Author Archives: Mung

The Cosmological Argument

Posted on by
116

I am currently working my way through the book A Natural History of Natural Theology: The Cognitive Science of Theology and Philosophy of Religion.

There is already a thread here dedicated to the book, but I decided to separate the thesis of the book from the actual natural theological arguments themselves. The evidence that the premises upon which these natural theological arguments rest are natural and intuitive are the subject of that thread.

In this thread I’d like to explore how the cosmological argument for the existence of God is presented in the book and provide a place where these cosmological arguments can be examined and criticized.

Continue reading →

Is Religious Belief Natural?

Posted on by
330

Questions about the existence and attributes of God form the subject matter of natural theology, which seeks to gain knowledge of the divine by relying on reason and experience of the world. Arguments in natural theology rely largely on intuitions and inferences that seem natural to us, occurring spontaneously — at the sight of a beautiful landscape, perhaps, or in wonderment at the complexity of the cosmos — even to a non-philosopher.

Continue reading →

Bad Dogs and Defective Triangles

Posted on by
469

Is a dog with three legs a bad dog? Is a triangle with two sides still a triangle or is it a defective triangle? Perhaps if we just expand the definition of triangle a bit we can have square triangles.

There is a point of view that holds that to define something we must say something definitive about it and that to say that we are expanding or changing a definition makes no sense if we don’t know what it is that is being changed.

Continue reading →

Same Sex Science

Posted on by
47

It is often asserted that modern science had it’s roots in Christian culture and could in fact only have gotten started given such a milieu.

…the flowering of modern science depended upon the Judeo-Christian worldview of the existence of a real physical contingent universe, created and held in being by an omnipotent personal God, with man having the capabilities of rationality and creativity, and thus being capable of investigating it.

– The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy

An award-winning philosopher uncovers the Christian foundations of modern science. Renowned historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki boldly illumines one of the best-kept secrets of science history — the vital role theology has historically played in fruitful scientific development.

Beginning with an overview of failed attempts at a sustained science by the ancient cultures of Greece, China, India, and the early Muslim empire, Jaki shows that belief in Christ — a belief absent in all these cultures — secured for science its only viable birth starting in the High Middle Ages.

– The Savior of Science

In Pearcey’s latest book Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes she goes beyond these perhaps less controversial claims.

Continue reading →

The Complementarity Principle

Posted on by
12

The complementarity principle in biological and social structures

Complementarity is an epistemological principle derived from the subject-object or observer-system dichotomy, where each side requires a separate mode of description that is formally incompatible with and irreducible to the other, and where one mode of description alone does not provide comprehensive explanatory power. The classical physics paradigm, on which biological, social and psychological sciences are modeled, completely suppresses the observer or subject side of this dichotomy in order to claim unity and consistency in theory and objectivity in experimental observations. Quantum mechanical measurements have shown this paradigm to be untenable. Explanation of events requires both an objective, causal representation and a subjective, prescriptive representation that are complementary. The concepts of description and function in biological systems, and goals and policies in social systems, are found to have the same epistemological basis as the concept of measurement in physics. The concepts of rate-dependent and rate-independent processes are proposed as a necessary distinction for applying the principle of complementarity to explanations of physical, biological and social systems

Tired of waiting for the promised OP on Moderation from keiths.

I am hoping participants in the “Teleology and Biology” thread might find this paper interesting. Continue reading →

The Modeling of Nature

Posted on by
29

As the new millennium approaches, our scientific knowledge of the universe surpasses that of any previous age. Yet, paradoxically, the philosophy of science movement is now in disarray. The collapse of logical empiricism and the rise of historicism and social constructivism have effectively left all of the sciences without an epistemology. The claims of realism have become increasingly difficult to justify, and, for many, the only alternatives are probabilism, pragmatism, and relativism.

But the case is not hopeless. According to William A.Wallace, a return to a realist concept of nature is plausible and, indeed, much needed. Human beings have a natural ability to understand the world in which they live. Many have suggested this understanding requires advanced logic and mathematics. Wallace believes that nature can more readily be understood with the aid of simple modeling techniques.

Through an ingenious use of iconic and epistemic models, Wallace guides the reader through the fundamentals of natural philosophy, explaining how the universe is populated with entities endowed with different natures – inorganic, plant, animal, and human. Much of this knowledge is intuitive, already in people’s minds from experience, education, and exposure to the media. Wallace builds on this foundation, making judicious use of cognitive science to provide a model of the human mind that illuminates not only the philosophy of nature but also the logic, psychology, and epistemology that are prerequisite to it.

With this background, Wallace sketches a history of the philosophy of science and how it has functioned traditionally as a type of probable reasoning. His concern is to go beyond probability and lay bare the epistemic dimension of science to show how it can arrive at truth and certitude in the various areas it investigates. He completes his study with eight case studies of certified scientific growth, the controversies to which they gave rise, and the methods by which they ultimately were resolved.

The Modeling of Nature provides an excellent introduction to the fundamentals of natural philosophy, psychology, logic, and epistemology.

William J. Murray has repeatedly questioned the prevalent materialist epistemology evident here at TSZ.

But are the sciences as a whole without an epistemology, and why?

What could possibly ground an epistemology of science?

The Intelligent Design Catch-22

Posted on by
49

Herman Reith says that the trouble with the design argument is that “the examples used and the interpretation given them prevents the argument from rising to the metaphysical level…above the order of the physical universe,” so that “it cannot conclude to anything more than the existence of some kind of intelligence and power” within that universe. … Christopher F.J. Martin … avers that “the Being whose existence is revealed to us by the argument from design is not God but the Great Architect of the Deists and Freemasons, an imposter disguised as God.”

…arguments like Paley’s … cannot in principle get us outside the natural order to a divine intellect of pure actuality but at most to an anthropomorphic demiurge.

– Edward Feser. On Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley: A Reply to Marie George

I may be a bit different from the typical IDist in that I am a huge fan of Edward Feser. His criticism here of ID is that it cannot get you to God.

What’s more, the modern design argument cannot get you to God even in principle.:

But the problem is not just that Paley’s designer may be something other than God as classicasl theism understand Him. There is reason to think that Paley’s designer could not be God as classical theism understands Him.

…Paley’s procedure is to model his designer on human designers. By implication, his designer exercises the same faculty human designers do–he works out design problems, performs calculations, and so forth–but does so with massively greater facility. He is an essentially anthropomorphic designer. And as such it is hard to see how he could be as classical theism says God is — absolutley simple, immutable, eternal, and so forth.

– Edward Feser, Natural Theology Must Be Founded in Philosophy

So on the one hand we have some critics of ID claiming the problem with ID is that it’s not about God and on the other hand we have critics of ID claiming the problem with ID is that it is about God. Must be nice to be an ID critic!

For those of you who think that ID really is “about God” why not adopt the approach of Edward Feser?

Boycott TSZ

Posted on by
65

I thought about it. But decided not to.

First, as I have said, I think the boycott of UD is irrational. So why should I respond by doing something equally irrational? I shouldn’t.

Second, I think debate should be encouraged not discouraged. Boycotting the main site for the oppositon is hardly conducive to that end. To borrow a phrase from Elizabeth, there’s something asymmetrical here.

And third, I’m the real skeptic here. Unlike you poseurs.

Lots of interesting subjects raised in the UD is Dead Thread.

What is a body plan?
the capacity of the human mind to see what it wants to see
Is biology even science?
Is fantasy better than real life?
Where does the energy come from to move the goalposts?
If everyone accepts ID, why can’t it be science?
Materialism is dead matter
Is the flagellum manufactured or replicated?
is a self-replicating automaton even possible?
If not then entire machine metaphor needs to go. Or is it dead too?
In what sense are physical laws materialist?
Are crop circles made of crops?
Can you spell epistemological verificationism?
What is a genome?
The Multiple Designer Hypothesis

Don’t feel slighted Tom, I figure you’ll start your own thread when you get to it. 🙂
Unlike Gregory. Is there anything that is NOT designed?

The Un-Wedge

Posted on by
81

While I do not accept Elizabeth’s analysis of what divides us, I do share her desire to engage in a manner that values dialogue over diatribe.

Elizabeth:

So how to heal the rift, rather than drive the Wedge in further? It was always part of my vision for this site that we would try to do the former rather than the latter. It’s not easy, and we have not always been successful. But I am not despondent.

I don’t believe the rift can be healed. I believe the wedge is being driven in by multiple sides and it’s not possible to prevent the various sides from taking swings at it and driving it in further. Claims of “she hit me first” are childish at best, and unproductive.

So how to proceed. Well, first, I suggest a mutual respect. I think the desire for this is expressed in the site rules, in which respect each other becomes respect the rules, because the rules are worthy of respect, because we are each worthy of respect. Is that circular?

Think before you respond. Do I have something of substance to contribute? Is it possible I do not understand? Am I sure I am not misrepresenting the opposing view? Reduce trollish behavior.

Seek to understand. Dismissiveness is not a virtue. What are the propositions? What is the argument? What is the evidence?

ok, so far i’ve probably not said anything that anyone can disagree with, lol! This demonstrates that I am never wrong.

I do believe that in a past life I suggested a “book swap” approach. You pick a book then I pick a book. That went nowhere.

So what interests the regulars here at TSZ? Is ANTI-ID the general purpose of this site? I have lots of anti-ID books. We could look at their arguments.

I can’t promise that I’ll have time to engage deeply in any given topic, but I did try to come up with a list of topics of potential interest:

Biosemiotics
Causation
Code Biology
Genetic Algorithms
Materialism
Organisms and Artifacts
Philosophy of Science
Scientism

Other suggestions?

the son of liddle gods

Posted on by
190

Let’s try this again.

In a recent post here at TSZ Elizabeth Liddle made the following statement:

What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer.

HERE

Odd, I thought. Surely she knows better. All that time spent over at UD and never a case for a designer? Is this claim believable? I thought not.

Continue reading →

On liddle gods and THE BIG DESIGNER IN THE SKY

Posted on by
62

In a recent post here at TSZ Elizabeth Liddle made the following statement:

What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer.

Odd, I thought. Surely she knows better. All that time spent over at UD and never a case for a designer?

This was later followed by yet another comment from Elizabeth:

I haven’t really taken to the “atheist” label, much although I don’t reject it – but it [the atheist label] implies that my non-belief in god or gods is something categorically different from my non-belief in unicorns or toothfairies, or in the proverbial orbiting teapot.

It’s not, of course, Elizabeth would say. But it is categorically different. For example, no one believes orbiting teapots design anything, and an orbiting teapot would be an instance of design, not an instance of a designer.

As this has now become a topic of discussion in the original thread I think it deserves it’s own thread. Well, not just that, I also think Elizabeth is being dishonest [EDIT: but not deliberately misleading: dishonest, defn. not worthy of trust or belief].

Continue reading →

On Logic and the Empirical Method

Posted on by
344

A thread at UD that was just beginning to get interesting was unfortunately cut short when Elizabeth departed.

As is oh so typical over at UD, those silly IDiots were appealing to obvious truths and the primacy of logical reasoning. Elizabeth, in contrast, was championing her empirical methodology.

During the exchange, Elizabeth made the following statements:

Continue reading →

Moderation at TSZ

Quote

Posted on by
38

Elizabeth Liddle:

Yes. Can I remind thread-starters not to moderate their own threads, even though you technically have that capacity.

I have not yet found a way of setting permissions so people can post OPs and not have editing rights, so it is an honour system.

In any case, we do not edit posts, except to delete malware and porn links, or identifying info. No Loudspeaker in the Ceiling.

 

After reading this comment by Elizabeth I went and checked the moderation rules. It had been quite a while since I had had reason to read them and I discovered that they had been amended:

If you have author permissions, and post an OP, you may find you have the technical ability to edit comments to your post, and move them.  Please do not do so.  Rule violating posts will be moved by moderators, and it is a principle of this site that comments are not edited, deleted, or hidden.

I apologize to Reciprocating Bill for adding a comment to the end of one of his posts in violation of the principles of this site.

And for those who have been claiming or implying that I was refusing to own up to what I had done you’re just ignorant.

1. I put my name to the comment when I added it.

2. I admitted to having done it when Reciprocating Bill asked.

I see OMagain accused me of deleting his posts in an attempt to have my thread authoring ability revoked. Is there any reason to believe that’s true? I don’t see any option to delete a post.

 

Haters Need Love Too (Even at TSZ)

Posted on by
88

But I say to you who are hearing, Love your enemies, do good to those hating you, bless those cursing you, and pray for those accusing you falsely; and to him smiting thee upon the cheek, give also the other, and from him taking away from thee the mantle, also the coat thou mayest not keep back. And to every one who is asking of thee, be giving; and from him who is taking away thy goods, be not asking again; and as ye wish that men may do to you, do ye also to them in like manner; and — if ye love those loving you, what grace have ye? for also the sinful love those loving them; and if ye do good to those doing good to you, what grace have ye? for also the sinful do the same; and if ye lend to those of whom ye hope to receive back, what grace have ye? for also the sinful lend to sinners — that they may receive again as much. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward will be great, and ye shall be sons of the Highest, because He is kind unto the ungracious and evil; be ye therefore merciful, as also your Father is merciful. And judge not, and ye may not be judged; condemn not, and ye may not be condemned; release, and ye shall be released. Give, and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed, and shaken, and running over, they shall give into your bosom; for with that measure with which ye measure, it shall be measured to you again.

– Some weird dude named Jesus. No wonder they killed Him.

Evolutionary Search

Posted on by
161

If evolution is not a search, why is the term “evolutionary search” not an oxymoron?

Over at Uncommon Descent Elizabeth posted the following:

“…any “search” algorithm worthy of the name of “evolutionary search” comes with its own moderately smooth fitness landscape built in.”

So evolution is a search if it comes pre-built with its own moderately smooth fitness landscape built in?

Expunge the Mung

Posted on by
22

The assertion has been put forth that I said I would never post here at TSZ again.

Alan Fox:

Welcome back, mung. Didn’t you say that you would never darken our door again? By your moral compass, don’t you have to call yourself a liar, now?

I’ve been searching for the post in which I made a statement that I would never post here again. I do recall being excessively miffed about something that petrushka wrote about me that I thought was egregiously false. Something about animals being meat puppets. But I haven’t yet been able to locate my response to that post.

What post is Alan is referring to?