature APPEARS to be uniform. Atheists must believe that nature is uniform without explanation for HOW it is so. Their only answer can be, “nature acts this way because that’s how nature acts”.
So, in conclusion, when demanding empirical evidence for God you are just fooling yourself into thinking that you have empirical evidence for YOUR presuppositions.
Sunny Day
“No, I mock someone who adds nothing more to the conversation than a mindless, go team go!”
This is exteremely hypocritical because the VAST majority of the comments made on this site are “I agree Daniel! Go team atheist go!” It also betrays your most basic motive, which is to mock Christians at every opportunity.
@Eric: I read every comment on this site, and I disagree with you that the “VAST majority” of them are “I agree Daniel! Go team atheist go!” comments. Take even this thread, which should have more of those kinds of comments than usual. How many are like that? Go ahead, count them.
I am always pleasantly surprised how many comments add to the discussion.
["and not just any God, but the Judeo-Christian God?”
"So, in conclusion, when demanding empirical evidence for God you are just fooling yourself into thinking that you have empirical evidence for YOUR presuppositions."]
FAIL.
“I’m also interested in your response to Metro’s question. What evidence convinces you so strongly that there is a god — and not just any God, but the Judeo-Christian God?”
“Come to that–which god do you follow?”
“No I’m asking you to tell me which Faerie Tale Creature created everything. Then tell me how it’s different than the other Faerie Tales.”
“Mark this up as ANOTHER time Eric has refused to answer a question he plainly understands. Which creator deity didit? All of them, some of them, or only one?”
We are still waiting Eric.
Doing a Find replace on what you wrote….
Alright, I’ll try to tie it all together.
So, I’m sure you would all agree that Viraocha’s existence is one of my most basic presuppositions. Meaning, that I use my belief in Viraocha’s existence to interpret the evidence which I recieve. For instance, as I’m sure you realized of any Incan, it doesn’t matter how much empirical evidence for evolution you give me, I’m just not convinced. Why is that? Because my belief in Viraocha is a presupposed belief.
In the same way, in order for any of you to believe that Viraocha doesn’t exist and didn’t create the universe, there are some basic presuppositions that you must begin with. I’ll mention three of them for brevity but there are a few others. The three main ones are naturalism, materialism, and empiricism.
So, I don’t have any direct empirical evidence for Viraocha. There I said it. But you knew that didn’t you? You knew that Viraocha is a metaphysical proposition that can’t be verified by empirical evidence. However, I’m not in such dire straights as all of you would want me to be because of this admission. Why? Because you do the same. Naturalism, materialism and empiricism cannot be verified with empirical evidence either. Let me explain.
Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena are natural phenomena. You must admit that science can’t confirm such an ALL statement. Yet, this you must believe this in order for Viraocha to not exist. Materialism is is the belief that only matter exists. Again, this belief is necessary yet how could science possible prove an absolute positive? Empiricism is the belief that only our sense experience (science) can give us verifiable knowledge. Again, science cannot prove that science is the only way to knowledge. It’s circular. So, in short, empirical evidence cannot verify the atheist presuppositions EITHER.
So then, my question to you guys is, how do you know you’re right? Especially if your criteria for believing in Viraocha is empirical evidence, and yet you have none for naturalism, materialism and empiricism. Doesn’t this seem a bit inconsistent within your own belief system? Also, doesn’t it seem a bit dishonest of you to demand empirical evidence for the Incans most basic presupposition when you have none for yours? In fact, your very insistence upon empirical evidence assumes empiricism, which empirical evidence can’t verify is true!
To answer your other question. I find the notion of an all-powerful benevolent creator allows me to explain things that I must take on blind faith without Him. To name just one: Science depends upon the assumption that nature is uniform. That is, that nature acts the same way everywhere at all times. It’s an assumptions because science could never prove such a thing. If only empiricism leads us to knowledge, then we could never know that nature is uniform because we would never observe such a thing.
So, with out an all-powerful benevolent Viraocha that told us He created the world to act law-like and uniform, we must take on blind faith that nature is so. Not only must we take it on faith without Viraocha, we can’t explain why nature APPEARS to be uniform. Atheists must believe that nature is uniform without explanation for HOW it is so. Their only answer can be, “nature acts this way because that’s how nature acts”.
So, in conclusion, when demanding empirical evidence for Viraocha you are just fooling yourself into thinking that you have empirical evidence for YOUR presuppositions.
I’m not so sure about God, but this Viraocha sounds pretty interesting!
Seriously though — Eric, I appreciate you admitting you don’t have any empirical evidence for God. I think that’s a step in the right direction!
Now, regarding naturalism/materialism: I’m not a dogmatic materialist — if there was some reason to believe that the spirit world exists, I’d have no problem believing it. I only want to believe what’s true.
We have material all around us. So we have tremendous evidence that material exists. I can’t disprove that the spirit world does not exist, but since I can’t see them, touch them, or see any reason for them to exist, I don’t believe in it. And why should I?
@Eric Kemp asked of me,
“THAT’s what I was asking if you have a counter-argument to. So . . . do you?”
I’m well aware of what you asked of me, Eric. And, yes, I am well versed in the counter-arguments. I simply don’t find you worth the time it would take to type it out. Besides, other commenters are doing fine jobs in this thread and I’m sleepy.
You are a troll, Eric. Trolls are not honest seekers of knowledge or opinions, and as such, deserve nothing but disdain and mockery. Your most valuable contribution will be to serve as a practice dummy for many of the commenters here, but that’s about it.
If this plays into your cherished sense of persecution, consider it my gift to you. It’s not like there was ever any chance of you NOT feeling like you are being persecuted when this all started.
Merry Christmas, Eric! Now hop up on that cross and whine. ;)
@Eric Kemp:
You know, I was kind of hoping for a Christmas miracle, like the ones you see on TV? Where the correct purchase of some cheap plastic Chinese-made crap unites an entire (usually white) family around a Tree of some innocuous description.
Alas, I received a lump of philosophical coal (or something equally biological) in my stocking. However, it did contain nuggets of diamond (or possibly peanuts):
In other words, God exists, nothing could convice you otherwise, but you’re here for honest discussion?
I have categorically stated, as has Daniel, that we will alter our beliefs to fit the evidence. What a shame you won’t.
You lie like a hairy egg. All natural phenomena have either yielded to scientific investigation, or are under it. And in all that time not one shred, not one iota, or goddidit have we found. So how about confirmation of your ALL statement: “God did it (all),” eh?
Why does the same uncertainty you claim exists in science not apply to your pet deity?
Just for interest’s sake: Science also cannot categorically state the Theory of Gravity, but has as yet to discover any valid exception.
Re. Materialism, see above … Re. Empiricism, same.
Yadda, yadda, see above.
Once again you thrill me with your total inability to comprehend science.
So let me sum up the Kemp minus Kalam argument: “I believe in God, therefore everything I see must be taken as evidence of his existence.”
The Kemp-plus-Kalam argument goes: “Look around! Everything that exists is evidence that God exists!”
Fine, but don’t expect to be taken seriously by rational people. Truly, your arguments are like a boilerplate copy for How Not to Argue Rationally. In time perhaps you could bind them and publish them under that title.
I think you and I are finished here until you come up with something valid by way of an argument. This is too much like wrestling the proverbial pig.
The questions I asked, you didn’t answer. The ones you do like to ask yourself you answer the same way in ever-more-self-contradictory posts of expanding density, obfuscation, and dishonesty.
You’re a godbot, running on pure programming, trying to give the appearance of discussion.
And failing.
Eric:
So, your claim is that God is detectable? Excellent. Please tell me how to go about detecting him. Will I need any specialised or expensive equipment?
Seriously. I’d love to be able to detect God, and I’m sure most of the people commenting here would, too. Tell us the secret and you’ll make dozens on converts.
@Wintermute:
Cue Eric Kemp duck-dodge-and-weave in five, four, three …
I think we broke him. It may have happened when we asked him to differentiate between his god and the other farie tales.
His clan could be putting him through reprogramming right now.
@wintermute.
You haven’t clicked on his name, have you?
@Sunny Day:
I think Kemp’s website makes a good read if you want to see just how ridiculous religious views can be. I like to think of him as Ray Comfort without the advertising budget.
Woah, I forgot about my comment here. Sorry Eric. If you happen to see this again:
Such was not my intention. I was merely curious why you thought that the evidence pointed towards abiogenesis being impossible, and which pieces of evidence, I wasn’t asking you to prove that it was impossible. I will admit that my wording was poor, and I apologize for that
On that note, I must ask, is self-replicating RNA alive? How about pieces of RNA that help build each other? Amino acids?
These are all possible steps towards life from non-life, and I think it’s quite obvious that none of them are impossible, nor does the evidence suggest that they are impossible.
There’s even a reasonable — and, quite frankly, obvious — explanation for we don’t see this happening today:
Is there proof positive that abiogenesis happened? No. However, there are many lines of potential (and demonstrated) steps that make it reasonable to believe that it did.