Belief (Evolution)
I'm in no position to comment on the latest theory of "dark flow", but on reading through the posts on that thread I've been particularly struck by the interchanges between Matt, Tony and David regarding "proof". -MATT: To put it bluntly, even if it's the only explanation in existence for this, it is also the best one. This is also my answer to your other question on evolution by NS. Until a better, more powerful theory displaces it, it's all we have. So I accept it. -MATT: Well, as long as we remember that science isn't about 'proving' but model building, we'll avoid the pitfalls associated with 'proof'.-TONY: If science is not about proving anything, but about model building, then why demand proof from religion?-DAVID: I've come to believe in a universal intelligence because nothing else makes sense to me.-We all seem to agree that for the most fundamental questions, there can never be 'proof'. Matt, however, accepts the theory of evolution by NS. I too accept that evolution happened and that Natural Selection constantly takes place, ensuring the survival of existing creatures according to how well they can cope with their environment. But I don't understand the processes of innovation ... how totally new organs and species actually come into being (see my post on the fossil finds in China, David's comment on novel forms after the Cambrian Explosion, and David's latest remarkable post on single cell to multicellular). -This raises two issues: -1) Matt, when you say you accept evolution by NS, do you also accept that there are huge gaps in the theory of evolution as a whole? 2) If you accept a theory which is riddled with uncertainties and unanswered questions, because you think there is nothing better or more powerful, on what grounds do you criticize David for doing the same (nothing else makes sense to him)? -My motive in asking these questions is also twofold. I'm interested in whatever explanations anyone has for innovation, because the general theory has greatly influenced my own thinking. -But I'm also interested in why and how people believe (and I take "accept" to mean "believe"). I myself can't believe something if I see flaws or gaps in the reasoning or evidence, whereas most other contributors to this forum evidently can. That's not a criticism. In this context, any intelligent person with a firm belief has to be aware that there are gaps. It's a matter of how people cope with them. And so I'm really asking: how do people gain a genuine inner conviction (= belief, as opposed to a "maybe") that something is true, even when they know there are gaps in the pattern?
Belief
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, January 05, 2011, 19:22 (4880 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: I've come to believe in a universal intelligence because nothing else makes sense to me. > And so I'm really asking: how do people gain a genuine inner conviction (= belief, as opposed to a "maybe") that something is true, even when they know there are gaps in the pattern?--I follow Adler and his proof "beyond a resonable doubt" as in jury trials. God will always be concealed. Proof will never be absolute. I have learned a great deal more since I wrote my book. Much more information has developed in the past seven years and it all adds up to more 'proof' as it has followed my expectations of what I thought would be developed in the kind of new knowledge discovered.
Belief
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 06, 2011, 22:28 (4879 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw, > 1) Matt, when you say you accept evolution by NS, do you also accept that there are huge gaps in the theory of evolution as a whole? -Of course. By gaps, I mean, things that are not fully explained or realized.- > 2) If you accept a theory which is riddled with uncertainties and unanswered questions, because you think there is nothing better or more powerful, on what grounds do you criticize David for doing the same (nothing else makes sense to him)? >-As I've said several times: epistemology. It is intrinsically unreasonable to put belief in something when it is not supported by positive evidence. I recognize that this is a normative stance, but all of our views stem from norms.- > My motive in asking these questions is also twofold. I'm interested in whatever explanations anyone has for innovation, because the general theory has greatly influenced my own thinking. > > But I'm also interested in why and how people believe (and I take "accept" to mean "believe"). I myself can't believe something if I see flaws or gaps in the reasoning or evidence, whereas most other contributors to this forum evidently can. That's not a criticism. In this context, any intelligent person with a firm belief has to be aware that there are gaps. It's a matter of how people cope with them. And so I'm really asking: how do people gain a genuine inner conviction (= belief, as opposed to a "maybe") that something is true, even when they know there are gaps in the pattern?-I do not semantically equate belief with acceptance. The latter is a much weaker word. You believe in a cause... there's a connotation of fervency in that word that I distance myself from. I accept evolution by NS, because as a comprehensive theory goes, we do not presently have a more thorough explanation.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Belief
First of all a plea to all concerned: the discussion presently taking place under "dark flow" has nothing to do with dark flow and everything to do with belief, which is why I have started this new thread. Please, for the sake of order, can we continue it here.-MATT: It is intrinsically unreasonable to put belief in something when it is not supported by positive evidence. I recognize that this is a normative stance, but all our views stem from norms.-MATT: Where religion goes wrong is when it applies itself to the physical world.-MATT: The debate has nothing at all to do with religion and science, but in opposing normative epistemologies.-TONY: ...it seems that the classification of evidence is often in the eye of the beholder. What one scientist sees [...] as evidence for creation, another sees as evidence for evolution.-First, with regard to the latter remark, may I please point out that evolution does not run counter to creation. There are many believers who accept evolution as being the method God used to bring about humankind, and this is crucial to the point I'm about to make.-In some posts Matt has attacked religious tenets such as resurrection, and there's no way that I would disagree, as this seems to me one of the silliest concepts thrown up by Christianity. We can discuss that separately if you wish, but my main concern is the rigid borderlines that Matt is drawing by picking on such examples (also Zeus as the source of lightning). I would much prefer to concentrate on the grey areas, even if this is more David's province than mine, and the obvious example is the evolutionary mechanisms of replication, adaptation and innovation. Take any functioning machine you like ... radio, car, computer, airplane ... and you would laugh to scorn anyone who did not accept that it provided evidence of intelligent design. The mechanisms that have led to functioning machines of far greater complexity even than a computer are also regarded by some as positive evidence of intelligent design. This is not an opposing normative epistemology, even if the term ID is now horribly tainted. The opposing epistemology only comes into play when you start speculating on the nature of a designer, and when people write/ interpret texts, tell stories, devise mythologies etc. -Matt, I "accept" your distinction between "acceptance" and "belief", but I still don't see how you can criticize someone who shares your normative epistemology, weighs up the scientific evidence, and concludes that functioning machinery denotes design. I see no difference between "we do not have a more thorough explanation" (you weighing up the evidence on evolution) and "nothing else makes sense to me" (David weighing up the evidence on design). George, I presume, would argue that he too has weighed up the evidence and concluded that chance put together the first replicating molecules and adaptive mechanisms, that we do not have a more thorough explanation, and nothing else makes sense to him. In all three cases, is it not Tony's "beholder" using the same epistemology and simply classifying/interpreting the evidence?
Belief
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 07, 2011, 20:30 (4878 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Friday, January 07, 2011, 20:40
In some posts Matt has attacked religious tenets such as resurrection, and there's no way that I would disagree, as this seems to me one of the silliest concepts thrown up by Christianity. We can discuss that separately if you wish, but my main concern is the rigid borderlines that Matt is drawing by picking on such examples (also Zeus as the source of lightning). I would much prefer to concentrate on the grey areas, even if this is more David's province than mine, and the obvious example is the evolutionary mechanisms of replication, adaptation and innovation. Take any functioning machine you like ... radio, car, computer, airplane ... and you would laugh to scorn anyone who did not accept that it provided evidence of intelligent design. The mechanisms that have led to functioning machines of far greater complexity even than a computer are also regarded by some as positive evidence of intelligent design. This is not an opposing normative epistemology, even if the term ID is now horribly tainted. The opposing epistemology only comes into play when you start speculating on the nature of a designer, and when people write/ interpret texts, tell stories, devise mythologies etc. >-The problem here is that in all of the objects you describe, we KNOW they had a creator. With life, you simply don't have access to that information.-So believing that life was created by an intelligent designer is an act of faith, however you want to interpret the evidence. The ONLY thing you can say is that life is more complex than man's inventions. (By and large.)-This observation itself is not evidence, its an observation based on evidence. This distinction is crucial!-At this point, no reasonable being would disagree with me here, I would think.-Any decisions here at this point are based on your normative epistemological interpretations. > Matt, I "accept" your distinction between "acceptance" and "belief", but I still don't see how you can criticize someone who shares your normative epistemology, weighs up the scientific evidence, and concludes that functioning machinery denotes design. I see no difference between "we do not have a more thorough explanation" (you weighing up the evidence on evolution) and "nothing else makes sense to me" (David weighing up the evidence on design). George, I presume, would argue that he too has weighed up the evidence and concluded that chance put together the first replicating molecules and adaptive mechanisms, that we do not have a more thorough explanation, and nothing else makes sense to him. In all three cases, is it not Tony's "beholder" using the same epistemology and simply classifying/interpreting the evidence?-You don't share the same epistemology as me. Observations are not themselves evidence. I stop at the point where life is complex, and do not posit beyond that towards chance or design.- [EDIT] As for the 'beholder' comment, his point is not. Far from my own. I don't make claims beyond which the knowledge at hand isn't clear. My criticism is in doing exactly that.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Belief
by David Turell , Saturday, January 08, 2011, 01:41 (4878 days ago) @ xeno6696
> You don't share the same epistemology as me. Observations are not themselves evidence. I stop at the point where life is complex, and do not posit beyond that towards chance or design. > > > [EDIT] > As for the 'beholder' comment, his point is not. Far from my own. I don't make claims beyond which the knowledge at hand isn't clear. My criticism is in doing exactly that.-Your philosophic approach is exactly like John Leslie's: Either there is a God (design) and/or there is a multiverse (chance). And you mentioned awhile ago that you did not like Leslie's approach. Why is he wrong?
Belief
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 08, 2011, 03:06 (4878 days ago) @ David Turell
> > You don't share the same epistemology as me. Observations are not themselves evidence. I stop at the point where life is complex, and do not posit beyond that towards chance or design. > > > > > > [EDIT] > > As for the 'beholder' comment, his point is not. Far from my own. I don't make claims beyond which the knowledge at hand isn't clear. My criticism is in doing exactly that. > > Your philosophic approach is exactly like John Leslie's: Either there is a God (design) and/or there is a multiverse (chance). And you mentioned awhile ago that you did not like Leslie's approach. Why is he wrong?-The only John Leslie (as a physicist) that I'm aware of is the one that invented refrigeration in the early 1800's...-Whoever this modern Leslie is--not that he's wrong, but we can't experiment against a multiuniverse. At least, not in any way I'm aware of. Again, as I've said repeatedly, to me only knowledge counts. I think we spend too much time bandying about in the realm of "speculation as fact" and not enough time considering what it is we really know. It's not fun, but it's at least practical. -A multiuniverse right now is just as likely as a single static universe. For me, someone who is a little more on the side of the layman, I have to wait until the "right" idea is settled on. -The idea that I'm more fond of is a single universe with a "finite history..." I forget the exact term, but if you remember about a year ago at this time I was reading the book from Seth Lloyd "Programming the Universe" which put a computational spin on the universe. -It is not ironic or coincidental that I favor his view. He speaks a language I can easily understand. -But there is no explanation of a beginning in his description--the information theoretic version of the creation of the universe. Only an description of what has happened. (And he admits as much.)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Belief
by David Turell , Saturday, January 08, 2011, 05:28 (4878 days ago) @ xeno6696
> The only John Leslie (as a physicist) that I'm aware of is the one that invented refrigeration in the early 1800's... > > Whoever this modern Leslie is--not that he's wrong, but we can't experiment against a multiuniverse. At least, not in any way I'm aware of. Again, as I've said repeatedly, to me only knowledge counts. -John Leslie, Prof. of Philosophy, U. of Guelph, author of "Universes".
Belief
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, January 08, 2011, 08:54 (4878 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Whoever this modern Leslie is--not that he's wrong, but we can't experiment against a multiuniverse. At least, not in any way I'm aware of. Again, as I've said repeatedly, to me only knowledge counts. I think we spend too much time bandying about in the realm of "speculation as fact" and not enough time considering what it is we really know. It's not fun, but it's at least practical. - That would be because we, in truth, know next to nothing about anything, and most 'experts' are afraid to commit to an idea for fear of being mocked by their peers should they be proven mistaken. Much better to bandy about in the realm of speculation as fact that make a bold statement of fact and have to admit you were wrong...(touch of sarcasm there...) What's worse is that the ones who are willing to commit to an idea and say 'this is how it is' are usually so narrow in their perspective that they miss many extenuating circumstances. It is a vicious loop, but easily solved when people are ok with stating unequivocally "I don't know." Once you admit you are ignorant you can actually start to learn.
Belief
I drafted this post before I went off for my ten-hour nap, but I think it has a part to play in the discussion that took place during my somnolent absence. I will, however, comment on some of the later posts*** in the hope (ever optimistic!) of clarifying the argument. MATT: The problem here is that in all of the objects you describe [radio, car, computer etc.], we KNOW they had a creator. With life, you simply don't have access to that information. So believing that life was created by an intelligent designer is an act of faith, however you want to interpret the evidence. The ONLY thing you can say is that life is more complex than man's inventions. (By and large.)-You seem to have forgotten the subject of this thread, and your own comment that led to our latest exchanges: "It is intrinsically unreasonable to put belief in something when it is not supported by positive evidence." Of course believing in intelligent design is an act of faith, just as believing in the chance origin of life and believing in the unproven aspects of the theory of evolution are an act of faith. That is the very nature of belief as opposed to knowledge. The question raised by your statement, however, is what constitutes "positive evidence", and who decides the criteria? Hence Tony's "eye of the beholder". Why is your evaluation more valid than, for instance, David's?-MATT: This observation [that life is more complex than man's inventions] itself is not evidence, it's an observation based on evidence. This distinction is crucial!-Is it? In the worlds of science, law and common sense, if a number of people observe the same phenomenon, and no-one contradicts them, it will generally be regarded as evidence. Darwin's whole theory was based on his observations (e.g. structural similarities, from which he inferred common ancestry; variations that bestowed advantages in the battle for survival, from which he inferred the process of natural selection). All theories are inferences based on subjective interpretation of observations/evidence. MATT: [...] as I've said repeatedly, to me only knowledge counts.-Are you now arguing that any belief is "intrinsically unreasonable" because it is not knowledge?-MATT (on the theory of evolution): Until a better, more powerful theory displaces it, it's all we have. So I accept it.-How can you "accept" it if only knowledge counts? What is the difference between your acceptance of it and David's acceptance of the theory of design because nothing else makes sense to him? This is not a matter of different epistemology. You have each considered the scientific background (observations/evidence) and made your subjective inferences (see Tony's excellent post on the subject). *** I never saw the post you accidentally deleted, but I presume it's the one David has reproduced and answered on 8 January at 02.01.
Belief- Protecting new posts
by David Turell , Saturday, January 08, 2011, 15:47 (4878 days ago) @ dhw
> *** I never saw the post you accidentally deleted, but I presume it's the one David has reproduced and answered on 8 January at 02.01.-To prevent losing a post, produce it, copy, and save it to Word, and then submit. This web site has a fault and occasionally loses a post on submission.(Neil knows) I started using this method always after several bad loses. Works every time. If lost I simply paste and try again.
Belief- Protecting new posts
by romansh 
, Sunday, January 09, 2011, 18:27 (4876 days ago) @ David Turell
I've only skimmed through the posts - so apologies.-I think Balanced is quite right to complain about people asking for proof for a religion, god or universal intelligence. Scientists do themselves a disservice if they use the word "proof" in a sentence, unless it immediately preceded by the word "no".-Now while the concept of a universal intelligence does not makes sense and poses more questions than answers, but then I suppose all hypotheses do that. Anyway as an agnostic, it does not make sense for me not to know and then go around believing stuff. That's why we have Electric Monks.-Having said that people are quite entitled to ask for evidence and the reasoning used to come to any particular belief. If for no other reason to see if it is rational to adopt the said belief.-The comment we know the that radios etc had creators, shows the dangers in moving away from agosticism. For example if "Free Will" turns out to be false, then the concept of independent creators of radios etc falls away.
Belief
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 08, 2011, 01:46 (4878 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw,I accidently deleted my post... plz reply to it...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Belief
by David Turell , Saturday, January 08, 2011, 02:01 (4878 days ago) @ xeno6696
Dhw,I accidently deleted my post... plz reply to it...- > > With no language, no KNOWLEDGE of all these things, how can X reasonably expect that ANYTING is 'designed?' > > We don't have knowledge that life can even be created; we have no paradigm with which that we can reasonably compare with life's complexity... > > Radios and computers are only complex to you, dhw, because you don't know how to make one. It's not something that's in your knowledge base. The comparison of life to man made objects further suffers when you consider that engineering is about simple and concise designs; life is neither. > > If you have no idea how to design something, you have no reasonable claim that some comparable thing was designed.-Your thought experiment fails in several ways. Your human is a blank slate. We think in words. He cannot. He cannot recognize design. To quote you: 'we don't have the knowledge that life can even be created'. But WE are here, and life was created somehow. Then to paraphrase you: life is neither simple nor concise in its design. And then you complain to dhw, that he cannot recognize design if he doesn't know how to design something. Come on. We, who are not blank slates, easily recognize design. And those of us who would like a satisfying answer now, can easily choose design, because life surely 'looks' designed. I understand your circumscribed reluctance. Unfortunately, the answer to the question,'is there a God?', will never be answered with perfect proof, unless He appears.
Belief
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 08, 2011, 02:23 (4878 days ago) @ David Turell
Dhw,I accidently deleted my post... plz reply to it... > > > > > > With no language, no KNOWLEDGE of all these things, how can X reasonably expect that ANYTING is 'designed?' > > > > We don't have knowledge that life can even be created; we have no paradigm with which that we can reasonably compare with life's complexity... > > > > Radios and computers are only complex to you, dhw, because you don't know how to make one. It's not something that's in your knowledge base. The comparison of life to man made objects further suffers when you consider that engineering is about simple and concise designs; life is neither. > > > > If you have no idea how to design something, you have no reasonable claim that some comparable thing was designed. > > Your thought experiment fails in several ways. Your human is a blank slate. We think in words. He cannot. He cannot recognize design. To quote you: 'we don't have the knowledge that life can even be created'. But WE are here, and life was created somehow. Then to paraphrase you: life is neither simple nor concise in its design. And then you complain to dhw, that he cannot recognize design if he doesn't know how to design something. Come on. We, who are not blank slates, easily recognize design. And those of us who would like a satisfying answer now, can easily choose design, because life surely 'looks' designed. I understand your circumscribed reluctance. Unfortunately, the answer to the question,'is there a God?', will never be answered with perfect proof, unless He appears.-Only problem I have with what you say here is that generally, human intuition has proven wrong when dealing with the physical world.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Belief
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 08, 2011, 02:54 (4878 days ago) @ David Turell
Actually...-The more I think about it the more I think my thought experiment is relevant. -While it is true that X in my experiment doesn't have language as we know it, it turns out that I think that's exactly one of the same problems we face. -I attack again your notion that we can intuitively "know" something was designed. -Categorically, in every single example of a man-made object you present, we can point to past knowledge about people making things as a guide. -We don't have that with deities. -And life, to paraphrase even yourself...-does not follow any known human rules of design. -So we're faced with a situation where you are claiming design in an instance where you yourself lack a language or knowledge of such a thing being designed.-Human beings can only KNOW that something is designed if and only if we have prior knowledge of designed things. -I'll allow you to say that something "looks" designed, but I will also say that unless you can tell me--explicitly--what was designed and how it was designed, you have no case at all. -Inference is not knowledge, and this is a point that no theist can ever defeat.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Belief
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, January 08, 2011, 09:07 (4878 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Inference is not knowledge, and this is a point that no theist can ever defeat.-No, inference is not knowledge. I happily and gladly concede that point, even as a theist as long as we apply that same requirement to all scientific endeavors. I would however argue that inference is commonly accepted as knowledge, both in the scientific community and the religious. That does not make it right. I would also argue that inference is the basic stepping stone of knowledge and probably the most important intellectual development that humans ever made. Of course, to be clear, I am referring specifically to the ability to take abstract and seemingly unrelated data and infer a connection and set of rules, thus giving us a basis for the testing and refining of knowledge regarding those data sets. This is after all one of the main aims of the scientific method, and would be impossible without the use of 'inference as knowledge'. Most often, we infer certain things and tout them as fact, or at the very least the 'most probably solution', and immediately begin testing new hypotheses based on the assumption that the inference was at least summarily correct. This allows us to disprove and/or refine the inference. Out of the subjects of which we have written books loaded with fact, it can almost be guaranteed that most of the facts will be disproved at some point in the reasonably near future.