Lost marbles (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 02:56 (5504 days ago) @ David Turell

But I do think that my job sometimes is at least to bring things like this to attention. 
> 
> Matt; I appreciate your patience with me. Since there are so many philosophers who contradict each other, at least that is my impression, it has always seemed to me that philosophy is really a study of possible truths, with nothing rigid or absolutely proven. -If you're used to the philosophy of the past 100 years, it certainly SEEMS much more hydralike, especially From Sartre on. (I'm not a huge fan of existentialism, it seems to remove a great deal of the conflict that I think is healthy for a society.) -
> > 
> Having not read these authors, I cannot presume that they didn't think all of these things through. However since you have and these questions I raise seem new to you, I would presume to say they haven't. 
> 
> John Leslie is the retired prof. of philosophy at Gelph U, Canada. Flew is the most famous atheist philosopher of the 20th Century. Surely they an Adler recognize all of these boundries you bring up. 
> > -My hope is that they address them... I hadn't really considered the issue philosophically for some time (Design, that is.) I also recently reread portions of "Denying Evolution" and was reminded of the unsolved "induction" problem in logic. However, especially in the the Philosophy of Science, there is a great deal of work that is based on logic that is essentially irrefutable, such as certain assumptions, as well as the questions they raise. -One of the unanswered questions does rely on the nature of God and I think dhw might agree with me on this. If you can't grasp the nature of God in a *real* term, in some kind of *real* sense, than you cannot really assert that we were designed by a "supernatural being." (Sorry, i cannot blur the line of natural and supernatural, they are logically separated in my head--my own "slowness," perhaps.) -Specifically, in the entire history of western civilization, no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of God, and naturalism was really the answer to that specific problem. -I haven't read Adler (I'm assuming the "pagan guide" book?) but assuming his reasoning is similar to his method in the "Difference of Man," it probably asserts that since the cosmos is "fine-tuned" (challenge-able, could be a fallacy) and assorted other means, that the burden of evidence lies on us to having been designed. -> > What I find more disappointing is that you'd rather dodge the questions than try to meet them in some way. You think they don't apply to you, but in my estimation, they do. At least, I don't see how they can't. Science doesn't work without the assumptions of naturalism, and at the minimum this challenge must be met. 
> 
> Frankly, I don't think I am dodging questions. I don't know enough of what you know to fully understand some of your points and objections you raise, and since I didn't see discussion like yours in what I have read, I'm surprised by them. I absolutely believe, as you do, that science is naturalism and methodologic materialism, but not to the point of scientism. It cannot bring in the supernatural, as I have stated before. But it seems you are telling me that my acceptance of 'probability limits' is wrong. Is there no level of improbability that completely rules out chance, such as Dembski's 10^-150th? Or less, Borel's 10^-50th? I have based some of my thinking on that concept. 
> -That's fair. If you don't feel prepared to answer them, I won't fault you for that. I hate that you are treating a Dembski claim with any validity, but both him and Borel are assigning probabilities to unknown systems. Probability arguments like that can be made to show that a random rock in your backyard had to have been put there "by design." Hocus-pocus magicry is what you have there. -I've railed against this time and again--you can't place a "probability limit" on us having been designed, because before you could you would have to have complete knowledge of the system--that's the ONLY time you can place a real probability down for a systems analysis. In organic chemistry, you have probability limits because the model predicts position, temperature, assorted other variables--all things in the system must be known for you to give an accurate probability. I'm going to have to make Shapiro a little higher on my "to read list." -In short, until abiogenesis is proven to be the philosopher's stone, there is no probabilistic case to be made. It is an open question, and open questions by nature have NO resolution. -Giving a little more thought on the "probablity limit," I'm assuming you mean the statistical hypothesis test? How exactly could you set that up if you define god as being inseparable from nature? If chance is the alternative to God, and god and nature are inseparable, then you can't test one against the other.-[EDIT]-In retrospect this final paragraph is really the most important set of lines here... if you cannot make a distinction between God and nature... there IS nothing to test against... this is as damnable as you can get in my book...

--
\"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.\"