November 26, 2009

  • Charlie Self and the Pro Debate at Skepticon 2

    Intro: 

    Dr. Charlie Self is a minister who participated in the Pro-debate at Skepticon 2 and he has posted his opening statement and written up his follow up thoughts in a post called, "My Debate with Atheists at MSU." 

    Self said in his opening:

    I am a regional signer of the Williamsburg Charter, a celebration of the genius of the First Amendment.  The first sixteen words therein ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") allow people of all faiths or none to live peaceable with there deepest differences, even while we debate them passionately.

    That is definitely the world I'm fighting for.

    My Cowell College motto at U.C. Santa Cruz is, "The pursuit of truth in the company of friends." I hope that I make some new friends of all persuasions today.

    That is also the type of atmosphere on my blog I seek to promote as well.  Having sustained and recurring egotistical feuds while not advancing any genuine discussion is recipe for internet misery.  One can have a hundred heated and unpleasant conversations with "enemies" or several pleasant conversations with friends.  Easy choice.

    Agreements:  

    Self says:

    Many sane and informed people embrace theism.

    I agree.  I imagine theists feel the need to say things like this because they are on the receiving end more often than not of "in your face" atheism that tends to merge criticism of beliefs with something that sounds suspiciously like an ad hominem characterization of the person who they believe is wrong. 

    Self declares:

    My opponents have argued that there is no proof for the supernatural and that there are millions of proofs of natural phenomena; therefore there is no need for God. In response I will only say that just one unexplainable miracle invalidates reductionist naturalism. Carrier argues that supernatural phenomena are so scarce and so improbable that they are not worthy of wasting time on. Come with me to Africa, meet some Bishops with Ph.D.'s who are dealing with the supernatural everyday and see if your world remains the same!

    I agree.  It seems to me we shouldn't be bothering with a debate when in reality responsible supernaturalists (if there is any substance to the claims) should be taking us on safari and bringing the accountability of the rest of the scientific community with them to rigorously test the claims and settle the dispute for everyone.  That kind of behavior would move this debate to an entire new level rather than having someone drop a drive by anecdote on us like we haven't heard claims like this before.  And really, there's hardly a reason to even respond to all the back and forth on the rest of the issues here if this would happen.  We should be going to Africa to see some real magic.

    Self rightly says:

    The limitation of our knowledge is a call to humility.

    I agree.  However this call to humility should not be a smokescreen for pride in their theistic conclusion.  We should not be humble in order to conclude God, we should be humble whether we are able to conclude God or not.  There is a such thing as agnosticism.

    Self notes: 

    I think our advances in knowledge are wonderful, but the explosion of knowledge in our Internet Age has not transformed our character, ethics or relational abilities.

    I agree.  And that's why having these conversations about understanding morality in non-supernatural terms are so important to our growth and maturity as a culture.

    Clarifications:

    Self summarizes (and slightly misrepresents) Richard Carrier's argument:

    Dr. Richard Carrier has asserted that given enough time, all we experience is or will be explainable by natural processes and that we do not need any supernatural intervention.

    Stated like that makes it an argument to the future which is logically fallacious.  Carrier is taking into considerations the success of naturalistic explanations in the past and the complete failure of supernatural explanations and making a probable inference to the success of natural explanations in the future in areas where we have incomplete knowledge.  I don't think Self called this an "argument to the future" and so plausibly he means to say what I've said here, but just in case, I thought I would clarify.  If not, that would be a straw man.

    Self says:

    Dr. Stenger claims that he has "proven" mathematically that something can come from nothing. But "nothing" is not really nothing and there was quantum tunneling that produced a "spontaneous phase transition" that kicked off the evolutionary process.

    There is a great deal of incoherent talk on this issue from the atheistic side.  Unbeguiled in the comments says:

    [Stenger] is fully aware, by the way, that what he calls "nothing" is not absolute nothingness.

    I noticed this as well.  What Stenger seems to not be aware of is that he spends way too much time talking about his something version of nothing which has nothing to do with anything relevant to these discussions.  It should be a footnote at best, it isn't, and that's confusing.

    Disagreements:

    Theistic Coherency vs. Paradox

    Self says:

    Before I give my remarks, I must say clearly that theists do live with paradox and that we do not have tidy answers to all mysteries. I like the thought of Bishop N.T. Wright when he says that we cannot fathom why evil exists, why (in the words of G.K. Chesterton, a "sneer was found in the universe" at Satan and humankind's rebellions) evil exists, but we believe that God in Christ is overcoming evil and that God invites us to partner in the healing and reconciling process.  [emphasis mine]

    But then goes back to his opening statement:

    Theism is a coherent and intelligent worldview that continues to animate human life with meaning and purpose. Many sane and informed people embrace theism.  [emphasis mine]

    It seems there is some misunderstanding about how "coherency" and "paradox" relate to each other.  At best, I would say by admitting Christians live with fundamental paradoxes it seems to follow that they don't really know whether their worldview is coherent or not.  That would mean that we are assuming by "paradox" we mean "apparent paradox."  At worst, they've admitted their worldview isn't coherent, but then they say it is anyway.  Either way, Self's opening statement is inaccurate. 

    Absolute morality?

    Self says:

    The thoughtful person's cry for justice, in the words of N.T. Wright, is one echo of the divine voice that seems universal and is not reducible to biology. The companion to this cri de coeur is our capacity for altruistic action and sacrificial love. The moral argument remains compelling. From C.S. Lewis to Francis Collins, the road from atheism to theism is paved with the query, "Why do I know there is a moral law?"

    The fact that there are people who have damaged physical brains who do not "cry for justice" refutes the universal assumption.  The mere assertion that "moral law" is not reducible to biology is just an assertion.  Why can't we be hardwired for moral behavior (even if we are not)? 

    No moral facts?

    Self says:

    Atheist Kai Nelson said, "Pure, practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality."

    One of the other theists on the panel, Zach Manis explained how Richard Carrier grounds his moral facts (with two is's to make an ought) and so the atheist Kai Nelson does not represent everyone. 

    Genetic Selfishness vs Altruism

    Self says:

    R.Z. Friedman declares, "respect for persons and survival of the fittest are mutually exclusive."

    If group cooperation is what is being selected for, team players who respect each other will be the ones leaving more offspring.  My question at the debate was going to be:

    7.  Why can't survival sometimes entail group cooperation?  Does the saying "together we stand, divided we fall" have no practical implications?

    A Naturalistic Foundation for Morality?

    Self says:

    Atheist Richard Carrier's best grounding for morality: "You should be moral because you will be happier as a moral person overall than if you become another sort of person."

    There doesn't appear to be a response to this.  One imagines the argument is that it is not grounded enough.  Has that been demonstrated?  Or just asserted?

    Here are some relevant questions I wanted to ask:

    9.  Why should we believe a Christian could convince Hitler to not go all Hitler on the Jews?  And why didn't you lose this debate according to Godwin's law?   

    10.  Does your moral theory pass Richard Carrier's "desire based" test?  Can you pitch the Christian moral paradigm without founding it on desires?  If you can, then why should we care about it?  If not, then why are you criticizing Carrier's view?

    Beauty and Creativity Therefore God?

    Self says:

    Our love of beauty and extravagant creativity is another pointer to God.

    Sophisticated apprehension of the environment plausibly requires systemic oil in the machine of the mind.  Despots of mesmerization constrain mental routes of profitable attractions. We are attracted to the ideal, and to certain aesthetic principles that plausibly have practical mental advantages.  Once the language of experience is established in mechanical terms, having various types of "grammar" makes a lot of sense. 

    Creative and abstract thinking, if selected for at the right juncture in mental history may just be what took our species over the tops of some of our more cunning competitors.  To get so good at it in a robust and versatile way enables all sorts of indirect applications.  I'm sure there are many engineering principles that do not explicitly relate to immediate survival (but still necessarily support that goal in a particular selective context) which exist all over the body in various ways as systems supporting other systems.  The things going on in the mind are just the most bizarre and noticeable examples of that.

    Mechanical Minds?

    Self says:

    By the way, the "hard problem of consciousness", raised by our own Dr. Ojakangas, was never answered by the atheists.

    I don't recall the phrase, "x solves the hard problem of consciousness" but I do recall Carrier elaborating on how color for example is dealt with in a physical sense and explaining that he sees no reason not to expect everything about our experiences to be explained as our body of knowledge grows. 

    Self says:

    Our spirituality and capacity for supra-rational experiences is another reflection of God. We cannot reduce the ineffable dimensions of life to mere neurons.

    Here are some more of the questions I wanted to ask at the debate that relate:

    3.  How does the "hard problem" of consciousness account for the success to the solution of the "easy problem?"  In other words, if magic is the solution to the hard problem, why do we even need to have an organ that is "miraculous in complexity?"  And is that why you left your brain on the table there?  :D

    4.  What do you think the end result of something like Henry Markham's Blue Brain project will be?  Will all of those zillions of processors working together just not end up doing much of anything?

    6.  Isn't qualia, if magic, only proof of qualia?  If God as an ad hoc arbitrary entity that exists as is for no reason whatsoever with its bizarre magical properties is kosher, then why not just qualia as a slightly supernatural worldview?  The debate is whether or not God exists, not whether or not something supernatural exists.

    Origin of Order

    Self says:

    Information does not self-assemble and the apparent absence of evidence (for God) is no the same things as the evidence of absence!

    Replication, genetic drift, and competition are what enable natural selection to cultivate genetic information for building the next generation of organisms.  To claim that information does not self-assemble is to challenge the fact of evolution.  And at this point, Self's argument is only an assertion.  If it is true that science is being respected and hasn't overturned God, then it seems to follow that the theory of evolution contradicts the assertion that information does not self-assemble. 

    Inexplicable Christian Behavior?

    Self says:

    Atheist Matthew Parris, after watching religious relief workers in Malawi, commented on their sacrificial compassion, that it "confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit into my worldview and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God."

    Not every atheist shares Parris' ideological confoundment, explanatory dislocation, and epistemic embarrassment at the lengths people will go based on false beliefs.  Who would have guessed that 14 Muslims would have flown 2 airplanes into our buildings based on the mistaken notion they were going to get a rewarding Islamo-afterlife?  Why would Buddhists set themselves on fire in peaceful protests if reincarnation was false?  Humans are capable of all sorts of things based on what they believe to be true (regardless of whether they are or not) that can result in really positive or really negative behavior.  My claim is that faith is a wild card that prevents us from working together as a society, and not that it will always result in the worst possible behavior.  Since my knowledge of human behavior turns on observed behavior and not on what theology contrives about our species, none of this is outside the bounds of mere extension of what I understand human psychology to be capable of.  

    Ad Hominem Corner

    I could have blasted Self for a number of inappropriate remarks I think he's made in his post and speech and characterized all the things I believe he got wrong in light of them.  However, I think it is more appropriate to show where we agree, clarify some things, and stick to disagreements while allowing for the dignity of merely being honestly mistaken.  As I'm going to show, I'm not sure that courtesy has been extended in reverse. 

    Self says:

    I agree with A.N. Wilson that theism is a "deeper, wiser, more rounded" perspective.

    Apparently atheism is a shallow, foolish, and myopic position?  ;)   We might give Self the benefit of the doubt given some of his more charitable comments and positions, but it seems he doesn't mean to say that atheism is "deep, wise, and somewhat rounded."

    For instance he also says:

    Interestingly, after I gave my presentation (which is given below), the only remark Dr. Stenger gave was, "Nice words, but no proof." He missed the entire point of my work - but that is to be expected of folks who live in the small world of scientific naturalism.

    As I've pointed out, Stenger has his own ad hominem under his belt (he indignantly told a theist panel with scientists on it to "read a science book"), but in his defense, he portrays creationism as a science that has failed (rather than as non-science as if often the case), and has stated that the door is open to supernatural evidence while giving obvious examples of what would change his mind.  So perhaps Stenger is somewhat of a dick about it, and perhaps he lives in a small world, but incidentally it seems he has an honestly small world that doesn't include it being infringed upon by the supernatural.  Whose fault is that?

    Self says:

    ...the nationally-known circuit of militant naturalists campaigning against religion in general and Christianity in particular.

    Is there a reason we can't call them "outspoken" naturalists?  The pen really is mightier than the sword, eh?

    Self says:

    The atheists could not resist attacking Christianity while we kept the debate focused on the topic.

    Christians argue for the existence of a particular god and so it makes sense (to some extent at least) to address Christian theism in particular since that kind of God infringes on reality in ways deism does not.

    Self says:

    The atheists have no good answers (except to attack religion) when theists contend that it takes as much - or more - faith to believe that something can come from nothing as it does to believe in a Creator.

    That is a gross mischaracterization of the atheist side of the debate.  I'm sure many atheists could say the opposite (especially after reading my evaluation of the disagreements):  "The theists have no good answers (except to attack naturalism)..." and I don't think that would strike Self's ears in a pleasant way.  Each side is currently set on their conclusions and it isn't fair to say that what they believe are "good answers" either way are not explicitly based on mere disgust or hatred of an opposing view.  It's just more complicated than that and exaggerating because we don't accept another person's conclusions doesn't facilitate communication.

    Self says:

    In the end, the atheists resorted to attacking God for not preventing evil and even calling Jesus "immoral"! They love to shoot down the Bible and Jesus and ignore the gaps in their thinking.

    The atheists were not making a personal attack against a deity they do not believe exists.  Is there no such thing as a conscientious objector to the morality of a worldview?  If one is not to evaluate a new worldview for quality control in terms of its morals, wouldn't that be negligent?  Are Christians admitting they are simply uncritical of their moral paradigm? 

    Self says:

    Dr. Victor Stenger considers belief in God a failed hypothesis, and that religious people have been indoctrinated. A fully liberated and thoughtful person will choose atheism if given an opportunity free from the debilitating effects of family and religious communities. (A note here to Dr. Stenger: you will be much freer when you are liberated from the narrow confines of scientism)

    This particular entry will be more about Stenger's ad hominem than Self's.  Obviously Self is an example of someone who wasn't indoctrinated into the faith and I'm sure his intro was calibrated to point that out to the Stengers of the world.  I've noted his uncharitable (and false) rhetoric in the past, so I can't fault Self for bringing it up like this. 

    Self says:

    Our opponents want to invalidate all transcendent experiences, reducing them to epiphenomena of our biology and environment.

    Actually many atheists are quite open to transcendent experiences.  Sam Harris would be a notable example.  They are merely more honest with how far they can take the interpretation.

    Self says:

    Our opponents see chaos, randomness, violence and waste in the evolutionary process and state categorically, "There is no God." Theists look at the same evidence and say, "What a wonderful but fallen world we live in."

    When evaluating the proposition "There is an all powerful, supreme moral being overseeing reality," naturalists rightly emphasize the negative column.  If Christians admit they "cannot fathom why evil exists" in context of the most moral entity ever then how can they possibly fault other people for arriving at a more coherent conclusion?  On ordinary terms, I'm sure many naturalists appreciate our imperfect world for its wonders in addition to the recognition of the room for improvement.  We don't have to be pessimists.  

    Self says:

    The best atheism can offer is faith in science and some notion of an accidental, random cosmos.

    The best atheism can offer is the best reality has to offer.  False hope is no hope at all and it seems rather frivolous to fault a worldview for only being able to fork over what is true.  Does this prove that Christians are secretly trying to advocate make believe?  tsk tsk

    Outro: 

    I hope this was a worthy contribution to the pro-debate.  :D

    Ben

Comments (21)

  • Hello! This is Charlie Self. I appreciate your incisive comments and you do expose some occasionally facile statements that at least need clarification and expansion. In particular, you point out that agnostics and atheists are open to transcendent experiences and that naturalism is not as reductive as some make it - and I apologize for the universal implication of a particular critique of Carrier and Stenger. My comments from atheists are not gratuitous, but illustrative of their respect for theists. 

    I will study your remarks further and stay in touch - there is too much we can accomplish together to not keep refining our thinking!
    Happy Thanksgiving!
    Charlie

  • @drcharlie - Happy Thanksgiving!

  • "Carrier is taking into considerations the success of naturalistic explanations in the past"

    Like Lamarckism? Like junk DNA? Like the steady-state universe? Carrier is naively optimistic. If he were a historian of science, he would know better. I recently posted about atheist philosopher Mary Midgley's article about "evolution as religion", which deals with the Spencerian (progressive) aspect of Carrier's claim.

    "That would mean that we are assuming by "paradox" we mean "apparent paradox.""

    One meaning of "paradox" is a "situation which defies intuition". That meaning would allow for a coherent, though paradoxical, worldview.

    "Once the language of experience is established in mechanical terms, having various types of "grammar" makes a lot of sense."

    More naive optimism? Where's the beef? Assuming a scientistic perspective, which you do, only a scientific explanation is meaningful. Without a mechanism, there's no science.

    "Replication, genetic drift, and competition are what enable natural selection to cultivate genetic information for building the next generation of organisms."

    You're out of date on your biology. Genetic drift has been discredited by the evidence against the junk DNA hypothesis. Replication often leads to reduced viability. How does competition help natural selection? What does your statement mean? Of course, your statement lacks a mechanism yet again. Just-So stories don't constitute mechanisms.

    "And that's why having these conversations about understanding morality in non-supernatural terms are so important to our growth and maturity as a culture."

    I think that you're overreaching here. Necessity is hardly warranted. I recommend "may be important".

    "Why can't we be hardwired for moral behavior (even if we are not)?"

    I think that you would have to show a mechanism in order for this claim to be considered. Any mechanism should be discoverable.

    "If group cooperation is what is being selected for"

    Where's the mechanism?

    "You should be moral because you will be happier as a moral person overall than if you become another sort of person."

    You're right in your criticism of Carrier's assertion. However, there's another problem. "Ought" does not force "is."  Our selfish desires may prevent our doing of the "ought", even though it's in our best interest.

    "To claim that information does not self-assemble is to challenge the fact of evolution." Sorry, begging the question isn't a real argument.

    "Apparently atheism is a shallow, foolish, and myopic position?" Illiteracy alarm! Self's reference, Wilson, used the comparative form of the adjectives. Since the question is one of comparison, that is not an ad hominem!!

    "Self says:

    ...the nationally-known circuit of militant naturalists campaigning against religion in general and Christianity in particular.

    Is there a reason we can't call them "outspoken" naturalists?"
    Main Entry: mil·i·tant
    Pronunciation: -tənt
    Function: adjective
    Date: 15th century
    1 : engaged in warfare or combat : fighting2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative
    I think that the second meaning applies. I would prefer "crusading" myself. It's more effective rhetoric and doesn't overreach.
    "Actually many atheists are quite open to transcendent experiences.  Sam Harris would be a notable example."
    But was Sam Harris on the panel? And what was the debate topic? Did the atheists on the panel have to defend scientism?
    "Are Christians admitting they are simply uncritical of their moral paradigm?" Were all Christians on the panel, or only Self? Does Self necessarily speak for all Christians? Might other Christians disagree with Self about a point or two?
    My main criticism of your post is the overreach in claims about evolution and your lack of currency about biology. I noticed that you're attempting to be fair-minded. That is admirable. I found Self to generally be cautious rather than overreaching, which is especially wise in a debate. It's encouraging to see someone of Self's caliber out debating. By way of contrast, Ray Comfort is embarrassing.

  • @soccerdadforlife - Hey Tom.

    "I noticed that you're attempting to be fair-minded. That is admirable."

    Thanks.  :D

    "I found Self to generally be cautious rather than overreaching, which is especially wise in a debate. It's encouraging to see someone of Self's caliber out debating."

    I agree actually and that should be evident from other things I've said in this post.  He's much more tame than most theists out there and I greatly appreciate that.  The "Ad Hominem Corner" section represents only the places where he's still lacking, imo.  If no one points it out, that doesn't help anyone.  He is of course free to clarify anything I may have taken wrong.  It's not my intention to point fingers, but rather facilitate understanding and implications. From his response above, it seems he might understand that.

    "By way of contrast, Ray Comfort is embarrassing."

    I'm glad you think so.  Equally embarrassing to the evolution side is how much time is spent on him as though there aren't more intelligent versions of creationism to engage.  I actually asked PZ Myers at Skepticon who he thought was the "top of the barrel" and I think he said Kurt Wise.  I wish he would have focused on his arguments instead in his presentation since Comfort is too easy to pick on.

    "Illiteracy alarm! Self's reference,Wilson, used the comparative form of the adjectives. Since the question is one of comparison, that is not an ad hominem!!"

    Not sure if you read carefully enough, since I did acknowledge the possibility of comparison in subsequent sentences and then explained why I thought Self was going too far with other quotes. Please re-read.

    "But was Sam Harris on the panel? And what was the debate topic? Did the atheists on the panel have to defend scientism?"

    The debate topic was, "Does God exist?" and no, Sam Harris wasn't on the panel.  I don't think any of the atheists were defending scientism.  They were defending that science works though and has legitimately infringed on the Christian version of the God question.  I've had discussions with JT in the past and I know he's open to transcendent experiences (he's a big Sam Harris fan).  I know from Carrier's writings and background in Taoism that he is interested as well.  I doubt Stenger is terribly interested, but I could be wrong.  I'm interested.  I've had some amazing experiences in the past.  So of the 5 atheists in the two debates, 3 appear to qualify.  The point isn't to be "against" the experiences or to deny they exist, but rather about how to understand them and what the mind is capable of in naturalistic terms.  That mentality is rarely fairly represented by theists who deeply believe the experiences correspond to literal supernatural phenomena.  It's worth pointing out.

    "Sorry, begging the question isn't a real argument."  And, "Might other Christians disagree with Self about a point or two?"

    Well all three Christians on the pro-debate panel seemed to be theistic evolutionists (though I'm not entirely sure), so might I not be begging the question in context of Christians who disagree with you?  ;)   If they accept evolution, I'm not going to waste time arguing for evolution.  I'm going to use it to point out their inconsistency.

    "You're right in your criticism of Carrier's assertion. However, there's another problem. "Ought" does not force "is."  Our selfish desires may prevent our doing of the "ought",
    even though it's in our best interest."

    To clarify I wasn't criticizing Carrier's position.  I was pointing out the lack of a theistic response to it from Self.  Carrier's position is that two is's make an ought that it is the only way to get an ought.  Oughts naturally entail goals.  If it is the case that you want x, and it is the case that doing y gets you x, then you ought to do y.  Then, according to Carrier, it's just a matter of figuring out what humans genuinely want most out of life all things considered (even if that is communion with God).  And I agree.

    No one has bothered with the challenge questions yet that I think will show Christians are necessarily in the same construct.  *sigh*

    "Like Lamarckism? Like junk DNA? Like the steady-state universe? Carrier is naively optimistic. If he were a historian of science, he would know better."

    I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that Carrier somehow thinks every conceivable naturalistic hypothesis has always turned out to be correct.  That's a straw man and a red herring since obviously he's talking about the set of all successful scientific explanations being entirely naturalistic.  Say there are 500 naturalistic guesses and 500 supernatural guesses and only 250 of the naturalistic ones get verified.  Carrier's point is that there are zero supernatural success stories. Naturally I'm sure you disagree, but (and not to be a jerk, but) you don't represent the scientific mainstream either.

    I know I've skipped about 7 or 8 other points of yours.  This is already long.  Let's see if we can make some headway on the less contentious matters?  If that goes well, we'll dive into the rest.

    Ben

  • @WAR_ON_ERROR- I've had some amazing experiences in the past.

    I'm interested to hear about them.

  • Hi Ben,

    "I wish he would have focused on his arguments instead in his presentation since Comfort is too easy to pick on."

    Yeah, I've noticed that Myers only goes for the low-hanging fruit. Nobody engages Kurt Wise, Jean Lightner, Paul Nelson, or some of the other YECs anymore. There's money in engaging ID, but not YEC. YEC is considered disrespectable. The YEC movement has seriously neglected philosophy and I've been fighting with other YECs about that issue. Most of them are "scientists" and really ignorant about philosophy. It's not restricted to YEC scientists, of course. I've seen plenty of philosophical ignorance in Myers and Dawkins. But the YEC arguments need better philosophical grounding in order to strengthen them. Wise is opposed to my defense of skepticism of deep time chronological methods--maybe on the grounds of his personal career? Anyway, I hope to have a couple of philosophy of science papers published in CRSQ next year.

    Regarding the comparison issue: "We might give Self the benefit of the doubt given some of his more charitable comments and positions, but it seems he doesn't mean to say that atheism is "deep, wise, and somewhat rounded."" I disagree. That position is quite compatible with Self's statement. OTOH, I have read some atheist critiques of atheism along the lines that it is psychologically unsatisfying--of course, that is old news, and maybe some more satisfying philosophy has been done.

    Thanks for giving more context about the positions of the atheists and theists. You're correct about the inconsistencies of theistic evolution. On that point, many atheists and YECs are in agreement.

    "I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that Carrier somehow thinks every conceivable naturalistic hypothesis has always turned out to be correct."

    The point is, "How will Carrier ever know that the current hypotheses won't be overturned in the future?" If he is agnostic about that, his point fails.

    "Carrier's point is that there are zero supernatural success stories. Naturally I'm sure you disagree, but (and not to be a jerk, but) you don't represent the scientific mainstream either."

    And, likewise, not to be a jerk, you don't understand how irrelevant the opinion of the "scientific" mainstream is, since you are out of field in philosophy of science, while I am not. Although I don't have credentials in PoS, I have read extensively in it and am competent in it to some degree. Check out my arguments and see for yourself.

    Scientists study natural phenomena, not supernatural phenomena. Hence, when it comes to supernatural phenomena, they are out of field. Even if we consider natural phenomena only, such as the Lucy fossil, of what value is the opinion of physicists about that? Or chemists? What about geneticists? They are all out of field. Only anthropologists are in field, so the huge weight of "scientific" opinion gets whittled down substantially. Carrier is an historian, not a philosopher, so it's easy to beat him up in philosophy, as he makes many egregious errors. He needs to stay in field.

    Let's suppose that you think that scientists can study supernatural phenomena. Which field of science should do so?  Molecular biology?  Physics?  What?

  • @LSP1 - There are two experiences in particular worth mentioning. 

    The first was a time at FCA camp during their worship events.  The entire crowd was somehow captivated by the drama on stage and the singing and I was caught up in it as well.  I think it was the only time in my Christian years where I expressed an explicit and powerful emotion of "no doubt" in response to the Christian message.   

    The second was actually a long period of time over perhaps several months while I was in college.  As I recall I'd recently moved out of the campus dorms and into an apartment with some friends, and I was perpetually in a semi-euphoric state.  Everything was amazing.  I could sit and stare at my hand and giggle about virtually nothing.  It felt amazing and I was incredibly happy.  I've never felt the presence of God, but I associated the experience with my idea of the "divine romance" that Christianity is supposed to be.  I gave God credit anyway. 

    Some of the things I've heard monastic are able to cultivate for themselves seem plausible and are of interest to me.  For instance what is it like to actually completely detach your inner experience from a sense of "self?"  I imagine I would never want to go all the way with that, but knowing how they do it might mean using some of it to improve one's experience to some meaningful degree.  The human mind is apparently fairly plastic and I'm always interested in knowing what all people have discovered they can get it to do with enough time and attention. 

    Ben

  • @WAR_ON_ERROR - Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

  • @soccerdadforlife - 

    "Nobody engages Kurt Wise, Jean Lightner, Paul Nelson, or some of the other YECs anymore."

    I would really like to see the bar raised to respectable conversations.  That's what I at least will be doing when I have time to work on my creation/evolution series.  I don't agree with the bigotry campaign against creationism as though giving it attention contributes to the problem.  That is simply not an educational strategy.  I want to see the best arguments against the best arguments and that will in turn shame the low-hanging fruit on both sides.  

    "OTOH, I have read some atheist critiques of atheism along the lines that it is psychologically unsatisfying--of course, that is old news, and maybe some more satisfying philosophy has been done."

    I agree that atheism isn't explicitly satisfying any more than aunicornism is particularly satisfying.  As I understand it, studies show that people who have strong beliefs and a supporting community are the most satisfied in life regardless of whehter that is associated with religion or not.  Typically religion just has the market on that.  I've just recently started visiting the St. Louis Ethical Society and was fairly impressed.  It is different feeling strong community in support of my current beliefs.  It's been a while.

    "Thanks for giving more context about the positions of the atheists and theists."

    Welcome.

    "The point is, "How will Carrier ever know that the current hypotheses won't be overturned in the future?" If he is agnostic about that, his point fails."

    It's an inference to naturalism.  Carrier uses the horse race analogy where if we had two horses and one of them ran in a thousand races and never lost, and another ran in a thousand races and never won, which horse would make sense to wager on in the next race?  In a strict sense he's agnostic about future discoveries, but in relation to competing views, shouldn't everyone be agnostic about future discoveries?  I don't see how that helps the supernatural side who has to say, "we have nothing and we don't know if we ever will" vs. "we have a whole lot, and don't know necessarily that we'll have more later."  

    "Scientists study natural phenomena, not supernatural phenomena. Hence, when it comes to supernatural phenomena, they are out of field."

    Since there are numerous Christian supernatural claims that would have naturalistic effects, those areas have been studied and haven't created any kind of scientific consensus in favor of them.  The efficacy of prayer.  Witches with real magic powers.  Praying in tongues (as in discernible languages).  Faith healing.  Creationism.  Flood geology. Etc.  The Christian worldview infringes on the world science can and has studied.  If the scientific consensus had come down in favor of the reality of those things, are you telling me that would be "irrelevant" to you?  Really?

    Ben  

  • @LSP1 - No problem.  I've also had rather powerful hallucinations of being attacked by demons and even gnomes.  I've blogged about those in the past. 

    Ben

  • @WAR_ON_ERROR - I remember the gnome blogs but I don't remember the demon ones. I've had a few dreams, or nightmares, where a demon is choking me to death and I'm rebuking the demon in Jesus' name. Not fun.

  • @WAR_ON_ERROR - "Carrier uses the horse race analogy where if we had two horses and one of them ran in a thousand races and never lost, and another ran in a thousand races and never won"

    That's simply false, as I pointed out. Science has a track record of false theories. Fallibilism is my point and Carrier ignores it. There is no reason, based on fallibilistic induction, to think that Carrier's future scenario will ever happen or worse, that we can ever have any justification for thinking that we have arrived at Carrier's future scenario because of the problem of fallibilism.

    "If the scientific consensus had come down in favor of the reality of those things, are you telling me that would be "irrelevant" to you?  Really?"

    Really! Don't you get it that I don't subscribe to scientism? The "scientific consensus" is mere opinion as they are all out of field. You should agree with my conclusion about irrelevancy, though for different reasons, it seems to me. Or don't you subscribe to methdological naturalism any more? Am I mistaken in thinking that you did?

  • @soccerdadforlife - 

    "That's simply false, as I pointed out. Science has a track record of false theories. Fallibilism is my point and Carrier ignores it. There is no reason, based on fallibilistic induction, to think that Carrier's future scenario will ever happen or worse, that we can ever have any justification for thinking that we have arrived at Carrier's future scenario because of the problem of fallibilism."

    I'm pretty sure I agreed with your points and I reformulated Carrier's line of reasoning to reinstate his point.  I assumed that you would understand that, but I guess you didn't acknowledge the validity of my correction.  Not sure why, since it's pretty straight forward, imo.  What's the point of also talking about science's ability to correct itself (as Carrier and many naturalists often do) if they believe it is never wrong?  *sigh*  

    The horse analogy is an analogy.  It has the limitations of an analogy.  As I said, I think very few people would jump to the conclusion that Carrier's use of that particular analogy entails a denial of something like inductive fallibilism.  I imagine Carrier's response to inductive fallibilism would be very similar to how he responds to the Cartesian demon scenarios.  If we are completely fooled by the demon, we can at least talk about getting our theory of that consistent delusion more correct than the next guy.  The horse analogy is explicitly pitched as a *gamble*, and not an absolute proclamation as Charlie Self seemed to imply in his retelling.  That's why I was correcting Self, not Carrier.  Are we good on that?

    Once everyone agrees that all our knowledge could in principle be false, if we are going to bother with the "inductive knowledge game" at all, one has to gather who is at least in a better position to be more likely correct given those assumptions.  Carrier's analogy works on those terms and reflects that naturalism is more likely going to fill in our current gaps of knowledge than Christian theism in the future.  He would admit he could be wrong, but one is going to be hard-pressed to give him a good reason to go with something else.  

    "Really! Don't you get it that I don't subscribe to scientism? The "scientific consensus" is mere opinion as they are all out of field. You should agree with my conclusion about irrelevancy, though for different reasons, it seems to me. Or don't you subscribe to methdological naturalism any more? Am I mistaken in thinking that you did?"

    I subscribe to methodological naturalism because of A.  considerations like Carrier's horse analogy (as I've explained above), B.  it is capable of coming to supernatural conclusions that infringe on the natural world, and C. because even if I were already a supernaturalist, it would be epistemically responsible to reasonably eliminate unknown natural explanations first.  So at its best when properly understood, it works for all ends. 

    Metaphysical naturalism as a worldview is understood by folks like Carrier and myself to be perpetually provisional and subject to revision.  That doesn't mean we don't work with it in the meantime or defend its merits as is against competing worldviews.  It just means we are honest with the natural weaknesses of human knowledge.

    You seem to be of the persuasion that "scientific consensus" entails that every field of science is queried for a popularity vote on a given consensus issue rather than being a consensus of experts *in a given field of inquiry*.  For example, I was under the impression that the scientific consensus on global warming was a consensus of *climatologists*.  Not physicists, not biologists, and not paleontologists, etc.  Their opinions don't count as far as I know.  I don't know why you would think otherwise.  I also don't happen to know how climatologists proved humans are partially responsible for global warming, but I'm pretty sure I can't do better. 

    Some questions for you so I understand where you are coming from:

    1.  Is there no reasonable way to respect the conclusions of science without going overboard and having to tack an "ism" on the end?  Why can't we just call it a healthy respect of science?  Or rather, what would a healthy respect for science look like from your perspective? 

    2.  I'm also curious how your version of fallibilism works with YEC?    Does that somehow dovetail into the necessity of God's opinion like that kind of thing tends to do in other theological schools of thought? 

    3.  The way you use fallibilism seems a lot like pyrrhonic skepticism.  Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't see what the point of "creation science" is in that event.  You can't just use it to take down the evolutionary sciences.  How do you pull off a positive case for YEC while being consistent in that regard? 

    4.  Am I correct to say that you don't expect any of the Biblically endorsed supernatural claims (that I listed at the end of my previous comment to you) would have naturalistic effects we could test in the natural world today?  

    Ben

  • @WAR_ON_ERROR - "Once everyone agrees that all our knowledge could in principle be false"

    I would agree that a lot of theories could be false, though I think that those which are tested daily by our technology have a good chance of being partially correct. I think that degree is important here. Yeah, it's skeptical about fallibilism.  But my point is that the gamble may never pay off one way or the other. Essentially, it's meaningless from our current perspective. And the handicapping is all wrong. Other than those things, I have no problems with Carrier's conjecture.

    "naturalism is more likely going to fill in our current gaps of knowledge than Christian theism in the future"

    What gaps? Gaps in theology?  I guess that naturalism might fill in a few there...

    "I subscribe to methodological naturalism because of A.  considerations like Carrier's horse analogy (as I've explained above), B.  it is capable of coming to supernatural conclusions that infringe on the natural world"

    A and B are contradictory.

    "You seem to be of the persuasion that "scientific consensus" entails that every field of science is queried for a popularity vote on a given consensus issue rather than being a consensus of experts *in a given field of inquiry*.  For example, I was under the impression that the scientific consensus on global warming was a consensus of *climatologists*.  Not physicists, not biologists, and not paleontologists, etc.  Their opinions don't count as far as I know."

    Well, you're moving away from scientism at any rate. I asked a question before which maybe you can answer now. Exactly which field of science is equipped to study the supernatural, being as, according to your view, all fields are constrained by methodological naturalism which precludes the study of the supernatural and precludes the possibility of phenomena being produced by supernatural entities?

    I think that you must admit that you are in the vise of a reductio.

  • I want to go on the record that sometimes I overgeneralize about naturalism. Thank you for pointing out some of my less qualified comments.

    This said, I will still suggest that naturalism does not answer all issues and that science is not infallible (the comments above on fallibilism were appreciated).

    The other issue worth debating is the evidence for spiritual/supernatural experiences that are not reducible to natural explanation. I admit the possibilities of defects and self-deception, mdeical conditions and psychosomatic experiences; however, intelligent, rational, sane people over a long period of time have been revolutionized by encounters with God.

    The subjectivity of experience cannot be the only verifying factor for theism, but it is worthy of more than Stenger's dismissals.

    Thanks for thinking and caring -

    Dr. Charlie

  • @soccerdadforlife - 

    "A and B are contradictory." 

    I don't know why you think that.  Methodologically testing naturalistic explanations first because they have been successful in the past (and declaring a provisional worldview based on the lack of any successful supernatural explanations) is perfectly compatible with eliminating the possibility of natural causes of potential supernatural phenomena by testing naturalistic explanations first.  Notice the whole x=x thing going on there where my view isn't contradictory as you've claimed. 

    Ben

  • @drcharlie - 

    "I want to go on the record that sometimes I overgeneralize about naturalism."

    No problem.  We all do it.  It's just sometimes our collective exaggerations add up to an impasse that isn't really there. 

    "The subjectivity of experience cannot be the only verifying factor for theism, but it is worthy of more than Stenger's dismissals."

    His way of doing things works "better" for the atheist choir, I agree.  I don't know what he hopes to accomplish.

    "The other issue worth debating is the evidence for spiritual/supernatural experiences that are not reducible to natural explanation."

    Sure.  What kinds of things would you put in that category? 

    Ben

  • Hello Ben! I am jammed with project till January, so I will resume serious dialogue then. I have had the honor of interacting with intelligent folks who have experienced conversion, illumination, and personal transformation without Christian pre-conditioning and sometimes not even "looking" for God or faith. I baptized a Persian doctor (name anonymous so his family is safe) who came to faith throughb the compassion work he saw around the world as a member of Doctors Without Borders. One night a man came to my office and asked to be baptized because he has received three visions of Christ, even though he was not a believer and had never been in a church. Please understand - this is not final proof, but another pointer to God. Of course people of all sorts of faiths have experiences and discernin g the false from the true, the products of a mind from transcendent ones is not always easy.

    As an apologist my point here is the human experience of unexpected phenomena (qualia?) that are n ot reducible to neurons.

    Have a Great Season - Merry Christmas from us - and a wonderful Winter Soltice as well!

    Charlie

  • @drcharlie - I'm sure there are plenty of people that have spent most of their life not knowing how to view the universe and themselves in it. there are probably people out there that vaguely considered themselves agnostic or atheist too. I can see these people experiencing what you call conversion, transformation... into Christian belief.  They will probably describe the experience as spiritual and lifting or undescribable. They are presented with this point of view that there is something that loves them all the time and there is a beautiful afterlife if they love and believe in that something in return.

    Did you know that MRI's have been taken of people during a spiritual or religious experience? Certain neurons on active during a spiritual experience that are probably not active while someone is doing math or reading. Hence, spiritual experiences can be, i would say strongly associated, but we can also say translated by or reduced to neurons.

  • @drcharlie - No problem.  I'll be around.  I'll probably stop by your blog, too.

  • @lalalandsucks4ever - I think that they would say that even though religious experiences would have neural representation, that doesn't mean they don't refer to objective realities any more than having neural representation of experiences with real people means the real people don't exist. 

    Ben

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment