tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post5028587228586765267..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Natural and supernatural againRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-34252527137671954472009-07-05T20:10:48.168+10:002009-07-05T20:10:48.168+10:00Hello Russell, I found many useful points to plagi...Hello Russell, I found many useful points to plagiarise!<br /><br />In your comment<br /><i>. . . it may (or may not) be possible to define the natural as "that which acts regularly"</i><br /><br />I'd suggest that what we now know from Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science (eg Quantum Mechanics, Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, Zero-Point Fluctuations, nuclear decay, Turing and Church on non-computability, Chaos and Complexity Theory) that there would be a limit on "acts regularly" to perhaps only a Newtonian-mechanical subset of nature? To paraphrase "nature is weirder than you can imagine!"Peter Ozzie Joneshttp://web.csse.uwa.edu.au/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-84314595894227926132009-05-21T07:31:27.497+10:002009-05-21T07:31:27.497+10:00I have changed my mind, in a big way.
Russell Bla...I have changed my mind, in a big way.<br /><br />Russell Blackford Wrote:<br /><br />---"That, however, does not prove that gods, ghosts, demons, astrological influences, etc., don't exist. Nor does it show that they can't be studied by science."--- <br /><br />---"It leaves open the question of whether gods and ghosts exist, for example. If they do, then it suggests that science can deal with them."---<br /><br />The bottom line really:<br /><br />---"In short, you can't determine what sorts of things do or do not exist, or what sorts of things can or cannot be studied by science, simply by definitional fiat."---<br /><br />I also agree with Steve Zara, I'm no longer going to use the word "naturalism" or "supernaturalism".<br /><br />"Supernaturalism" can be amendable to science, I get it now. The God question is open to science. We can determine if a God exist with science. <br /><br />I have come to believe in a God now. <br /><br />I see by saying that science concerns itself with natural phenomena only was a mistake, I didn't get the parts about definition. Science can verify a God, which means God could be shown through science to be part of reality. This even goes for what happens here on earth, if a "supernatural phenomena" is confirmed, then we have evidence of God! <br /><br />Also, if we can accept "naturalistic" cosmological hypothesis' about eternal space, infinite regress of finite events, infinity etc., then question about who created God seem moot. Eternal space is thought of as possible energy etc, but no idea how things got started. So, we are possibly left with "I don't know", but don't know about what (?), possibly existence of an eternal feature of reality, infinity? <br /><br />I don't think we can know the mind of an Immortal, Omnipotent etc. God (we may have better knowledge when we die). We have claims made by imperfect humans, but here again, there's no reason to assume God would create perfection, that would be trying with a human brain to know the motives of an Immortal, Omnipotent God. I don't actually know the exact characteristics of God (how could I) however, being Immortal and Omnipotent seems highly reasonable. <br /><br />The God Question is A Scientific Question, too!<br /><br />"Supernatural phenomena" are within the realm of science! <br /><br />Science CAN study the "supernatural"!<br /><br />The "supernatural" is falsifiable!Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-90196117955687194652009-05-21T07:25:41.139+10:002009-05-21T07:25:41.139+10:00(Sorry, I've been too busy of late to attend to th...(Sorry, I've been too busy of late to attend to this thread, so if Windy doesn't respond it can't be assumed he couldn't, just that he though the long lay-off meant I had quit.)<br /><br /><I>If "apparent consistency" means that there is no regularity apart from the sheer force of will of some superbeing holding everything together, then that will is the consistency. Since an omnipotent being doesn't need to do anything it doesn't want to do, we can infer that it has a motive to impose consistency. Furthermore, this motive would be mostly consistent in time. (unless the superbeing is faking our memories about a consistent past, but then it would have to do so consistently...</I>)<br /><br />No, what I meant by apparent consistency in this context is the possibility of "miracles" that could not be examined because a) they occur within the <I>vast</I> majority of events within the world that we do not/cannot observe and that 2) we could not distinguish after the fact from statistical noise. I seem to remember an article on Panda's Thumb a while back that pointed out that the total number of mutations that had to occur since the last common ancestor of humans and chimps that would be sufficient to account for their present differences was under 1,000, and that would be within the combined populations over the 8,000,000 years since they diverged. Given that my question of how we could distinguish a random point mution from a miraculous one remains unananswered, and given the (I suggest) impossibility to detecting such interference statistically, even if we could get over the problem of determining what the "natural" course of evolution would have been without such interference, the apparent "consistency" of the universe might just be that ... apparent.<br /><br />If you accept the "butterfly effect" view of the complexity of cause and effect in this world, a being with infinite computational ability could be determing outcomes in our world by interfering constantly in the world in ways we could not detect.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-55653619263676546812009-05-20T11:48:48.186+10:002009-05-20T11:48:48.186+10:00"But of course some claims about supernatural..."But of course some claims about supernatural events (in a perfectly familiar sense of the word "supernatural"), e.g. the claim that the world was created by God 6000 years ago, are not only falsifiable but actually falsified. This claim only becomes unfalsifiable if you add the additional claim that God created the world in a pre-aged state so that it looks billions of years old, but not all religionists do that. Even if some do, there are obvious reasons not to take such a claim seriously."<br /><br />All the reasons boil down to methodological naturalism. The only way you can conclude young-earthism is against the evidence is by assuming, consciously or not, that some unfathomed power beyond the natural stuff you know about hasn't monkeyed with things. <br /><br />Basically, without such assumptions, nothing is testable against data. So the justification for methodological naturalism is that it is necessary for testability. All of the imaginary counterexamples people spin up basically work by taking something that is culturally "supernatural" and naturalizing it such that it follows all sorts of physical & psychological rules. But actual proponents of e.g. creationism/ID typically specifically refuse to provide any such details about their proposed creator/designer. Therefore their proposals are untestable. Methodological naturalism keeps that sort of pointless angels-on-the-head-of-pin theologizing out of science, and I think that is a good thing.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-52436350655203165372009-05-19T11:27:00.000+10:002009-05-19T11:27:00.000+10:00---"luke seems really bothered about something, bu...---<I>"luke seems really bothered about something, but I don't know what, so I'll just respond to John...</I>."---<br /><br />That seems extremely appropriate, since you're operating completely outside of science and have instead enter head first into fantasy land.<br /><br />I'm sure you find such "thought experiments" to be very useful.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-67791071834613492942009-05-18T19:16:00.000+10:002009-05-18T19:16:00.000+10:00Wow, luke seems really bothered about something, b...Wow, luke seems really bothered about something, but I don't know what, so I'll just respond to John...<br /><br />"The obvious thing that a being with unlimited powers and unfathomable motives might do is create a world exactly like <I>this</I> one but that operates with only <I>apparent</I> consistency."<br /><br />And what would "apparent consistency" be, exactly? I don't believe you have thought through all the implications of this. If "apparent consistency" means that there is no regularity apart from the sheer force of will of some superbeing holding everything together, then <I>that will</I> is the consistency. Since an omnipotent being doesn't need to do anything it doesn't want to do, we can infer that it has a <I>motive</I> to impose consistency. Furthermore, this motive would be mostly consistent in time. (unless the superbeing is faking our memories about a consistent past, but then it would have to do so <I>consistently</I>...)<br /><br />In this scenario, we would be mistaken about why there is consistency, but we would not be mistaken to infer that consistency exists.Tuulihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139693087141113292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-19769555029786883072009-05-16T22:32:00.000+10:002009-05-16T22:32:00.000+10:00Windy:
Er, I know you are joking, but that's your...Windy:<br /><br /><I>Er, I know you are joking, but that's your example of something a being with unlimited powers and unfathomable motives would do? Walk on water? Sorry, but that's incredibly lame..</I>.<br /><br />Yes, it would be ... if I wasn't joking. The obvious thing that a being with unlimited powers and unfathomable motives might do is create a world exactly like <I>this</I> one but that operates with only <I>apparent</I> consistency. Its motives, being unfathomable, might lead it to make the universe mostly consistent but with exceptions that we also could not determine the reasons for. <br /><br />In short, the consistency we cannot expect from such a being is the consistency of its motives (that we can anticipate from, say, human beings as a <I>group</I>) but which can be expressed in any and all results, given its unlimited abilities. <br /><br />The level of consistency with which the world, from our perspective, appears to exhibit, is not <I>evidence</I> that it is always consistent (Hume's Problem of Induction again). Therefore, <I>some</I> level of consistency in the world is not, logically, a critical test of the existence of a being with unlimited powers and unfathomable motives.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-3616442748313252052009-05-16T00:14:00.000+10:002009-05-16T00:14:00.000+10:00Ready? From the top of the slide...
(I'm skipping...Ready? From the top of the slide...<br /><br />(I'm skipping the thin stuff of ghost, but anyone who wants to bring it up, feel free and we'll whack it around)<br /><br />1. Supernatural - immaterial mind<br /><br /><I>"We can't study its physical substance, of course, if it has no physical substance, <B>but we can study its powers, its behaviour, perhaps its motivations</B>. Its non-physicality <B>may limit the conclusions we can draw about it</B>, but as long as enough is asserted about what it does we can certainly <B>study whether there is evidence for or against the claim that it exists</B>.</I>."<br /><br />Is what is asserted verified, or are they just claims about a "immaterial mind" (i.e.- are we testing natural phenomena to verify the claims - the "mind" itself is already said to beyond studying the "physical substance", makes sense since it's "immaterial", no?)? But, we are told we can possibly study this "mind" and perhaps its motivations (or the potential to verify the existence of an "immaterial mind"). Then we are told we can test the "supernatural", since the "mind" is defined as "supernatural", but what are we testing (we are testing natural phenomena claimed to have been the result of an "immaterial mind")? And here is the leap of faith, why if we test and discovered this strange phenomena do we assume it is an "immaterial mind" - the claims? What do we have to make that conclusion, of course Russell added that we are "limited" to what conclusions we can draw. Well, isn't one of those an idea that we may be dealing with a natural phenomena and have absolutely no idea about an "immaterial mind" (outside of claims that there is such a thing)? <br /><br />The "theory" then is that an "immaterial mind" is behaving in ways that are testable, but we are not testing the "immaterial mind", we are testing the claims to nature that are said to be attributable to the "mind". However, we have nothing in the hypothesis to tell us its correct, we are simply going on the claims without offering other possible hypothesis. In this way how do we develop a theory, in the scientific sense how do we propose to test the theory of an "immaterial mind"? How can we falsify the existence of an "immaterial mind" which we are limited to draw conclusions on.<br /><br />Russell gets one thing right in part 1: "it is not beyond science to examine any claims at all about the supernatural." - as long as he makes clear not to confuse the claims with what science does. Science does not concern itself with the "supernatural", it makes NO use for the "supernatural" or Gods hypothesis. <br /><br />There have been no claims regarding the "supernatural" of the "immaterial mind" behaving in ways that are scientifically testable that have been verified, the claims to nature are what have been falsified or verified, the "immaterial mind" that can do stuff and which we can't draw conclusions on, is still not testable or falsifiable (at least at this point). The behaving "immaterial mind" as an entity on its own is not something science would propose, but people may claim it, it is meaningless in the scientific sense to propose a theory of a an "immaterial mind" without thinking ahead of how would one test, verify and falsify the "immaterial mind". (hey look, flowers bloom in the spring - well of course, that's the act of the "immaterial mind")<br /><br />Of course, what we could do is say, well, we don't need to falsify the "immaterial mind" based on these strict parameters, because we have subatomic particles randomly coming into existence (i.e. they are called “uncaused” because they are random - but QM makes empirically testable predictions that have a materialistic basis). Well, guess who else plays that game...<br /><br />So, how do you test, falsify a completely "immaterial mind" (has no physical substance), that has "powers" and motivations? Is it a scientifically reasonable hypothesis? Isn't there always a way to distance the purely "immaterial mind" with powers from science? <br /><br />See, we can test the claims of supposed "supernaturalism", but what science is doing is testing the natural phenomena that is purported to have "supernatural causation". We are then offering other explanations, always naturalistic, of the purported claims regarding what is actually beyond nature as currently understood. We can say, sure it's possible, it's possible we survive after death, it's possible that Gods, Ghost, Demons, Gremlins, Tooth Fairies, Russell's Teapot, The countless Gods of our ancestry, and what ever else is proposed is possible. <br /><br />In the end, the hypothesis; An 'immaterial mind' without any physicality or embodiment, has no physical substance and has power to interact with the physical world and possible motivations is NOT a testable, falsifiable scientific theory. It's not what would be considered scientific. Of course the rebuttal may be, well I'm not proposing a scientific theory... (hopefully you see the problem there) A thought experiment run amok perhaps, bad philosophy or a religion perhaps. <br /><br />Under that guideline of supernatural, science is not studying the supernatural. Only the claims said to be attributable to that supernatural "mind". <br /><br /><I>"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt."</I><I>"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."</I>Next, 2Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-92187513002147603452009-05-15T14:37:00.000+10:002009-05-15T14:37:00.000+10:00I want to point a few things. I do this because I ...I want to point a few things. I do this because I can't believe how hard it is to get this across. <br /><br />Russell is only stating the problem of vagueness in the word "supernatural" depending on how one defines it (though, I'd like anyone to show me where I fell into that trap - in fact I've been "dogmatic"). Second, he does define "supernatural" into existence with his mind that lacks both physicality and embodiment. He's saying if this "mind" interacts in ways we can verify, then this "supernatural" thing is scientifically testable. He brought the "supernatural" into existence by definition and made it amendable to science (he's using an example - based on? anything in reality?). <br /><br />It's this simple Windy...<br /><br />A Russell breakdown:<br /><br />1.Supernatural - immaterial mind.<br />2.Supernatural - whatever is not natural<br />3.Supernatural - can't be studied by science<br />4.Supernatural - god and ghost<br /><br />1. may be amendable to science if its testable and verifiable.<br /><br />2. gods and ghost can be natural (defining natural - whatever exist) - we are told this can't prove gods don't exist.<br /><br />3. the supernatural cannot be studied by science.<br /><br />4. ghosts and gods cannot be studied by science<br /><br />Defining as 3, then saying 4 is "equivocation on the word "supernatural"(could be same in reverse). <br /><br />Of Gods and Ghost:<br /><br /><I>"That, however, does not prove that gods, ghosts, demons, astrological influences, etc., don't exist.</I>"<br /><br /><I>"It only shows us that if ghosts (for example) do turn out to exist,</I>" <br /><br /><I>"If they do, then it suggests that science can deal with them.</I>"<br /><br /><I>"It leaves open the question of whether gods and ghosts exist, for example.</I>"<br /><br /><I>"on one definition of "the supernatural", it is not beyond science to examine any claims at all about the supernatural."("If a "supernatural" mind has the power to interact with the physical world")</I>"Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-77835143767971592412009-05-15T12:20:00.000+10:002009-05-15T12:20:00.000+10:00You know, I'm not sure if this is worth it, so I'l...You know, I'm not sure if this is worth it, so I'll play your part.<br /><br />You say: "I don't know", "I don't have to say I know the character of a God, only that you can't say it doesn't exist simply by defining supernatural and supernatural to mean nonexistent." <br /><br />Ok, is that what you want to say?<br /><br />We can keep it movin....<br /><br />Oh yea, well you're the ones who keep bringing up Gods and Ghost, you must have some idea if you give them possibility and say science is to restricted by saying it concerns itself to natural phenomena only, and has nothing to do with "supernatural" and then label Gods or other beliefs "supernatural" and come to find they're real. Then of course we can scratch our heads in defining natural, or just give up on the words natural or naturalism. Of course, we can't define out of existence what we don't know exist or not, well, I'm not the one bringing up God. All I'm saying is the God question is not amendable to science, science has NO use for the God hypothesis (what we do is refute the claims to nature and also supply naturalistic explanations for supposed "supernatural" claims"). Describe a God where I'm wrong, then we'll see what God it is you keep referring too, there must be something rattling around yer heads about this God you keep bringing up. What is it that you seem to think is likely to exist at least to some level, though you really don't think it exist, but you say to yourselves that the scientific way is to say, sure it's possible, can't rule it out, God could exist, sure, like the flying spaghetti monster (heeehoohoo), but you still don't recognize that it's a philosophical error to claim that science can refute the supernatural. We must be persuasive but not goofballs, any kid could keep coming up with ways to make the claims untestable.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-43429176609025526192009-05-15T10:39:00.000+10:002009-05-15T10:39:00.000+10:00I want to add to my comment - my add is the second...I want to add to my comment - my add is the second paragraph. <br /><br />Let me make a note at the end here, that if you describe this God as how it is commonly understood, then what we know of reality changes, science will not matter if that God is discovered by any means, in fact we may not know the means to which that God could be discovered, it could be means that only that God knows. Of course, you could say, how do you know that... well, describe this God Russell mentions...<br /><br />BTW, even if the God exist, how do you know science can deal with it? How do you know reality is what it is and science is a true reflection of that reality if that God exist? Describe the God and we'll think about that...Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-30013770357980396982009-05-15T10:33:00.000+10:002009-05-15T10:33:00.000+10:00Just to be clear, the formatting had messed up a b...Just to be clear, the formatting had messed up a bit when I published the comment. Russell's quote that ends; <br /><br />---"That's equivocation on the word "supernatural""---<br /><br />Is separated from what follows in my comment. It does not directly follow, I had them clearly separated, this was not something I meant to do, it is a formatting thang.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57629635934012250042009-05-15T10:28:00.000+10:002009-05-15T10:28:00.000+10:00Windy,
-"I'm not sure you have understood what Ru...Windy,<br /><br />-<I>"I'm not sure you have understood what Russell, I and others have been getting at with our thought experiments. Nobody's trying to 'define the supernatural into existence'.</I>."<br /><br />Yes, I know, it's so complicated. I've only recited back a couple times what Russell is saying. <br /><br />Geee Wizzz.... <br /><br />Let's see if we can apply all our brain power to this:<br /><br />-<I>"In short, you can't determine what sorts of things do or do not exist, or what sorts of things can or cannot be studied by science, simply by definitional fiat. The definitions of words don't control what exists in reality.<br /><br />Again, say you define "supernatural" as meaning "can't be studied by science". Using that definition, you can then demonstrate (a simple semantic entailment) that "the supernatural cannot be studied by science."<br /><br />What you can't do is then pretend that you defined <B>"the supernatural" to mean (for example) "ghosts and gods" and conclude "ghosts and gods cannot be studied by science". That's equivocation on the word "supernatural"</B>If we define the "natural" so that it means "everything" then it will turn out to be the case that science can deal with whatever turns out to exist,<B> but that tells us nothing about what sorts of things actually do exist. It leaves open the question of whether gods and ghosts exist, for example. If they do, then it suggests that science can deal with them.</B></I>."<br /><br />So, is Russell saying, that if the "supernatural" is to mean "can't be studied by science" (or that it doesn't exist, or science does not deal in the "supernatural") then define something as "supernatural" only to find out it actually exist, then of course the proposition is false, because if it exist then science can "deal" with it. In other words it doesn't follow to define something out of existence because that does not tell us if it actually exist or not... How about saying "natural" means "everything" (which also doesn't tell us if Gods exist) and it turns out that Gods and Ghost exist (found in nature) it means science can deal with them, they can be studied scientifically. <br /><br /><br />So, is that right, Windy? <br /><br />You have to be kidding - I keep looking back here to see what's going to happen next, and you haven't failed me, Windy. <br /><br />Windy Wrote:<br /><br />---<I>"And? Did you have an answer?</I>."---<br /><br />Here's your full quote:<br /><br />---<I>"but how much of this is due to their <B>'supernatural' character</B>, and how much is due to the possibility of systematic deception?</I>"---<br /><br />Tell me about this <B>"supernatural character"</B> which you speak of so knowingly? <br /><br />Tell me God's character, and I'll see if you are defining God into existence and amendable to scientific investigation. Oh, right, "supernatural" could mean non-existent, but how do we know what doesn't exist, but you're the ones saying what happens if God exist - so describe this God. Well, we don't know this God, its said to be "unknowable" and stuff... but wait, didn't you tell me that my classifying science as concerned with natural phenomena only and doesn't concern itself with the supernatural is to narrow because we define something out of existence, and hey, that's to restrictive because what happens if God is real... So, describe God. <br /><br />Let me make a note at the end here, that if you describe this God as how it is commonly understood, then what we know of reality changes, science will not matter if that God is discovered by any means, in fact we may not know the means to which that God could be discovered, it could be means that only that God knows. Of course, you could say, how do you know that... well, describe this God Russell mentions...Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-66219761760476893132009-05-15T09:39:00.000+10:002009-05-15T09:39:00.000+10:00Only when everyone can walk on water all the time....<I>Only when everyone can walk on water all the time. ;-)</I> ---<br /><br />Er, I know you are joking, but <I>that's</I> your example of something a being with unlimited powers and unfathomable motives would do? Walk on water? Sorry, but that's incredibly lame...<br /><br />-- <br />luke:<br /><I>Haha...oh...dear....me...</I>--<br /><br />And? Did you have an answer?<br /><br />I'm not sure you have understood what Russell, I and others have been getting at with our thought experiments. Nobody's trying to 'define the supernatural into existence'.windynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-84561075848500905022009-05-15T07:13:00.000+10:002009-05-15T07:13:00.000+10:00Russell
Not sure if you're still checking these c...Russell<br /><br />Not sure if you're still checking these comments, but perhaps someone may enjoy this. I was researching a little on the Rev. Cyril Barrett and ran across this. Since you emphasized the slipperiness of language in the blog post, and brought out Wittgenstein to get the ball rolling. Its a dissection of Wittgenstein's lectures on religion by Michael Martin (oh, maybe you've seen it, he does start off with "games"). <br /><br />http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/wittgenstein.html<br /><br />For some reason I started humming Helter Skelter reading it and thinking, oh wouldn't they enjoy this...Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-25200383257579635312009-05-14T02:44:00.000+10:002009-05-14T02:44:00.000+10:00---"Sufficiently advanced naturalistic hypotheses ...---<I>"Sufficiently advanced naturalistic hypotheses of deception and self-deception</I>."----<br /><br />How do you create naturalistic creationism? Easy, you postulate an Alien race living in a galaxy far far away that is using earth as its petri dish. But, we have no way to show that, there is no evidence that Aliens created the earth 4.5 billions years ago and have tweaked evolution so humans were inevitable. The creator Aliens are purely natural, though significantly more advance than earthly humans. If someone says my hypothesis of an Alien creator race is "supernatural", well they're wrong, right? Then I postulate Shermer's last law: "Any sufficiently advanced ETI is indistinguishable from God." Well, not my Aliens, they have proven Gods don't exist and they show us how, when they come to dinner next week.<br /><br />--<I>"As you point out, there is still a legitimate worry about the non-falsifiability of such beings- but how much of this is due to their 'supernatural' character,..</I>---<br /><br />Haha...oh...dear....me...Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-77771610156467445822009-05-13T20:45:00.000+10:002009-05-13T20:45:00.000+10:00Since we do in fact observe a natural consistency,...<I>Since we do in fact observe a natural consistency, isn't that evidence against such a being? </I>:)<br /><br />Only when everyone can walk on water all the time. ;-)<br /><br /><I>To rescue this hypothesis, we are back to what Russell discussed above with the 6000 year old Earth. Science can't deal with an omnipotent being who deceives us, wants to stay hidden, or is absent - but such a hypothesis already implicitly assumes something about this being's motives</I>!<br /><br />And since science demands <I>evidence</I> of motives such a "hypothesis" cannot be science. We can logically examine the hypothesis to see if it fits the method of science and, as noted, any hypothesis that cannot be subjected to a critical empirical test can't be science. <br /><br />The point here has always been whether there are claims or classes of claims that we can <I>a priori</I> identify as not testable by science and, if so, whether they can be said to be <I>disconfirmed by</I> science or whether they are orthogonal to science. I think there is a class of claims about an omnipotent God with unknown/untestable motives that are <I>a priori</I> beyond scientific examination. I do not think there exists "scientific reasoning" apart from empiric testing that can be said to disconfirm claims that can't be tested. Such reasoning is, in fact, just philosophy that some people want to label as "scientific." Therefore, claims about the existence of an omnipotent God that do not entail denying either the method or results of science are orthogonal to it and, in that sense, "compatible" with it. <br /><br /><I>Sufficiently advanced naturalistic hypotheses of deception and self-deception, like the Matrix and Boltzmann brain hypotheses, would have the same problems</I>.<br /><br />I don't know enough about the latter to judge but, logically, the Matrix "hypothesis" cannot be examined by science (by anyone still in it), anymore than <I>Omphalos</I> can.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-64877956785788406122009-05-13T18:57:00.000+10:002009-05-13T18:57:00.000+10:00Okay, I could have made that clearer. I pointed ou...<I>Okay, I could have made that clearer. I pointed out that a "natural" consistency could not be expected from a being of unknown/unknowable motives and unlimited abilities. Literally any phenomena could be the result of the actions of such a being -- a point often made to show that such a being cannot be a scientific hypothesis (when we are addressing IDers' claims).</I>---<br /><br />Ironically, I think you have managed to put in words the kind of test you are arguing against! (even if a very rudimentary one)<br /><B>"a "natural" consistency could not be expected from a being of unknown/unknowable motives and unlimited abilities."</B>---<br />Since we do in fact observe a natural consistency, isn't that evidence against such a being? :)<br /><br />To rescue this hypothesis, we are back to what Russell discussed above with the 6000 year old Earth. Science can't deal with an omnipotent being who deceives us, wants to stay hidden, or is absent - but such a hypothesis already implicitly assumes something about this being's motives!<br /><br />As you point out, there is still a legitimate worry about the non-falsifiability of such beings- but how much of this is due to their 'supernatural' character, and how much is due to the possibility of systematic deception? Sufficiently advanced naturalistic hypotheses of deception and self-deception, like the Matrix and Boltzmann brain hypotheses, would have the same problems.Tuulihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139693087141113292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-64661362565129952212009-05-13T14:40:00.000+10:002009-05-13T14:40:00.000+10:00It was bound to happen. There I was, making a list...It was bound to happen. There I was, making a list of all those things that are supernatural and therefore don't exist (or do I mean "can't" exist - well anyway); god, ghost, ooobeedoobees, and I was just about to type spaghetti monster - when god appeared. Well not all at once. I got a tingle, then another one exactly two minutes later, then yes, you guessed, two minutes later. Well, there he was, yes a male, standing in front me, I could tell instantly he was the creator, infinitely perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and a one-of-kind type of guy. Of course, being that I defined him out of existence, I told him to go away. He said, just because you won't be able to see me doesn't mean I won't be here with you, so I am going to stay whether you like it or not, oh and by-the-way I am in all places at all times, so even though I don't actually pay attention while you pick your nose, I'm here. How could you be supernatural and exist at the same time I asked. Well, I'm neither supernatural or natural, he said. I exist and don't exist all at once, I am in your mind and I am your mind, I am existence and non-existence, I am the finger that picks your nose. Well, you are simply natural because according to my ruler I'd say you're two inches tall. Yes, I am natural, all natural, made of all natural ingredients. I am also nothing and something to see. God, but, seriously, I can scientifically validate you are here and you're a natural phenomena, period.<br /><br />Holy molly, it's true I said. I'm so sorry God, I defined you out of existence and here you are. Well, it doesn't matter because I'm all-knowing, so I knew you'd do it, but I gave you free will to decide to it. But doesn't.... Yes, I know, is that the only paradox you noticed? But, what about Ghost, do they exist? Yes, Ghost exist. The tooth fairy? Yes, her too. I made a terrible mistake in defining you all out of existence and saying that all that exist is natural. But, we are natural remember. But........Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-25858042476474332902009-05-13T11:26:00.000+10:002009-05-13T11:26:00.000+10:00I should fix this a bit - my last sentence.
Outsi...I should fix this a bit - my last sentence.<br /><br /><I>Outside of defining something into existence to be possibly refuted by science, Russell has yet to offer one single example of why his is a rational, scientific approach.</I>Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-27169451023167462662009-05-13T00:24:00.000+10:002009-05-13T00:24:00.000+10:00Russell Blackford,
Well, appears obvious that you...Russell Blackford,<br /><br />Well, appears obvious that you're sticking with your original thoughts on this matter, with no discernible modifications. <br /><br />You are again simply making the mistake of confusing claims with what science actually does. Science is not studying the "supernatural", even if the supposed entity or what have you, is said to be "supernatural". As an apologist would complain of having their God defined out of existence by calling such a God a "supernatural force", you have said we define the God into existence. My point about this is you're actually doing exactly what they have been trying for decades with science. <br /><br />Take for example the ghost and what are we to label it - what happened to using the logic of suspending judgment on labeling it anything if we are already being told it is "real" for the purpose of the example? (we are told we are agnostic now, but we now decide) We are not told how it is real, and the problem with these examples is they are hopelessly weak, not reliable counter factual's. We are not tied to deciding if the ghost is natural or supernatural just because we are told its real (BTW, that decision is no different in reality than deciding if its really a ghost), the "real" aspect is given to us without any testing, but that it operates with regularity. But, the regularity is assumed by philosophy alone, what the hell does that mean? Doesn't this philosophy sound fishy to you, isn't that where we should start to ask the questions? We can still stay "agnostic" to the question of what to label the ghost, but I'm not sure, what kind of philosophy is this that declares a ghost is acting with regularity without any testing? (it certainly not following the science and could simply be explainable by cognitive or otherwise processes) What is it we know (?) sounds in the night (?) dreams at night (?) are we to suspend our ability to offer other possible explanations for the sake of saying it is real so we can decide what to call it? <br /><br />Of course what the likely motive is for these types of examples (usually used by psuedoscientist who will claim to be scientifically investigating the supernatural) is we get to a point of labeling it "supernatural" so someone like Windy can say, ah hah, science can test the supernatural. It's absolutely preposterous.<br /><br />Of course, this leads to why I'm so frustrated by all of this, you are mucking up what we clearly understand today. You are literally dredging up the ghost of debates past to use in an imaginary "war between supernaturalism and naturalism". And I sympathize with the motivation here - to be able to say science is not limited to natural phenomena we can at least by definitional fiat say science is falsifying the supernatural (giving it the scientific supernatural hypothesis stamp of approval), thereby hopefully getting "believers' to abandon the "supernatural" belief by the weight of scientific argument (it is absolutely perverting the authority of the sciences to meet an end - which I find extremely unethical, and to imagine this stuff isn't being recognized you must be living under a rock). <br /><br />The other move common to this game is to argue anything less is restraining science, usually by definition. However, we are not getting anywhere doing that. Science makes NO use for the God or "supernatural" hypothesis - to be generous we can use the title of Stenger's book, it is a failed hypothesis. It offers NO useful information for science, what is said to be supernatural is unfalsifiable, it is not amendable to science, the arguments used are impregnable by scientific investigation. We are left with beliefs and belief systems and we would be wiser to defend science as understood today, which includes communicating how to use reason and what we consider reality and natural. <br /><br />To add, we make a mistake to want it both ways in these debates. We'd like to say Gods are no more likely than the tooth fairy and Russell's teapot, then on the other hand say they do possibly exist and are amendable to scientific discovery (which is nearly impossible to fully reject - we can at one time presuppose non existence and yet still say it's possible - thus back to Russell's defining it out of existence does not tell us if it actually exist or not). Of course this doesn't tell us much about science, it also doesn't change the fact the science is concerned with natural phenomena (and the examples don't matter, if discovered by science they are then within nature - we haven't changed or massaged definition). However, we actually don't know what we are talking about with regards to reality and these "supernatural entities or forces" (and yes, reality matters here and using philosophy is helpful - catch up on some current philosophy), when faced with argument we can expect the "supernatural" to continue going beyond scientific rationality, in fact as I have pointed out, this is historically true with descriptions of Gods etc. We then go chasing the arguments and taking science with us even though we have no way to actually use the science directly on the supernatural claim beyond testing what is already within the natural environment. It is also historically correct that the more science tells us about reality in ways that are scientific truths, "believers" have continued to refine their impregnable arguments. However, that has been sciences doing on its own primarily, it is presenting scientific facts and theories, much more so than giving probability to Gods and tooth fairies. <br /><br />In the 15 years I've been involved in the skeptical/humanist/atheist movements, I am constantly impressed by the natural explanations for supposed "supernatural" occurrences. In fact, I have learned quite a bit about belief systems and science through these exercises. I don't understand why now, in the past few years, we have found ourselves back about making claims about science which are false. It is a distinct philosophical mistake to say that science can refute the supernatural (which you also imply by saying science can study the supernatural or supernatural phenomena are not beyond the realm of science). <br /><br />I'd actually like to take a crack at the NAS statement, but for what purpose, I can't even get across a simple understanding about what is understood about the nature of science today. But, the problem of course is that Russeell continues to want to define the "supernatural" into existence, without a single shred of evidence to why this is philosophically justifiable (again, this is exactly what the creationist - when I say creationist by the way, I am automatically including ID in every instance - are trying to do) and it certainly isn't scientifically possible.<br /><br />There are limits to science and accepting that the human imagination and brain processes have created incredible belief systems that gives us things not amendable to direct scientific investigation would be wise. What we have to use then is scientific rationality as we do to counter the arguments. In doing so and taking in what the sciences (this includes the social sciences and of course I include philosophy) are telling us about belief systems, we will be better able to move forward. The only thing these types of debates serve as are good ways to mix it up in "culture war" mud fights. "Believers" will most likely continue reaching for the "god of gaps" in our understandings offered by scientific discovery. However, the real "war" is often fought in where we encounter moral debate and we can recognize that religious morality is not only lacking textual justification but also logical adherence. The beliefs have consequences and we are better served to understand them as natural phenomena. All of the sciences, including historical, archeological etc. need to stop assuming for investigative sake that the "supernatural" is real in any way, to view it as a natural phenomena and look for explanation in real world examples. <br /><br />Outside of defining something into existence to be possibly refuted by science, Russell has yet to offer one single example of why this is a rational, scientific approach.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-55688226757271073522009-05-12T21:31:00.000+10:002009-05-12T21:31:00.000+10:00Only "more or less" because I don't think that the...<I>Only "more or less" because I don't think that the specific sciences (as opposed to philosophy) are precluded from using that kind of reasoning in rejecting hypotheses</I>But would the rejection be a scientific result ... i.e. the outcome of a critical <I>empirical</I> test ... or a determination that the hypothesis was not empirically testable and, therefore, not amenable to scientific investigation? <br /><br />You are calling a species of reasoning divorced from empiric testing "scientific." Quite apart from the problem that, historically, similar claims of "scientific reasoning" have changed over time (and has been identified by philosophers only after the fact), you seem to be converting it into a particular version of some "science as a whole" indistinguishable from philosophy. Personally, I think that is much more constraining for science in the long run than anchoring it only in empiric testing.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-85391210352620533382009-05-12T15:17:00.000+10:002009-05-12T15:17:00.000+10:00John Pieret says:
"Now, you can say that the inco...John Pieret says:<br /><br /><I>"Now, you can say that the inconsistencies and ad hoc nature of the explanations and the effort to hide their God from empirical testing are all good philosophical reasons to reject that God, but it would be philosophy that is delivering that result, not science. Science will just wait until it gets something to test ... and, if it doesn't, no skin off its nose."</I>I more or less agree with this. Only "more or less" because I don't think that the specific sciences (as opposed to philosophy) are precluded from using that kind of reasoning in rejecting hypotheses. I don't think that the scientific method is anything so constrained. (Nor do I think that the use of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is unique to science; I think that falsification is part of the story about science but by no means the whole story).<br /><br />Nonetheless, it does make sense to say in the case John gives, of an inconsistently described moving target of a god, that the conclusion is a philosophical inference - if only because its such a big issue that it doesn't seem to belong to any particular science but to some sort of "science as a whole" (which is almost indistinguishable from one kind of philosophy).<br /><br />Note, though, that the reason why we've resorted to this kind of reasoning isn't because we're dealing with a god. Someone could postulate a god that is described consistently, not modified ad hoc, and so on, and could describe how we could expect it to operate on the world. This is much like Windy's ghost - it we know enough about how this ghost affects things that we can sense (with our naked vision, etc., or using instruments that are known to be reliable) then we can go and look for signs of it, and possibly debunk the stories about it.<br /><br />So I come back to saying that there's no reason in principle why science can't investigate claims about beings and forces that are commonly considered "supernatural". It can't decisively falsify claims about things that are vague, inconsistent, redescribed ad hoc, but it can sometimes compel a proponent into making such ad hoc redescriptions that it is reasonable for those of us who are not already convinced to draw the inference that these things don't exist.<br /><br />Again, I realise that the NAS statement can't possibly spell all this out, but nor should it say simplistic things that seem to paint a very different picture in which the supernatural (undefined) is invulnerable to whatever science discovers. Thought-provoking as this discussion has been so far, no nuances or reasonable possibilities that I'm picking up from any of you guys are making me think that the kind of simple reassurance given in the NAS statement is one we should believe. I still think it's, at best, a simplistic statement that ends up being positively misleading about how scientific investigations and findings relate to religion.<br /><br />Luke says: <I>"Using scientific understandings, logic and reason, I have further come to the tentative conclusion that a God or 'supernatural force' does not exist."</I>In that case, we're now more or less in agreement.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-81160810092345055682009-05-12T12:11:00.000+10:002009-05-12T12:11:00.000+10:00Windy:
My examples were intended to point out pro...Windy:<br /><br /><I>My examples were intended to point out problems with your definition of 'natural'. There are purportedly supernatural entities such as ghosts which also operate with such regularity! If you refuse to address this, I have to agree with Richard</I>.<br /><br />I did address it. I responded to Russell before: "Yes, anything that claims that some force or entity operates consistently across time and space can be examined by science and potentially disconfirmed by science's method." I'm not sure your example qualifies but, if ghosts can be said to operate with, say, the regularity of human actors, then they can be studied in the way human agency is.<br /><br /><I>Let's say that we are agnostic about whether it should be labeled natural or supernatural. I am saying that the phenomenon operates with regularity, philosophically speaking</I>.<br /><br />If we take as an example, the regularity enabling us to study human actors, we have <I>objective</I> knowledge of their motives and means of acting. We don't, as far as I know, have that for ghosts. Humans who dwell in a certain area can be expected to inhabit that area consistently, perhaps hiding (even doing it quite well) but being consistently <I>physically</I> present across time and space and leaving behind consistent physical objects, such as artifacts and waste. While ghosts are said to "haunt" certain locals, they have, at most, intermittent and unpredictable "physical" presence, leave behind no consistent waste or artifacts, etc. I don't think ghosts qualify for objectively confirmable regularity but, if they do, then they are as amenable to scientific study as humans are.<br /><br /><I>Since some of us are questioning the utility of the categories natural-supernatural, it's not our responsibility to come up with better definitions</I>.<br /><br />Well, it was RichardW's complaint that the definitions used by those supporting methodological naturalism were inadequate. If you don't have as good or better a definition of "natural," then you are simply defining the supernatural out of existence which may be satisfying move but not a very convincing one. Anyway, I haven't seen any real criticism of my definition so far.<br /><br /><I>I don't know what your arrowhead example has to do with the need for a category of supernatural things. It's hard to attribute motives to supernatural things, but maybe this is just because the hypotheses about them are so poorly conceived, not because of any inherent difficulty science has? Natural hypotheses of non-human design, such as "Aliens made the Nazca Lines", have similar difficulties</I>.<br /><br />Okay, I could have made that clearer. I pointed out that a "natural" consistency could not be expected from a being of unknown/unknowable motives and unlimited abilities. Literally any phenomena could be the result of the actions of such a being -- a point often made to show that such a being <I>cannot</I> be a scientific hypothesis (when we are addressing IDers' claims). No critical test could be made as to whether such a being was the cause of any phenomena because any and all phenomena could be caused by it. This is the one area where Popper's "falsifiability criterion" reliably works: if, by the very <I>nature</I> of the hypothesis, there is no way to falsify it -- to have a critical test -- it cannot be science. And that's a two-way street; it can't be science for creationists and it can't be science for philosophical naturalists.<br /><br />You stated that "conscious actors can still have regularity" and I gave the arrowhead example to show that it is not <I>individual</I> motives that have regularity but, instead, the <I>collective</I> motives of a known group of actors with known abilities. <br /><br />The type of God that is the hard case for science -- the monotheistic infinite God -- is a singleton and has neither known motives nor known abilities. <br /> <br />As an aside, you could try to take all the "revelations" supposedly from such a God and build up a picture of its motives and abilities but, quite apart from the fact that those revelations are wildly <I>inconsistent</I> as to the God's motives and abilities and the revelations are, often, interpreted as metaphors, the proposers always have a way out: "God works in mysterious ways." Even without that, the most that you would be able to test (like young-Earth creationism) is a particular version of God, not all or even most versions.<br /><br />Now, you can say that the inconsistencies and <I>ad hoc</I> nature of the explanations and the effort to hide their God from empirical testing are all good philosophical reasons to reject that God, but it would be <I>philosophy</I> that is delivering that result, not <I>science</I>. Science will just wait until it gets something to test ... and, if it doesn't, no skin off its nose.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-86597924484455289292009-05-11T23:31:00.001+10:002009-05-11T23:31:00.001+10:00JP:
---Actually, I won't venture a definition of w...JP:<br />---<I>Actually, I won't venture a definition of what the supernatural is, since it is simply the negation of "that which is natural." I've offered a provisional definition of "natural" but if you think you can advance a better one, I'm all ears.</I>---<br /><br />My examples were intended to point out problems with your definition of 'natural'. There are purportedly supernatural entities such as ghosts which also operate with such regularity! If you refuse to address this, I have to agree with Richard.<br /><br />Since some of us are questioning the utility of the categories natural-supernatural, it's not our responsibility to come up with better definitions.<br /><br />---<I>In your ghost example, how would science go about testing if some phenomena is "supernatural"?</I>---<br /><br />You misunderstand, I was not talking about testing anything yet. Just assume that the "ghost hypothesis" is true in the most important respects and it 'really' is a spirit of a woman haunting a house. Let's say that we are agnostic about whether it should be labeled natural or supernatural. I am saying that the phenomenon operates with regularity, philosophically speaking.<br /><br />---<I>Furthermore, even if we can detect evidence that a human being worked the piece of rock, how can we determine if the motive in the particular case was to make an arrowhead rather than, say, a piece of jewelry or some totally unique motive to that particular person?</I>---<br /><br />I don't know what your arrowhead example has to do with the need for a category of supernatural things. It's hard to attribute motives to supernatural things, but maybe this is just because the hypotheses about them are so poorly conceived, not because of any inherent difficulty science has? Natural hypotheses of non-human design, such as "Aliens made the Nazca Lines", have similar difficulties.Tuulihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139693087141113292noreply@blogger.com