James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by John Clinch , Monday, July 20, 2009, 11:01 (5604 days ago) @ dhw

Thanks, dhw. I think there are real differences that I'm quite sure I haven't made up! But my views on the sky god are not prejudices but conclusions: if I may say, you seem to be using the term to apply to any strongly expressed view with which you disagree. I'm very sorry but I do, speaking personally, find the concept of a transcendental being preposterous. What I have not yet articulated is that I also find the idea of a meaningless Universe fairly preposterous too. There you are. - And I do dismiss the transcendental claims of the three monotheistic faiths, entirely proportionately in my view. I don't do so for moral reasons though I would have plenty of material if I did. They are responsible for a great deal of evil and quite often I wish they would just shut up so the world can move on without them. I don't think they are entitled to any special privilege from criticism and I won't ever shirk from doing so. Yes, there are good Muslims etc but for good people to do evil, real nasty evil - you really need religion. Wasn't it Pascal who said that men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction? Take a look around you. Do you want to be associated with these appalling people? - I know that many intelligent people believe in God. So what? If you want to go down that road, you have to bear in mind that it is not theism but atheism that correlates with higher intelligence. The fact is that the more educated and intelligent a person is, the more likely she is to be an unbeliever. Hence, lack of belief is dramatically higher among scientists than it is in the general population. That is not evidence of its truth, of course, but only to address your point. - I just don't get your argument about creation myths. There is no "theory of abiogenesis": there is work to try to understand how life may have started. And when the work is more advanced, there may be different theories concerning the detail. These scientific endeavours are not in the same category as creation myths you referred to: one makes predictions, the other just says Godunnit. Your attempt to equate the two simply fails to convince. And, what's more, leaves the door conveniently open for ID for which there CAN BE no evidence. Further, it cannot make predictions. How do you answer this point? It seems to present a fundamental flaw for you. - As for that old chestnut about the paranormal, in my considered view, it really is a rather pathetic pseudoscientific dead-end. Sometimes, people do make predictions associated with the paranormal but then we find that there's no good evidence to support them! There has never been a single piece of good evidence whatsoever for ESP, telepathy, clairvoyance etc and, significantly, no plausible mechanism has ever been advanced to suggest how it might work ... a significant distinction which places it apart from proper science. And ... big red flag here - it's emotionally satisfying, flattering and feeding into our wishes and desires to connect and live after death and, for that reason alone, we need to regard its siren claims with even greater suspicion and demand a high standard of objective proof. Yet the proponents of this stuff are very content to accept lamentably poor evidence, often because there is money to be made from it and, boy, does it sell! Enough said. I know and believe it to be nonsense. Now, that's not "prejudice": it is a rational conclusion based upon my experience of life. You believe in woo-woo if you want (I once did ... I get its appeal), but I just don't think it's real. - Besides, ontologically, the supernatural just cannot form part of nature. If you equate the paranormal with the supernatural, as you say you do, can you explain how that would work, then? If you can't, upon what basis do you think it could it ever form part of real, lived experience in this (natural) world? - You ask what the boundaries of nature are but I'm not sure I understand this question. Nature is the cosmos ... all there is, all there was and all there ever will be. I understand that this Universe has boundaries but don't ask me to explain it in astrophysical terms. But, by definition, it cannot include the SUPERnatural: to say so simply involves self-contradiction. Isn't to say so philosophically incoherent? - Your criticisms of my metaphysical ramblings, on the other hand, are entirely justified. I should have heeded Wittgenstein and remained silent. I withdraw it all and will shut up on the matter! - By the way, "purport" was deliberately use of language. Science DOES purport to be objective and literal but it is conducted by fallible humans with their jealousies, rivalries and the occasional sacred cows. The whole point is that, as a discipline, it will correct for the biases and limitations of human thought. Bad science gets found out and that is how progress is made.