Michael Todd has joined our discussion, and makes the assumption in the title of this thread. Michael introduced himself with “Greetings all. I’m new here. I’m also a Christian.”
Here’s the rest of what Michael said in that comment:
I assume most here are atheistic materialists. Fine. However, the dilemma is yours. Why? Glad you asked. Materialistic determinism. Everything that happens, according to the necessary tenets of your creed, is a result of the properties inherent in matter. This would include all of your mental life – personality, memory, and perceptions. This would mean that all of your assertions are nothing more than expressions of an unrelenting matter/energy cascade.
The discussion started by Michael will be moved to this new thread.
Greetings all. I’m new here. I’m also a Christian.
I assume most here are atheistic materialists. Fine. However, the dilemma is yours. Why? Glad you asked. Materialistic determinism. Everything that happens, according to the necessary tenets of your creed, is a result of the properties inherent in matter. This would include all of your mental life – personality, memory, and perceptions. This would mean that all of your assertions are nothing more than expressions of an unrelenting matter/energy cascade.
In the true spirit of Christianity, shouldn’t you avoid making false statements?
Why assume? And what does that assumption have to do with whether ID is useless to science?
As far as I know, neither atheism, materialism nor determinism are creeds. And, incidentally, I am on record as being neither a materialist nor a determinist.
Welcome to The Skeptical Zone. May we hope that future comments you make here will contribute to a thoughtful discussion?
I’m going to guess that the concept of forming tentative conclusions based on carefully collected evidence, plays no part in Mr. Todd’s thought processes.
Neil,
I based my assumption on the somewhat uncharitable comments I’ve read here. Whether a person identifies him or herself as a Christian is a different matter. I can only make logical inferences based on evidence.
Why equate my assumption with a lie? If I mention to my wife, “I assume you’re going to your mother’s today,” she does not proceed to jump up and down and accuse me of spreading falsehood just because she is actually going to the grocery store.
And Neil, atheism and materialism are creeds. According to Merriam-Webster definition 2. A creed is: ” a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle.”
As far as determinism being a creed, if you go back and read my post you’ll see that I used the term “materialistic determinism” to express the concept of matter being the sole determiner for all thought. The overarching concept is that without an intelligent designer there could be no thought since “thought” would solely be material and thus predetermined.
In the spirit of trading gratuitous insults in lieu of thinking and conversing, I’d point out that a good many Christians believe in an omniscient god who knows the future. Which means all past, present and future is over and done with from the point of view of the omniscient diety, and any decisions we might think we are making are illusions and any suffering we might endure is a meaningless illusion.
But trading insults would be unChristian.
I didn’t. I suggested that it was false, not that it was a lie.
But if, after saying that to your wife, you were to rail about all of the terrible consequences of visiting her mother, she might be justified in thinking that you were criticizing her on the basis of false assumptions.
My point – don’t criticize others on the basis of assumptions that you make about them. Criticize what they say, where appropriate. But if you want to criticize on the basis of your assumptions, then you should be criticizing yourself.
There are no particular required beliefs, as far as I know.
What are the fundamental beliefs for those?
Of course, I disagree with those assumptions.
This is all way off-topic for the current discussion. We have a “Sandbox” thread for off-topic posts. I will be moving this discussion to Sandbox. But I will leave it here for a few hours, to make sure that you have time to see this before it is moved.
And that terrifies you, right?
Michael Todd,
Welcome.
Neil – rather than move to Sandbox, might this be given a thread of its own?
That’s an interesting suggestion. If you, or Michael, can think of a good thread title, I will do that.
Are we nothing more than expressions of an unrelenting matter/energy cascade?
And who cares?
For the record, theism posits that we are nothing but the unrelenting cascade of the deity’s will. Evolution is the only formalized worldview that postulates that “mere matter” learns from experience and is therefore accountable for decisions.
I suppose, since Michael introduced the subtopic, he might wish to distill its most important point. But it seems that under two broad (and not entirely unfamiliar :)) subthemes emerge: “atheism is a religion”, and – my suggestion for title – “The Dilemma of the Materialistic Determinist”.
eta: wha? Someone just whipped me ladder away!
I haven’t been keeping track of other people’s declared philosophy but I consider myself an agnostic realist. I also attack my boiled egg from the big end.
Welcome to TSZ, Michael. If you’d like to challenge our echo-chamber-thinking, you can author your own thread. Just log in and go to the dashboard.
A general response to Michael.
I don’t consider myself a materialist. That’s partly because there are things that materialists are said to believe, and many materialists agree with the critics. And I happen to not believe those. So best not to call myself a materialist. I suppose I am an evidencist (except I don’t think that there is such a word).
My other reason for not considering myself a materialist, is that we still can’t say what we even mean by “material” or “matter.”
The reason that I don’t consider myself a determinist, is that the evidence (such as from quantum physics) suggests that determinism is wrong as a thesis about reality. Moreover, it seems to me that biological organisms have some ability to amplify quantum level indeterminacy and to use that amplified indeterminacy to their own benefit.
First, I am honored to have my own thread title. I’m not sure what a sandbox is though. I hope it’s not like a litter box.
Michael Todd’s sneering swipe at “atheistic materialists” is nothing more than a backhanded way of asserting his presumptive sectarian moral superiority. Everything in his world view is a competing “religion” that is, by definition, vile, and morally bankrupt; having no moral compass or proper relationship with his deity. “Atheistic materialist” is a term used to demonize others for not having that “proper relationship” that he implies he has.
There is a single word for this kind of thinking; it is called bigotry.
One does not justify bigotry by pretending to elevate it to a level of “high-minded” philosophical rationalization.
The funny thing about bigotry is that it’s unconscious.
There’s a separate thread called “Sandbox” and a link to it on the front page.
We decided to make this a separate thread of its own, instead of putting in Sandbox.
You started a discussion that our members want to contribute to. We hope you will continue to participate.
What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.
But sandbox is an IT term for a scratchpad, a place where you can experiment with programming tools that might crash the system.
It’s also a classic way to disrupt a site by inviting retaliation. Better to give it its own thread.
Ok Neil, if “determinism is wrong as a thesis about reality” then are you saying that the indeterminism of quantum physics is? That may make for a convenient rescuing device of sorts but it only pushes the problem into the realm of conjecture.
Now (with perhaps the exception of Petrushka who doesn’t care[?]) I believe that most would agree that certain conditions must exist for knowledge to be. I merely used materialism as a convenient illustration.
Now Mike, are you saying that all views are equally valid except mine? That’s an interesting assertion, though hardly an argument.
However, I would like to discuss, amiably of course, such things as the basis for morals (I know, different thread) as well as knowledge. Although I consider my position to be correct, I do not consider myself morally superior. For the record I usually decline to use the word “religion” since it is limiting and carries a lot of baggage with it. I prefer “philosophy” or “worldview” or “outlook” since every cognizant person has one.
Indeterminacy of physics, gives us some apparent randomness. The homeostatic processes that we find in biological systems seem to be able to exploit that randomness to their own benefit. In my opinion, that provides the underlying basis for intelligent and apparently purposeful life. That is, it provides what you refer to with “certain conditions must exist for knowledge to be.”
You have been given the permissions to start a thread of your own. However, I suggest you wait for a while, so that you don’t over commit yourself. When you are ready, hold your mouse of the “New” on the front page, then select “Post”. You can probably find your way around from there.
Hmm, I will give Mike Elzinga permission to start a thread, too.
And yet in your very first post, your very first sentence identifies you in terms of your religion! You don’t identify yourself as (for example) a student, or a father. At AA meetings, people identify themselves as alcoholics because within the context of an AA meeting, that’s what’s important. Which implies that within the context of TSZ (which is, basing models of reality on replicable evidence and intersubjective verification), you consider your religious faith to be most relevant.
And THEN you continue by berating others here for (apparently) their failure to preach your religion, and for holding what you clearly sneer at as an inferior faith. You seem oblivious to the fact that science arrives at explanations understood and agreed to by members of ALL religions, so clearly religion isn’t what’s key here.
Whatever reality is, however it works, isn’t going to be BETTER understood by plastering buzzwords or slogans over it like “worldview” or “outlook” or “materialism.” Those labels are traps, mental excuses for not understanding the world around you.
I am not really a materialist or a determinist. At least not in the sense that Michael seems to be using these terms. But I’d like to know what Michael (or anybody else) thinks may be the problem with the assumption that knowledge may be the result of a matter-energy cascade?
I agree that there is nothing wrong with matter learning, even by entirely deterministic means. Computer programs can acquire knowledge by trial and error probing. It does not taint the knowledge that the means to acquire it are deterministic.
What is the alternative? Revelation?
How you got from my identifying you as an obvious bigot to that observation being equal to a claim that all views are equally valid escapes me; as it does everyone else here.
You appear to be flunking high school philosophy, basic logic, and reading comprehension. Seek a tutor somewhere else.
Mike, what is your definition of a bigot? Someone who disagrees with you? Funny that you co-opt the very serious and real problem of racial bigotry and superimpose in on the way another person views reality and his basis for morals and knowledge. So… instead of name calling, show the fallacy in my argument.
Petrushka,
Computers are not self-aware. To apply the term “learning” to a computer is not the same as to a person. And yes, it does taint knowledge if it is deterministic. Why? You may “believe” that 2+2=4 while I believe that it equals 5. Both conclusions are predetermined by material cause. Even empirical “evidence” relies on an accurate perception of reality. A deterministically induced thought can have no objective meaning.
Flint,
This whole blog is against ID. I’m defending ID (in a way). This is all about one’s perception of reality.
I have no interest in your “argument.” You don’t appear to even read, let alone think about, what you parrot.
Neil posted your taunts and sneering accusations TWICE; right at the top of this thread. Go read them; and keep reading them until you get it.
If “defending ID” means making ill-defined blanket claims that place oneself as morally superior to others, then your defense is right in line with theirs.
I’ll grant you will find the presumptions here that:
1) There IS an objective reality;
2) That reality is self-consistent;
3) That understanding of that reality is possible for people;
4) That procedures can be established that facilitate this
5) That using these procedures can help us distinguish what is real from what is not.
Note carefully one of the ramifications of these presumptions – that it is possible (a) for our perception of reality to be in error in some way; and (b) that misperceptions can be corrected to the satisfaction of those not married to theirs.
Statements like “a deterministically induced thought can have no objective meaning” sound like pure noise to me. I don’t have your working definition of “deterministic” or “induced” or “objective” or “meaning.” When I plug in MY definitions, this statement makes no sense at all. Let’s take a thought like “the sky is blue.” Is that thought “deterministic”? Is it “induced”? What the hell is “objectrive meaning”? Does it have anything whatsoever to do with the process of determining the causes of the wavelengths of visible light in the atmosphere? If so, what?
Actually, no, it isn’t.
What we are opposed to, are the claims that ID is science, and that it is sufficiently well developed science to warrant a place in the science classroom.
Most of us see ID as philosophy. And most of us have no problem with people adopting whatever philosophy they want for themselves.
Speaking only for myself, I would be delighted to see ID become genuine science and gather genuine supporting evidence, though I doubt that will ever happen.
An empiricist is a philosopher with appendicitis.
Neil,
What you are calling science has a philosophical outlook, i.e. you rely on certain assumptions such as memory and that your perceptions accurately reflect reality. Such assumptions are at odds with most worldviews. This is the essence of what I am arguing.
I don’t think this is correct. Science has established that our perceptions are notoriously unreliable. First, our senses are very limited. And second, our brains massage what comes in through the senses almost to the point of unrecognizability. Our perceptions are nothing more than convenient illusions.
Given this difficulty, how can we develop an understanding that approximates reality? It’s not easy, and much of the entire enterprise of science is devoted to this issue – things like controlling for variables, doing double-blind experiments, subjecting findings to peer review and the scrutiny of an often hostile scientific audience, looking for inconsistencies with other findings, seeking intersubjective verification, and so on. A difficult and rigorous process.
And of course, there are schools of thought where you simply assert your preferences, wabble about “worldviews”, claim all opinions are equal and evidence doesn’t matter, etc. And what seems to be a pattern is, those who operate that way ASSUME that science works the same! After all, it’s all they know.
I’ll just add that Flint has given an excellent answer. So I won’t separately respond.
I will take a moment to thank you for participating in a good discussion, with a positive tone.
Michael Todd is a presuppositionalist.
Thank god Michael is a more-decent person (on evidence so far) than Sye Ten Bruggencate.
I don’t know how I could stand it if I had to encounter a Sye Ten clone here.
In the true spirit of atheist materialism, why should anyone care whether statements are true or false? What does it even mean to say that a statement is true or false?
If that’s what an “atheist materialist” thinks, I confess I have never met one. I’ve never even met anyone pretending to be one on the internet.
Flint has it exactly right; the entire enterprise of science is a constant battle against anthropomorphizing, wishful thinking, illusions of the senses, authoritarian assertions, locked-in “philosophies,” and “obvious,” meets-the-eye conclusions.
The Sun doesn’t rise; the Earth rotates. The Earth is not the center of the universe. Everything that was “obvious” to humans living under the spell of long-held belief systems and superstitions turns out not to be true.
The post-modernist, sectarian pushers of this anti-science hogwash have – to a person – never learned about or experienced the processes and successes of the template of scientific thinking. Instead, they wallow inside their own authoritarian heads, spinning “philosophies” based on the kinds of superstitious thinking that dominated most of human history.
These are people who have spent their entire lives in jealous envy of the power and freedom given to those who have rebelled against and questioned authority; especially sectarian authority. They hate those who have developed the investigative skills and the humility of self-doubt that gives these individuals the courage to check things out and have their own perceptions and beliefs submitted to the collective scrutiny of other self-doubters and questioners of authority.
Ideologues hate it because it takes away their socio/political power. They demonize it as another competing “religion” or as an arbitrary philosophy. What they demonize and how they demonize it are projections of their own internal jealousies and hatreds. They believe about others what they see in themselves.
Furthermore, they refuse to look at the long, bloody history of their own sectarian wars among themselves. They never learn from the constant, paranoid splintering and divergence of “opinion” that perhaps they don’t know what they think they know. It is impossible for any of them to be wrong; and others had to die as proof that they were “right.”
In what possible way is the activity of science anything like the world of sectarian authority?
claps!
[Hush: Don’t tell Mike]
Why do you think that because someone does not believe in a sky god, that suddenly logic no longer applies to life?
Michael Todd:
So? That wouldn’t automatically make them wrong any more than it would automatically make them right. The truth of an assertion depends on its relation to reality, not on its provenance.
Suppose that you’re right that our thoughts are immaterial and nondeterministic. It is still possible for two people to hold contradictory beliefs, as we all know from experience. Human reason is fallible, period. All we can do is to use our fallible reason to figure out the truth to the best of our ability, as Flint explained.
Also, your assumption that ‘the Designer has given us the ability to think via immaterial means’ is itself a thought produced by your known-to-be-unreliable human cognitive faculties. You can be no more sure of its truth than a materialist can be sure of the truth of his or her thoughts.
Finally, even if you could be absolutely sure that our cognitive faculties were Designed, you still wouldn’t have a basis for assuming their reliability. What if the Designer had good reasons for limiting the reliability of human reason? What if the Designer was incompetent? What if the Designer is evil and actually wants us to be confused?
You’re in the same boat as the rest of us. You’re trying to figure out the truth using your imperfect cognitive faculties. You can check and cross-check, like we do, but you will never be certain that you aren’t systematically deceiving yourself — or that you aren’t being systematically deceived.
Who might point out that what we actually use are operational definitions of “material” and “matter” which are consistent, useful, and explanatory. Very little that we’re curious about understanding, rests on the precise nature of whatever “stuff” what we call matter might consist of.
Ghost of Descartes!
Maybe the two of you can help petrushka develop an operational definition of natural selection.
The blog was founded by someone who was banned from the ID blog Uncommon Descent.
Many of the members here were also banned from that blog.
Surely you can understand why the members would be against ID.
Neil Rickert:
Which fails to adequately explain the hostility to ID arguments that have nothing to do with whether ID is science or whether ID ought to be taught in science classrooms.
But if you’re speaking for “the blog,” how does this stance not violate the very fundamental requirements established by the blog’s founder:
Neil Rickert:
This again fails to adequately explain the outright hostility to ID so often in evidence.
Toronto:
Who said anything about logic?
I imagine people can believe in a sky god and still not have it follow that truth is something attainable or even worthwhile.
Propositions can be logically consistent and still not be true. I hope that’s not news to you.
What you need to do, but won’t, is account for truth AND logic given atheism/materialism. You know, atoms bumping against atoms in a world of nothing but chaos with no underlying reason or even a material cause.
But the way, add those to the reason I believe in ID. I just had not gotten around to them yet. There are just so many reasons, lol.
I repeat:
sez michael todd:
As far as anyone can tell, based on mass quantities of evidence (see also: the curious case of Phineas Gage, the reproducible-at-will effects of certain chemicals on how the human mind functions, etc etc etc, “all of [our] mental life” is “nothing more than expressions of an unrelenting matter/energy cascade”. Or, if you like, a human being is just a collection of atoms and molecules. Some people react to that proposition by rejecting it (“no, no, I can’t be ‘nothing more than atoms and molecules’!”); others revel in it (“yeah, and isn’t it freakin’ cool what ‘atoms and molecules’ can do?”).
I’m in the latter group, Todd. I think it is freakin’ cool what atoms and molecules can do. I think I, and you, and every other human being on the face of the planet, is just a collection of atoms and molecules, even if some of those collections insist on refusing to accept, or even acknowledge, the basic reality of their existence.
And I think I’ve never seen any no-no-I’m-not-just-atoms partisan come up with any actual evidence in support of their position. Bald assertions, fallacious logical arguments, falsehoods, and wishful thinking, yes; valid evidence, no.
You say life has no meaning if humans are just atoms and molecules? I say ‘meaning’ is a human invention, just as language and political parties and monetary systems are human inventions, so life has whatever ‘meaning’ we humans say it has.
You say existence is purposeless if humans are just atoms and molecules? I say ‘purpose’ is a human invention, just as language and political parties and monetary systems and meaning are human inventions, so existence has whatever ‘purpose’ we humans say it has. I would also commend this XKCD strip to your attention.