If you’re looking for a new, cool organization to join, check out The Institute for Real God. Their goal is to be “an educational organization devoted to making genuine spirituality and spiritual practice accessible to as many people as possible.” Of course “genuine spiritually” is whatever they think it means.
Oh, and be sure to check out “Why Be Blinded by Science and Materialism.” I’m sure you’ll all be convinced that scientific materialism just doesn’t cut it compared to, uh, “Greater Reality.”
Don’t keep us hanging, which one is the “real” God?
Why the heck did you guide me to that “Science and Materialism” page. Grotesque stupidity and attempts to rationalize the inherently irrational makes me nauseous, and I just ate lunch.
I noticed a little thing toward the end of the article on materialism that i see quite a bit, but one that I think is interesting.
He claims that reductionism of materialism is politically enforced. I’ve also heard atheists scream at me because ID proponents are politically strong arming “creation” into the schools. I’ve also heard ID proponents screaming that activist judges and politics within academia keep the true number of non-Darwinian scientists unknown and true “scientific” progress or discussions at bay.
Each side would accuse me of being ignorant and blind to what the actually reality is, but what I find interesting is that every side seems to point to a political bogeyman in the corner of their opponents.
Each side would accuse me of being ignorant and blind to what the actually reality is, but what I find interesting is that every side seems to point to a political bogeyman in the corner of their opponents.
Well, it is always easier to paint oneself as morally upright and oppressed if one imputes the opposition with political power.
We loves us a scrappy underdog.
It is amplified by the general sense that the political process itself is corrupt.
“I’ve also heard atheists scream at me because ID proponents are politically strong arming “creation” into the schools. I’ve also heard ID proponents screaming that activist judges and politics within academia keep the true number of non-Darwinian scientists unknown and true “scientific” progress or discussions at bay.”
There is evidence to support one of these positions, and no evidence to support the other.
I’ve yet to see a school board or state legislature vote on a measure to keep the number of non-Darwinian scientists unknown.
Just because two sides exist, does not mean they automatically have equal validity.
“what I find interesting is that every side seems to point to a political bogeyman in the corner of their opponents.”
Sometimes the bogeyman exists.
@Elemenope
I hope you haven’t stopped reading the older threads. I wrote an apology to you in one that I hope you’ve seen.
Oh good, you did.
I’m fiery, and sometimes it gets me into trouble. The only thing that makes me tolerable is that I have no fear of apologizing when I get it wrong.
I’m fiery, and sometimes it gets me into trouble.
There ain’t nothin’ wrong with that. :)
@ Ty
I should have separated my comments to a degree, in context I’ve heard ID proponents say pressure through such means as losing tenure is a way to keep closet ID’ers in the closet so to speak.
Equal validity sometimes is a point of view though isn’t it. Personally I think there is a degree of truth to both claims in this instance because I’ve happen to witness both. The bogeyman indeed does exist, it’s the idea that the truth can be arrived at through political wrangling.
“The Institute for the Real God” is a cover group for Adi Da, otherwise known as “Bubba Free John”, “Da Free John”, etc., who, if i recall correctly, is a largely hindu teacher… i wonder which “real god” they’re talking about…
So, there are also unreal gods?
Interestingly, that page about “Why Be Blinded by Science and Materialism” is written by the Director (sic) of the Institute for Real God, Chris Tong, Ph.D.
Why be blinded by a PhD?
These websites are very odd. I think they are a poor man’s Scientology.
The use the word God here is interesting. I think, in terms of these sites, “God” can easily be replaced with “spirituality”. They talk about finding a center and human fulfillment not based on materialism. I don’t see any affiliations to specific churches, Christian or otherwise. The god they seem to be talking about is in lowercase, meaning what is your god, rather than who.
Once again, weird/creepy sites.
This is the part I like best about the lesson on Materialism:
“But now science itself is developing to the point where it cannot use that dismissive argument any more: neurophysiology knows too much about how hallucinations, delusions, etc. are produced, and can no longer claim that spiritual experiences are hallucinations or delusions, when neurophysiological studies of the human brain during such experiences indicate otherwise. ”
I guess you just say it’s so and presto-chango! It’s so! Don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!
Sorry for the long-ish post, but this is an exchange between myself and the guy on a blog called “The Fallacy of Scientific Naturalism.” I thought it relevant to the second website.
HE made the following claim:
5a. As has been demonstrated scientifically, the mind [consciousness/soul/sapience] is separate from the physicality of the brain or even the body. The soul [as consciousness] can be inferred from the scientific method yet the soul [being outside the realm of pure naturalism] is supernatural. [Assertions that consciousness arises naturally as the result of sufficient complexity of intelligence is mere conjecture/speculation based on assumptions of pure naturalism and must be taken by faith, as must all speculations of origins.]
MY RESPONSE: If you read the intro to my thesis (I sent him a copy of my master’s thesis on the genetics of learning and memory– conducted in the lab of Eric Kandel, Nobel Laureate 2000) you will see that 5a is not true. Science has demonstrated that through ablation studies, the corresponding parts of consciousness disappear (start reading at patient HM).
The soul CANNOT be inferred from the scientific method because the soul is a philosophical concept. CONSCIOUSNESS is a physical concept based on behaviorism. Science is LIMITED to physical concepts. Philosophers who use science to prove mind/body monism are still just making philosophical claims. They aren’t any more correct than dualists because dualism and monism cant be proved. Science therefore does not explore such questions. If you disagree with this, then either you don’t understand science or you don’t understand philsophy. THEY are DIFFERENT WAYS OF “KNOWING.”
HE CLAIMED: 5b. There are also problems and subjects which lie ooutside of natural science, which it may speculate about but could never conceivably prove or test, especially matters of origins. Naturalism may speculate about such metaphysical problems, but it makes an a priori assumption of pure naturalistic/mechanistic processes in doing so.
MY RESPONSE: Matters of origins, like other hypotheses take data from the physical record and analyze it. Further, they recreate chemical origins from those geological periods and experiment with things like creating micelles. What are you going to say when scientists demonstrate how a cell self organizes? Further, they look at modern viruses and bacteria and relate them genetically. Modern living (if you consider a virus living) examples of ancient species are around today for us to evaluate. Research on the mimivirus may actually show how viruses evolved into cells because it seems to be a hybrid between a virus and a cell.
Also, theoretical physics has gone a long way toward explaining origins of the physical universe, but the claims must be backed up with particle physics research. Theoretical physics is limited to the physical universe. If there is anything beyond the physical universe, then physics can’t answer questions about this (such as what happened before the big bang. Physics can’t answer that).
HE CLAIMED: 5c. The assertion that natural science will eventually attain sufficient knowledge and resources to determine all solutions as naturalistic is a statement of faith.
MY RESPONSE: Science never claims the ability to gain all knowledge. Just all knowledge of the PHYSICAL world. Anything beyond that is beyond the scope of science.
HE CLAIMED: 5d. The fact that neither Darwinism [limited specifically to the development of biology though not its ultimate origin] and naturalism [the assumption of purely natural solutions for all problems] is an adequate explanation for the whole of human experience [including the soul, why reason should be trusted, questions of significance, why universal morality exists and exists as it does, et cetera] should require, for the sake of intellectual honesty, an exploration of other theories and sets of possible explanation which might better account for the entire picture. The prohibition against such freedom of inquiry is irrational, as it must be pronounced based on a presumption of faith, not reason.
MY RESPONSE: Scientific naturalism does NOT seek answers to ALL problems (however philosophical naturalism, a monism, might). Scientific naturalism seeks only answers to the physical realm.
The whole of human experience is NEVER addressed by science. It is addressed by philosophy, the humanities, religion, etc.
I CONTINUED:
Do you still object to what I say? I just don’t see how you can! I just don’t see how you can attack science. Attack monists if you like– they are philosophers. Don’t attack science. It is the wrong thing to do. If you want alternative philosophical approaches to be taught to kids, then push for a philosophy class, but do not push for philosophy to be taught in science class.
Finally, ID assumes a philosophical claim (that the world was designed by God) and therefore is NOT science. I don’t know how to make this any more clear to you. I seriously don’t.
If you still disagree with me, then I urge you AGAIN to go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and READ about what science actually is, what pseudo science actually is, and what naturalism actually is. ID is CLEARLY a pseudo science. What more can I tell you?
HE wrote me back and said (basically) that I was full of sh*t.
OH THE BLINDERS OF RELIGION!!!
Super cool video on evolution:
Scientist repairs fruit fly genetic mutation ‘eyeless’ using a gene from a mouse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFG-aLidT8s
A REALLY great video from Case Western Reserve on ID versus science, its history on both scientific and political grounds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU&feature=channel
I should have separated my comments to a degree, in context I’ve heard ID proponents say pressure through such means as losing tenure is a way to keep closet ID’ers in the closet so to speak.
Can you name even one example? Michael Behe is a prominent spokesperson for ID. He has tenure. He has not been fired.
Guillermo Gonzalez is another attempt by ID to create a martyr, but he did not lose tenure that he had already obtained. Rather he was denied tenure, which happens to quite a few young researchers. I have seen his publication record, and his ability to find funding, and it is difficult to make the case that his firing was based solely on his support of ID. Quite frankly, even if it was, I would have no sympathy. Gonzales claimed that ID is science, so his support of it ought therefore to be fair game. You cannot claim that ID is science, but then claim religious discrimination when you are docked for supporting bad science. That’s dealing off both sides of the deck.
Take another look at an ID supporter who claims he has been maltreated: brain surgeon Michael Egnor. He was featured in the abominable movie “Expelled.” As featured in that appearance, he says that once he went public with his support of ID, he wasn’t fired, he wasn’t disciplined, but people said bad things about him on the Internet. Boo hoo hoo.
See more examples at Expelled Exposed
@ Ira
I liked your post, i have a couple of questions and observations.
I know that there are ID proponents who wouldn’t agree to the separation of philosophical and scientific naturalism, but would you agree that there have historically been “pious” Christians who would not have disagreed with you. I would say yes, in the sense that they believed in God but when it came to their experiments they were studying strictly physical causes and effects.
I’m glad that you limited the scope of science to knowledge of the physical.
I think you also touched on point that if a scientist is trying to prove mind/body monism he is doing philosophy and not science, and I think that is very astute. Theists often have convoluted philosophy and science but it is easy to do when some scientists walk back and forth between philosophical and scientific naturalism and don’t seem know it.
When it comes to science, I’m of the opinion that there is a broader range to the scientific method that is usually assumed. What I mean is, is that in science class it is easy to have a controlled experiment to see say the effects of mixing two chemicals. This is a repeatable controlled experiment. But when is comes to making a hypothesis in the area of astro physics we are relegated to matching observations to our theory. The more “facts” or observations a theory either explains or predicts the more successful we deem that theory to be. The difference is that this type of scientific method is continually subjected to new observations and eventually a better theory comes along. That’s very rare in a controlled experiment, where you can ascertain scientific truth relatively quickly. So my point is that though both of these are legitimate science one often has a back door for philosophical assumptions while the other not so much. For example people trying to explain what happened before the big bang with ideas of multiverse and the like.
I would appreciate your feedback.
@ Reg
I wasn’t attempting to defend the claim, just make the point that they are there. In fact I was kind of poking fun at both sides for playing the victim card.
HE CLAIMED: 5c. The assertion that natural science will eventually attain sufficient knowledge and resources to determine all solutions as naturalistic is a statement of faith.
The word “faith” is overworked. Science has a solid track record of uncovering facts about the natural world. Belief that it will continue to do so could be termed confidence, not faith. It is certainly not equivalent to the “faith” placed in religion based on no credible evidence whatsoever.
And perhaps science, even if given sufficient resources, would not be able to answer _all_ questions. That does not mean that religion can provide valid answers either. And since we have no way to verify those religious answers, there is no logical case for accepting them as true.
Barry-
I think I understand what you’re getting at.
You said:
“I know that there are ID proponents who wouldn’t agree to the separation of philosophical and scientific naturalism”
My response is simple. Science deals with facts about the physical world in this way it is naturalistic. Philosophy attempts to get at “truth” (and of course philosophers debate about what exactly truth is). One of the “truths” they debate is metaphysics. Metaphysics was the title of a book by Aristotle, published after the book on physics was published. It’s sort of a double entendre because Metaphysics means “Beyond Physics.” This is where ID people (and possibly some monists) screw things up. Science doesn’t have the tools to deal with things “beyond physics” or beyond the natural world.
As far as I’m concerned, monists and dualists are welcome to duke it out in philosophy circles. That’s academic freedom. Monists like to recruit science for this cause because science deals with the physical world, but they still can’t disprove god. However, for dualists to recruit science for their cause is extremely misguided. Science has no answers about anything beyond the physical world. If philosophy can’t prove got (through various arguments like the cosmological argument, ontological argument, etc), then what makes these people think that science can? Very misguided indeed.
So I think we may be in agreement here.
You also said:
“That’s very rare in a controlled experiment, where you can ascertain scientific truth relatively quickly.”
Actually, a controlled experiment helps to add to a body of facts not truth. As I said, facts are scientific, truths are philosophical. Anyhow, a single experiment must be peer reviewed, published, cited, and most importantly repeated to have any validity. In this way, science is a cooperative effort that helps reduce the bias of any one person. Of course philosophers of science talk about cultural biases as a whole seeping into science (such as gender biases resulting from applying research findings on men to women), but this is less of a criticism with ‘hard’ sciences that are dealing with mechanism rather than people.
I hope that addressed what you were looking for.
oops! “cant prove got” should read “cant prove god”
@ Ira
Thanks for the response, your going to be my first person I look for when someone is attacking me on the basis of philosophical materialism and they think it’s good science, lol.
I would have one quibble I think though. I would say that facts are truths at least when dealing with truth in the corresponding sense. In fact some facts become almost axiomatic in the sense that they are proven over and over on a daily basis. For example when you mix red and blue dyes you get purple. I know a lot of controlled experiments aren’t that clean and neat but some can be.
p.s. I be interested in your thesis you mentioned earlier.
Well, Barry
I would say that if someone is arguing philosophical naturalism and you want to argue for the existence of god (I assume) then just know that either way there isn’t definitive proof.
I think that many people contributing to this website are either atheists or agnostics that come up against christians. The interesting thing is that the atheists are explicitly arguing against christianity over and over, not not trying to disprove the existence of god.
@ ira
I think that many people contributing to this website are either atheists or agnostics that come up against christians. The interesting thing is that the atheists are explicitly arguing against christianity over and over, not not trying to disprove the existence of god.
And often it is not even Christianity itself that is being argued against but a subset belief like YEC or Biblical inerrancy.
@ Ira
If I was defending the proposition of God’s existence then an attack from the perspective of philosophical naturalism is in play. I was speaking to the issue that some comments jump from discussion of science to the assumption or the defending of monism or the acceptance of scientific naturalism automatically forces one to accept atheism in the strongest sense.
Yes, I see what you mean, Barry.