Over at UD Vincent Torley has absolutely shredded Lawrence Krauss’ performance at the debate the other night.
Ironically (given recent events here at TSZ), we find out that Krauss is a dishonest quote-miner.
The debate would have been a better one without Krauss, who generally behaved like a boor, and who engaged in deliberate dishonesty (see below).
From this statement, Krauss draws the totally unwarranted inference that the Center for Science and Culture thinks that “science is bad,” despite the fact that the previous sentence (which he omitted to quote) refutes that notion. This is a clear-cut case of quote-mining on Krauss’s part.
Torley’s comments are worth reading.
Thoughts on Krauss’ performance?
GlenDavidson,
Who can defend biology from an unguided evolution PoV?
I don’t think you understood what he was saying. But I could be wrong. Let’s see.
How did he attempt to justify the analogy?
That’s a pretty big if Gregory. But I appreciate that you allow that I may actually be able to think for myself and form my own opinions about things. Sometimes that doesn’t come through clearly in the things you say about me. 🙂
I have a fear of heights. I have a fear of death (I don’t want to die anytime soon that is). I have no fear that I have not in fact been born again. There are some things I could be wrong about but which I have no reason at all to fear if I am wrong about them.
Other things I don’t even think are worth considering that I might be wrong about. I wish you could be more specific, then I could perhaps give you specific answers.
So I say I never claimed he did not use a combination lock as an analogy and you quote me saying he used a combination lock as an analogy.
What is your point?
The fact is, “worldview” is not one of my words. It’s not a word I ever use, and I’ve never quite understood what it means or how to use it.
Of course there are — for me, for all of us — what might be called “bedrock” convictions: assumptions so centrally located in everything one thinks and feels that it is inconceivable that one might cease to hold them. (Wittgenstein calls them “hinge propositions” in On Certainty — we don’t notice them when we use them just as we don’t notice the hinges on a door when we go in or out.)
I’ve never denied having such ‘hinge propositions’, and likewise I’m quite forthcoming when it comes to talking about how hinge propositions are embedded in cultures, traditions, symbols, and languages.
However, I also think that in the vast majority of cases, we don’t find anything like a systematic, unified system of “how the world is taken to be” — not even implicitly. Rather, I think that all of us engage with our physical and social environments through a plurality of partial models that comprise a patchwork, with some overlaps and some gaps.
In other words, I think that something very much like cognitive pluralism is true. And if cognitive pluralism is true, then in one sense of “worldview”, there are no such things as worldviews at all.
Therefore, no evolutionist can make the case for evolution.
(To be fair to petrushka.)
If I understand you correctly, you are saying there are two versions of ID and that the DI tries to hide or suppress the fact that there is a kind of faith-based intelligent design that makes no claim to being scientific. This in spite of the fact that Meyer appeared onstage with Lamoureux.
Am I close?
Or is it the failure to spread the message that for Christians there is an alternative to the “scientific” version of Intelligent Design?
I guess I don’t notice because for me there’s never been any question about IDT being a relative newcomer. The historical path has been to argue using philosophy.
Or is it that the DI isn’t upfront enough about being a Christian apologetics institution?
I’m not afraid to explore anything to do with the DI. Not one of my fears.
I would seriously doubt that even Wittgenstein (I’m not a fan) actually held this.
Classically, philosophy begins by addressing your presuppositions – all of them. Someone who says “Of course there are — for me, for all of us — what might be called “bedrock” convictions: […] we don’t notice them…” is intensely anti-philosophical and passionately hates knowledge and wisdom.
Why,do you think nuance is your thing?
Apparently it can’t be a result of philosophical reflection that there are limits to philosophical reflection? That the quest that begins with critically reflecting on one’s presuppositions includes the realization that some assumptions lie beyond the scrutiny of reason? And this is precisely because of the fact that our cognitive powers are not infinite? That there is always more darkness just slightly out of the reach of the illuminating power of the good, no matter how far down we descend? That philosophy (and science) consists in the ability to put any claim in jeopardy, but not all at once?
I do think there is something basically right about the idea that Wittgenstein is an anti-philosophical philosopher (as indeed were also Nietzsche and Heidegger). But what makes them anti-philosophical by my lights is not their criticisms of classical rationalism or intellectualism, but that they do not offer a replacement or alternative to what they criticize. Destroying is easy. Creating is hard.
I do think, of course, that the philosophical life does involve testing and revising one’s prejudices as much as possible. That’s precisely why I’ve taken a keen interest in feminist epistemology and anti-racism recently — I need to know what information-containing, world-oriented perspectives I’ve been neglecting by virtue of my own race and gender.
I just think that there are real limitations to how far that project can go. For example, there are people who think that everything that happens while we are alive is ultimately ephemeral, a mere preparation for the Main Event that begins when one dies. I think that is not merely false but actually insane. For me to adopt that perspective would involve such a radical break in the structure of my personality that it would be as if I had become a different person. (I suppose this is why people talk about being “born again”.) There is no argument, no line of thought linking premise to conclusion, that could culminate in such a radical revision or inversion of my entire personality structure. I don’t think it is anti-philosophical to say that there are limits to what philosophy can do.
Just supporting your claim.
Ok. Let’s be honest. Who says this? Do you agree with it? And if so, why bother continuing to pander (& perhaps donate?) to the DI’s nonsense?
Right, so you admit this? Christians need not accept “Intelligent Design Theory”? If so, we understand each other, while you continue to waste time.
Anyone who has researched the DI, as I and many others here have, knows their ‘orientation’ (‘renewal of’…’wedge’, etc.). You seem to wish to associate yourself with the DI, don’t you Mung? It is a deplorable, even if well-meaning organisation.
Erik, the fact that KN appears to “hate knowledge and wisdom” derives from his Jewish atheism. It’s rather obvious, but this site welcomes it without identifying it.
That has yet to be shown. You walk, talk & argue like an IDist. This site is absurd already! Such a pitiful ideology IDism unnecessary that you seem to embrace. If you want to distance yourself, show your “own opinions”, then start a thread here that demonstrates that. So far, you’re simply a copy.
Gregory doesn’t like Mung. Does anyone know why?
Gregory thinks that Mung is a shill for the Discovery Institute. Gregory doesn’t like the Discovery Institute.
I’m not entirely sure why Gregory doesn’t like the Discovery Institute, but here’s a part of it. He thinks that the DI unwisely concedes too much to the prevailing “scientism” of Western culture. It does so by presenting the religious conviction that the ordered beauty and harmony of the world expresses the creative goodness of its Creator as if it were a legitimate scientific theory.
A good deal — though not all — of Gregory’s work is based on Sorokin’s thesis that societies can be classified “according to their ‘cultural mentality’, which can be “ideational” (reality is spiritual), “sensate” (reality is material), or “idealistic” (a synthesis of the two). He suggested that major civilizations evolve from an ideational, to an idealistic, and eventually to a sensate mentality.”
As Gregory sees it, scientism (alternatively: materialism, naturalism, atheism) are just different versions of Western civilization’s descent into the decadence of the sensate mentality, which is disenchanting and dehumanizing. The Discovery Institute appears to fight against this — see the Wedge Strategy — but in doing so, they seem to be fighting against materialism by conceding everything to scientism. Gregory does not think that this is conceptually coherent program.
I don’t think Gregory actually dislikes me. In fact, I can only think of one person here who I would say actually dislikes me, and that person is on ignore because all he has to offer is insults and lies.
I chose to not believe in free will but my choice was constrained by my passions,proclivities, desires and knowledge etc.
That is pretty much the case with all of us.
Thanks
When I get it up and running you will be one of the first that I ask to help me give it a go
peace
I’m not crazy about how you look in khakis, if that’s relevant here.
I’m always open to honest discussion. I welcome it. I have nothing to hide about what I think of things.
Yes, I agree that there is a kind of faith-based intelligent design that makes no claim to being scientific. (I hope that’s what you were asking.). It’s one of the reasons I read books and articles by Feser and other critics of Intelligent Design. It’s one reason I explore scholastic philosophy. I’ve done a fair amount of reading by critics of Intelligent Design, both atheistic and theistic. IOW, I am not blind to alternative steams of thought.
I do support the DI because I think they provide a valuable service (well, that should go without saying. Why else would I donate.). If you know of an organization that is spreading an alternative view of intelligent design that is worthy of support I’d be interested in knowing who they are.
If it helps, I think of you both as practically the same person.
Yes, I’m a giver.
Glen Davidson
Did you retract that offer of a spanking? Or were you hoping someone else would hand it out and you’d just watch? Sick walto.
Absolutely. They are not required to believe it qualifies as science and they are not required to believe that the only variant of intelligent design is one that depends on science.
Man, these tests get easier every day! Don’t they at least have to believe that if you have a rosary on your bedpost and you die in that bed you go straight to heaven and don’t even have to confess anything?
And what about the monkeys?
Edit: Maybe it has to be a scapular?
A friend pointed out that my claim about bedrock convictions above is ambiguous between:
(1) There are, at any one time, bedrock convictions that escape critical reflection.
and
(2) One’s own given bedrock convictions always escape critical reflection.
I hope that my clarification above indicates that I meant (1), not (2).
Ok, so we are agreed (even erase your waffling ‘a kind of’). And this spells the welcome death of IDism, even if you don’t yet see it. Not the fantasy/empty death that atheist anti-theists imagine, mind you, but nevertheless an end, a limit that the DI won’t yet acknowledge, which you are now free to integrate.
I am absolutely willing to look at alternatives. Recommend some books or authors. As I said, I am trying to become more familiar with the thinking of the scholastics, but would appreciate something more recent. What’s out there for the common man?
Should I give up trying to debate atheists because they are just too irrational?
Have you read Hart’s The Experience of God? I think you’d really enjoy it. Personally I thought he was deeply unfair to naturalism, but he did an excellent job of articulating what classical theism is and how the New Atheists fail to understand it.
Would you care to summarize?
Thanks. I have not read it but I probably would enjoy it.
As you might expect, I have read his Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
😉
KN, to Mung:
John:
Sounds like a good topic for an OP, KN.
If I’m to write an OP, I’d rather do it on books (or ideas) that I think are true, or likely to be. Hart’s book is interesting and I think Mung would like it, but I regard it as too deeply flawed, philosophically and methodologically, for it to be worth spending much time on.
At present I’m reading Tomasello’s new book about the evolution of morality. I might do an OP about his two recent books together once I’m done with it.
That was actually quite helpful, thanks.
My own grudge is against theists who assert that because an atheist doesn’t accept church authority, he or she hasn’t thought about religion, or doesn’t stand in awe of existence.
This isn’t theology or philosophy. It’s tribalism.
Not to say there aren’t tribal drum thumpers among atheists.
So no, then. It’s a bit annoying to be told “you don’t understand”, even at second hand, by someone who won’t explain.
No, I don’t dislike you, Mung. But I abhor KN and his philosophistic bullshit disguised as clever.
Even if that means you might have to drop IDist ideology as ideology and openly acknowledge the duplicitous strategy promoted and actualised by the Discovery Institute? Are you really that willing?
I do see your point, of course. It was not conducive to intellectual discourse for me to make a claim that provocative and then refuse to back it up. I apologize for that.
The thing is, even though I think Hart is largely right about the New Atheists, and also Hart is a delightful writer, I found myself disagreeing with pretty much everything he said. I think his characterization of classical theism is methodologically sloppy from a sociology of religion perspective, his criticisms of naturalism amount to attacks on a strawman, and at several key points in the argument he conflates phenomenology and metaphysics.
In short, it’s a train-wreck.
Despite my agreement with him about the New Atheists, I am philosophically opposed to Hart’s entire project, and if I’m going to put the energy into an OP, I’d rather do it for a book or paper that I think is intellectually productive or promising, rather than devote it to a project I oppose.
Yes, I agree.
On the other side, how fraudulent can a philosophist be? As KN’s said here, he’s a Jewish atheist. What more need be said of the contradiction?
The DI is intentionally duplicitous. And I’ve seen this from the inside (which no one posting here has experienced). Enough? I don’t ‘dislike’ them. But I certainly disagree with their methods and character.
Since KN uses such language as “As Gregory sees it…” should he be confronted with falsely putting words in people’s mouths? It is doubtful any ‘skeptic’ here will hold him accountable.
As KN has said he sees it (in his ‘naturalist’ worldview) there is no Creator God. His ancestors were ‘liberal’ Jews, while he is now an ‘enlightened’ atheist. Is that the length of his ‘naturalism’, the death of the dead and the lack of life in the living?
Sorokin was indeed an amazing thinker and person; one of my mentors. He makes Ayn Rand look like an atheist brothel burger. But KN rejects Sorokin’s main thesis (just as he rejects Hart) to instead embrace skeptical atheism, spurning the faith of his ancestors. Sorokin was indeed a great scholar, while KN is simply a pretentious regurgitator of Wilfrid Sellars & his atheist ‘morality’.
That’s too deep for most ‘westerners’ to grasp, o devlish kn! ; ) Sell them decadent atheist Judaism here instead & you’ll be safe from argument. Wink, nudge!
No, that’s not a contradiction.
You should get out more.
Kantian Naturalist,
All you have to do here is just summarize your claim. It doesn’t have to be about Hart at all. To whit: “what classical theism is and how the New Atheists fail to understand it”, which you have managed to do twice now. Won’t you just satisfy my curiosity, briefly?
I’ve stated a few times that as long as IDT arrives at the conclusion “therefore designed” but stops there, it will not be accepted as science. I am not under any illusions about this.
To put it more plainly, I am dissatisfied with “therefore designed,” full stop. As such, I am continually exploring either alternatives to IDT (e.g., classical theistic philosophical arguments) or ways to follow “therefore design” with something more.
I am sympathetic to the argument of Perry Marshall.
Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design
As far as whether the DI employs a “duplicitous strategy,” I am willing to listen to what you or anyone else has to say. I was not born at the DI and the DI is not my baby. But until I have a compelling reason to stop, I continue to support them.
Can people be tested for Jewish DNA? I wonder if I have Catholic DNA and am just a very confused Protestant.
John Harshman,
Since I opened up the door on this one, I think that’s a perfectly fair request. I’ll get to it either today or tomorrow.
Everyone here knows I am not a YEC, which I think is both scientifically and theologically misguided, along with being irrational, right?
I am also a Christian, and therefore a Theist. As such I reject Deism.
So given that, what are the alternatives when it comes to the origin, history and diversity of life? I fit somewhere in there. 🙂
Mung,
Sure. Just look for the Y chromosomes that have their ends clipped off.
If you do not accept the Bible as authoritative on science history, there is no reason to doubt the consensus of science on anything.
There’s no harm in being open to new data and new interpretations, but there hasn’t been any “paradigm breaking” ind physics and chemistry since about 1928, and nothing earth shaking in biology since 1940.
Lots of details have been added, and lots of new information about how things work, but nothing that would shatter Darwin’s view of the history of life.
It’s possible to just go by the evidence.
If that’s not acceptable, what difference does it make whether it’s YEC, ID, or Last-Thursdayism?
Glen Davidson
Life is too short. Sometimes it’s better to say no and just do what you want to do. But it’s up to you.
The problem here is that the history of science is chock full of the overturn of the prevailing scientific consensus. In fact, one could argue that science is about overturning the consensus.
O.k. so we’re on the same page. Does this mean, however, that you are still looking for ‘strictly scientific’ evidence of the ‘Intelligent Design’ of the natural world? Otherwise, what criticism of the Discovery Institute’s ideology are you really willing to make?
As I said above, even as a non-fan of Lamoureux, he ‘won’ in the debate highlighted in this thread over Meyer. He was simply honest and open, while Meyer continues the DI’s historical duplicity. I know this, Mung, because I was there, for a week in Seattle, and asked the hard questions.
They cannot answer to the distinction that Lamoureux made, which seems to have started with Owen Gingerich, that every Abrahamic theist already accepts lowercase ‘intelligent design’, i.e. we believe that the world was created by God, but that we can ‘faithfully’ reject the scientistic ideology of the DI, which insists that uppercase ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ is a (focus on the wording carefully) ‘strictly scientific’ theory. Torley ran away from me, refused to engage on UD, when I pointed this out to him. For Torley, uppercase ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ *cannot* be abandoned for any reason if one is to remain a Catholic Christian.
What about for you & your (Protestant) Christianity: can you possibly reject ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ and still remain a (Protestant) Christian? If so, how? Will you attempt to articulate this?
Once you acknowledge this is indeed possible, it’s time to drop your support for the Discovery Institute’s ideology. Otherwise you put science above faith, embracing scientism unwisely.
You are aware that ethnicity & religion signify differently, yes?
One cannot be a Catholic atheist, Protestant atheist or Muslim atheist, but one can be a Jewish atheist. Nevertheless, indeed, many a ‘confused Protestant’ constitute the ‘community’ of IDists, gathered around the Discovery Institute’s ideology.
GlenDavidson,
Yet your position doesn’t have any evidence