AgnosticWeb.com - Definitions

Definitions (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:57:58 +0000

When I use "materialism", it is not of course meant pejoratively, but only in the philosophical sense that physical matter is the only reality. However, you say "modern physics makes the distinction between material and immaterial more difficult to maintain in this nineteenth century sense". - Physical matter is not the only reality. The quantum level underlies everything as I think George was inferring.This article on the attempt at quantum computing demonstrates: - http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090628/full/news.2009.603.html

Definitions (reply)

dhw — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:54:22 +0000

George has revisited the terms "materialism" and "abiogenesis". - This is a brilliant post, George, and highlights just how difficult it is for us all to communicate. Language is an inadequate instrument, but it's the best we've got. - I'll take "abiogenesis" first. You say you would prefer a term for "origin of life" that was scientifically neutral. I don't think that's a problem ... "origin of life" will surely do perfectly well. The difficulty in our discussions is to find a term that means the spontaneous origin of life without the intervention of a designer. "Abiogenesis" fits the bill so long as we all know what we're talking about, but it has caused confusion in the past. The forerunner of "abiogenesis" was "spontaneous generation", but I remember you objecting to that when I used it many moons ago. One alternative is to keep repeating: "The Theory that Life Sprang Spontaneously from Non-Life without the Intervention of a Designer", but it's a bit of a mouthful! Any other suggestions? - When I use "materialism", it is not of course meant pejoratively, but only in the philosophical sense that physical matter is the only reality. However, you say "modern physics makes the distinction between material and immaterial more difficult to maintain in this nineteenth century sense". And modern physics and cosmology use "immaterial terms such as energy and information". You go on to ask "how does modern "materialism" differ from other more metaphysical ideas? I think it is less clear." Although you're careful to stress that this doesn't equate the immaterial with the spiritual, it seems to me that these ideas bring the physical and the spiritual much closer together. What does "spiritual" mean? It's just a word to indicate those elements of our nature that we can't pin down to the purely physical. I know how sceptical you are about so-called psychic phenomena, but even if we just stick with phenomena that we all acknowledge ... like consciousness, will, emotion, imagination ... perhaps we can find common ground in terms of unknown forms of energy. As regards terminology in general, though, unless we create our own neologisms, I'm not sure that we can do better than define what we mean by the old words and continue the discussion from there. - Theobiogenesis for Creationism? This could be fun, but if biogenesis = life from life, shouldn't Creationism be theoabiogenesis? And in that case, maybe the atheist theory could be atheoabiogenesis!

Definitions (reply)

George Jelliss — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:37:52 +0000

In dhw's most recent post in the James Le Fanu thread the terms "materialism" and "abiogenesis" come up, and it occurs to me that they need some reexamining. So I thought it might be as well to revisit this old thread. - Materialism. - First it is necessary to realise that this term is often used in the pejorative sense of "consumerism", or living a life without "higher values" such as are described as "ethical" or "spiritual". This is not the sense used here, but it is liable to colour people's thinking with emotive tinges. - Second, people who describe atheists as "materialists" generally mean that they have a picture of the universe as comprised of material objects like atoms and molecules, and suppose that attributes such as mind and consciousness are phenomena of the motion and interconnection of these material particles. - This is sound enough as far as it goes, but modern physics makes the distinction between material and immaterial more difficult to maintain in this nineteenth century sense. If the Higgs Boson is discovered at CERN then it will provide an explanation for the phenomenon of mass, which is the measurable quantity by which we determine whether something is material. - However much of nature as now understood by physics and cosmology is expressed in immaterial terms such as energy and information. So how does modern "materialism" differ from other more metaphysical ideas? I think it is less clear. This is not however to equate the immaterial with the spiritual. - Abiogenesis - In the sense used by dhw "a-bio-genesis" is taken to mean the supposed genesis (first appearance) of life (bio) from non-life (a-bio). I looked the word up in Chambers Dictionary and see that it ascribes the origin of the term to T. H. Huxley in 1870, who also coined "agnostic". The same dictionary defines "biogenesis" as "the generation of living things from living things only". So it seems that there is an inbuilt bias to both these terms. - I would prefer to have a term for "the origin of life" that was scientifically neutral, not presuming that it's origin is purely material, or purely organic or involved some other scenario, such as involving divine, spiritual or metaphysical input. From etymological consideration, "biogenesis" would seem to be the correct neutral term. The theory of "origin of life from life" would seem to be a contradiction in terms, since it supposes that life has always existed and had no origin in time. Creationism should I suppose be called something like "theobiogenisis".

Definitions (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:09:37 +0000

You are right Matt: Darwin always described microevolution and assumed that macro would occur. Macro did occur, but not Darwin's way. How and why is beyond Darwin

Definitions (reply)

Matt — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:57:14 +0000

It's MicroEvolution at work, not Macro. *nudge nudge, wink wink*

Definitions (reply)

Cary Cook — Tue, 27 May 2008 00:19:11 +0000

DEFINITIONS is one area where we can be of great use to each other. I hope to plagiarize some of yours, and you're all welcome to mine. I am confident that you will find flaws in mine, and hope you will bombard me with corrections & additions. http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/ConceptClarifier.html

Definitions (reply)

Peter P — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:51:40 +0000

I'd like to thank David Turell (sorry I misspelt your name) and George Jelliss for their very clear answers to my question about exactly what they believe. I've found their articles and references on scientific subjects really interesting, as are their discussions with whitecraw and dhw. What strikes me now is that both David and George base their beliefs fair and square on science, but they have come up with diametrically opposite conclusions. David thinks there is a supernatural force and George thinks there isnt. So where does that leave the non-scientist? Obviously it boils down to what each of us extrapolates from science and from life, but that also makes science into an unreliable foundation for belief. Its findings in the context of theism v atheism v agnosticism are always going to be open to inter;pretation.. Fair enough to say that theories shouldn't go against current scientific knowledge, e.g. creationism, which seems to be a non-starter, but why do people assume that one theory (supernatural) is wrong and another theory (natural) must be right though its just as unproven and unprovable, and vice versa? Not a plea for either, of course, but clear grounds for open-mindedness and tolerance.

Definitions (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:37:53 +0000

dhw: "You have asked: "Did natural selection create the tree"? Not according to my understanding. The tree may have been created by mutations, each of which was then subject to natural selection, but the mechanism driving the sheer creativity of these mutations is far beyond my comprehension." - The tree, which is an invention of science, is a result of the effects of natural selection. That is really the point I was making. The 'tree' does not 'advance' without the effects of selection, removing the less effective results of change in the organisms. The stronger organisms then become a majority of a species and the species is more successful. The mystery comes from the fact that most beneficial mutations are recessive. Two organisms must have the same recessive mutation, then must meet each other and mate. One must assume that the same mutation appears multiple times so that some chance at proper mating occurs. One theory I have seen is that a species will do better at this if isolated, which I guess follows the thought that in isolation there will be less competition and more chance for successful mating. As I have stated before, if Darwin knew all of this, I doubt he would have been so convinced his theory might work.

Definitions (reply)

George Jelliss — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:43:30 +0000

Since Peter P asks: 1) George says he's not an atheist but a rationalist empiricist with atheist/agnostic views. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God. So it would be interesting to know a) if George does or doesnt believe there is no God, and b) in what way his views are agnostic. I will reply, though I've a feeling I've said all this before. - (1) I start out by being a rationalist empiricist, that is to say someone who bases their beliefs on logic and empirical knowledge, i.e. evidence, simply because I don't think there is any other reliable method. I accept current scientific knowledge as being soundly based on this method. (2) I'm an agnostic only in the sense that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. So this doesn't mean much. It just allows me to keep an open and sceptical outlook where evidence may be inadequate, and keeps me from being overly dogmatic. (3) I'm an atheist in the sense that I find the evidence for lack of supernatural input sufficiently overwhelming, and the theories developed in support of such ideas logically incoherent. But should evidence come to light of sufficient weight, I could change my mind. - In short I come from a pretty orthodox science background.

Definitions (reply)

dhw — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:47:01 +0000

David Turell has referred to my statement that there is sufficient evidence for me to believe in natural selection. He agrees that this works on the level of adaptation to the environment, but not on the level of one species turning into another, and he asks if I think natural selection created the 'tree of life' "illustrating common descent". - I had the impression that you and I were in agreement on this problem, but maybe not, so let me try to break my own beliefs down into their constituent parts. I can well believe that life began with simple forms (possibly bacteria). If this is so, then obviously it follows that more complex forms evolved from them. I accept the theory of natural selection when it = the survival of those organisms best able to cope with their environment. As you say, organisms adapt, and those features that are advantageous will be passed on. My problem, second in line to the origin of life itself and reiterated many times on this website, is mutations. These can only take place in individual organisms, or maybe a group of organisms within the same environment. Every "advance" from bacterium to human (advance in the sense of additional complexity, not necessarily of efficiency ... see whitecraw) will have been produced by mutations: totally new concepts and mechanisms such as vision, hearing, smell, limbs, sexual reproduction, consciousness etc., with all the necessary links through an evolved nervous system to an evolved brain. - It's a point we keep coming back to: the difficulty of believing that original forms and systems could emerge by chance from nowhere. Although the alternative of design raises huge problems of its own, that does not make the chance theory any easier to believe. So we are left with a massive question mark: if the starting point is bacteria and we take humans as a point of comparison, and if we accept that evolution (= mutations plus natural selection) led from one to the other, over no matter how many billions of years, what is the source of the inventive power to produce each of the innovations? The alternative answers as I see them are: 1) the original forms of life and all the subsequent mutations were random acts caused by chemical reactions and environmental factors; 2) the original forms of life were programmed with the potential for all the subsequent changes; 3) the subsequent changes were manipulated by an outside intelligence. You have asked: "Did natural selection create the tree"? Not according to my understanding. The tree may have been created by mutations, each of which was then subject to natural selection, but the mechanism driving the sheer creativity of these mutations is far beyond my comprehension.

Definitions (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:45:46 +0000

2) David Turrell says the odds against chance creating life are stupendously enormous and some supernatural force is the more likely explanation. (I found his different examples fascinating, by the way.) Does he believe in God? If so, what kind of God?< - Peter: I'm a former agnostic who did 15 years of reading books and articles on consmology, particle physics, Darwin, philosophic books, atheistic books. As a retired physician, I can read scientific journals and have done so. I did not use the Bible. I don't think much of organized religion. - I finally concluded there is a 'greater power' which I think is an embedded intelligence or consciousness in the universe, but also outside. That makes me, I have found out, a panentheist, I guess sort of in the mold of Einstein and Spinoza. I don't think our brain could have an emergent property like consciousness unless a universal consciousness already existed. There are studies in human species consciousness at Princeton U., by Rupert Sheldrake, and others. Very suggestive, I might add.

Definitions (reply)

Peter P — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:30:56 +0000

I've been fascinated by the various exchanges between dhw, George, David Turrell and Whitecraw. Some really meaty stuff. But I'd really like to know straight out where each of you stand ... not wishing to be nosy, but just to understand where you're coming from. Dhw has made his position very clear, he's a don't-know-cant-make-up-his-mind-er, which is also my position. - 1) George says he's not an atheist but a rationalist empiricist with atheist/agnostic views. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God. So it would be interesting to know a) if George does or doesnt believe there is no God, and b) in what way his views are agnostic. - 2) David Turrell says the odds against chance creating life are stupendously enormous and some supernatural force is the more likely explanation. (I found his different examples fascinating, by the way.) Does he believe in God? If so, what kind of God? - 3) Whitecraw thinks science will come up with all the answers (though as dhw pointed out, that's a theory in itself and it can't be falsified so its unscientific), so is he an atheist? - All I'm asking really is for a direct statement of what you all believe or don't believe., just as a clarification. But of course, no obligation.

Definitions (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:54:17 +0000

dhw: " For example, I find the theory of natural selection wonderfully logical, and I think there is sufficient evidence for me to believe it." - 'The sufficient evidence' is that we see varying changes in species as each individual species adapts to changing environmental challenges. We never see one species adapt into another, and the fossil record shows no evidence that it has happened in the way Darwin imagined. Science is still looking for proof that his proposal works. The so-called 'tree of life' illustrating common descent is only represented by the 'tips and nodes' that Gould refers to. It is a very incomplete tree, in part because of the tremendous jumps in the fossil record. Not to mention that homologous and analagous parts of organisms refuse to follow the tree. Hemoglobins and other biochemicals don't follow the tree either. Did natural selection create the tree?

Definitions (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:50:15 +0000

It appears that I have not been clear in my reasoning about science and the Darwin Theory. - whitecraw has stated, "It is a constitutive principle of modern science that nature is a closed system of cause and effect and that, for an explanation to be considered 'scientific', it must not invoke as a postulate any agency outside of that system; i.e. any supernatural agency. This is the principle of methodological naturalism." I absolutely agree, but please remember, I have the right to read scientific studies and their findings, but reach my own conclusions, since very often there are several possible interpretations. I am not asking science to find God. I know quite well that the proof and dis-proof of God are both impossible. But if I reach a position 'beyond a reasonable doubt', I will take that position. whitecraw further observed: "For such reasons as these I'd still go with the theory of evolution by natural selection as a scientific explanation of how properties of populations of organisms change through time. However lousy it may turn out to be, it is still the best lousy theory we currently have. You maintain that the theory of evolution by natural selection has problems explaining the complexity of life. I don't agree for the reasons I've adumbrated several times now without reply. But even if it did have such problems, this provides us with no immediate reason to abandon the theory." - Here I must respectfully disagree. Thomas Kuhn has taught us that scientists follow each other like lemmings and the theory, favored for the moment, will be defended almost to the death. That is what is happening with Darwin. In this country grants for research are simply not available unless it is within the umbrella of Darwinism. So much for encouraging opposing research, and the theory that all theories should encourage research. - Now for complexity: Darwin favored a gradual step by step change in organisms, and eventually a new species would appear. The fossil record does not favor this supposition in any way, and may never. New complex organisms appear suddenly, explosively, with no 'somewhat less' complex precursors. (Saltation) Careful biochemical studies of living mechanisms demonstrate how very complex one living cell is, with many interlocking processes involving hundreds of different proteins. Human blood clotting, when I last checked 4 years ago, involved 17 factors, not including platelets and tissue factors that initiate the process. It must be exact: the last thing wanted is clotting the whole circulatory system, and there are disease processes that literally try that. Each of the 17 steps have feed-back mechanisms which involve other factors, to exactly control the process. (By the way in medical school we were taught there were 10 steps) My point is that as science adds to the complexity of life, and keeps adding complexity, Darwin's supposition appears less and less likely, that processes like clotting just fell together a little bit at a time. One other example of Darwin's problem: when hominids quit knuckle dragging and went upright in locomotion, the female (and also the male) pelvis changed dramatically in shape. At the same time the female outlet became more bowl-like and the opening for birth had to enlarge to accommodate the enlarging baby's head to allow for the growth of the brain size. How was this accomplished if the baby had half its DNA from Dad? One could presume that the female outlet enlarged and then the babies' brains grew bigger. There are many areas in evolution that look like purposeful activity is present. Exaptations are a major example: novel innovations which appear in a species long before there are needed or used. Perhaps human birth with the bigger brain depended on an exaptation. There are thousands of examples like this, books written on the subject, so that I could go on typing for hours. All I can suggest is an open mind to alternatives. Hopefully, that makes my postion clearer.

Definitions (reply)

dhw — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:10:01 +0000

George is "a bit fed up with being castigated as being an 'atheist'". - There has clearly been a dreadful misunderstanding. The trouble is, you have always staunchly defended the atheist position and have never at any time given the slightest hint that you were in fact an "atheist/agnostic". When for example, you memorably announced that "the postulation of a designer to guide these processes [origin of life] is just so over-the-top in improbabilities as not to be worth considering", little did I dream that you were in fact keeping an open mind ... or at least half an open mind. - Your beliefs are based, you say, on "evidence and logic". There is no evidence that the chemical components necessary to create life combined together by chance, and indeed the odds against them doing so are "stupendously enormous" (David Turell), but if logic tells you that they did so, and therefore the alternative can be dismissed, it's not altogether surprising that you are "accused of having faith in chance". - The golfing tragedy ... the golfer mishit the ball which sailed over the fence, hit a walker on the head, made him lose his footing, and sent him tumbling over the cliff ... was described by me as an accident. You say I've missed the point, because the only two chance events were the club contacting the ball and the ball hitting the walker. "The rest of it was inevitable." Without the chance combination of all the different factors, the tragedy would not have occurred. George: "It seems that dhw does have faith in chance, since he describes the golfing tragedy as an accident." There is no faith involved in explaining the golf tragedy. All the circumstances are perfectly credible. And yes, of course I described it as an accident. Would you call it murder, predestination, suicide? The point of your story was to support your faith in the theory of abiogenesis, as you struggled to minimize the importance of chance in the process. I can only repeat that the golfing tragedy depended on a chance combination of events, and so does abiogenesis. The first chance combination is well within my bounds of credibility, and the second goes well beyond my range. - "Dhw and the theists also have 'faith in chance'. Or is it part of the agnostic or theist belief that nothing whatsoever happens by chance? That everything is deterministic?" Belief in God, of course, can range from deism (no divine interference) to Calvinism (predestination), but personally I have no doubt that many things happen by chance. That doesn't mean I have to believe in unlikely coincidences. In the context of our discussions, however, you should know, George,as a semi-agnostic, that the whole point of agnosticism is its lack of belief. It either = the impossibility of knowing or the inability to decide. Personally, I would like to think that I base my beliefs on "evidence and logic", which I am told by an expert is the hallmark of rationalist empiricism. For example, I find the theory of natural selection wonderfully logical, and I think there is sufficient evidence for me to believe it. But if there is no evidence for a theory which requires me to believe something against "stupendously enormous" odds, and if the alternative theory seems to me equally unlikely, I will not be able to believe in either and will preserve my agnosticism. Theists will take the plunge and opt for design. Atheists will take the plunge, ridicule theists, and opt for chance. Perhaps that will help you to understand my dreadful blunder in thinking you were an atheist.

Definitions (reply)

dhw — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:49:35 +0000

Whitecraw writes: "It is a constitutive principle of modern science that nature is a closed system of cause and effect and that, for an explanation to be considered 'scientific', it must not invoke any agency outside of that system; i.e. any supernatural agency." - If the common aim is to get at the truth, the above represents an extraordinary piece of circular thinking: only science can come up with truth, science can only examine the natural world as we know it, and therefore the truth is that there is nothing beyond the natural world as we know it. If you have an unsolved mystery (e.g. the origin of life), science can go on indefinitely claiming that the mystery will one day be solved in terms of nature. This underlying assumption is subjective, or to use your own terms: "it isn't falsifiable: i.e. it is incapable of being tested by experiment or observation." Therefore the constitutive principle of modern science is itself unscientific. - David Turell and Peter P. have pointed to the arrogance of those atheists who believe that science supports or will support atheism. That is a far cry from promulgating creationism. I can only speak for myself now: I am absolutely not defending creationism. I am attacking atheism, which makes assumptions which in themselves are no more and no less scientific than the assumptions of those who believe that there is some sort of intelligence beyond the natural world as we know it. - Whitecraw still goes "with the theory of evolution by natural selection as a scientific explanation of how properties of populations or organisms change through time." So do I. But like David Turell, I have problems understanding the mechanisms that produce complexity. The theories that chance could bring together the chemical components that produced life, and that chance mutations could produce hitherto non-existent but hugely complex organs and systems, are not and may never be scientifically proven, and yet both are essential to atheism. You quite rightly say of the theory of evolution that the problems give us no reason to "ascribe scientific status to currently non-scientific theories". The same rationale should apply to the theories that underpin atheism. Until science comes up with "natural" answers ... which, of course, it may never do ... those who dismiss the possibility of forces beyond the natural world as we know it (which I take to be what David Turell means by "supernatural") are themselves taking an unscientific leap of faith.

Definitions (reply)

George Jelliss — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:36:23 +0000

I'm a bit fed up with being castigated as being an "atheist", when I am a "rationalist empiricist". That is to say I base my beliefs on evidence and logic. My atheistic / agnostic view is a consequence of that approach. - dhw responds to my protest about his use of chance by saying: The golfing tragedy would be described by most of us as an accident, i.e. an event "without any apparent cause, purpose or design". - This misses the point of my argument which was that there are only two points at which chance entered the scenario, namely when the golfer's club contacted the ball, and when the ball contacted the walker. The rest of it was inevitable. - Why am I accused of "having faith in chance" when dhw and the theists also have "faith in chance". Or is part of the agnostic or theist belief that nothing whatsoever happens by chance? That everything is deterministic? That even a toss of the dice is fixed by their God intruding his noodly appendage? - It seems that dhw does have faith in chance, since he describes the golfing tragedy as an "accident".

Definitions (reply)

whitecraw — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:55:10 +0000

'Each year life is shown to be more and more complex, and some supernatural force becomes more likely to explain the origin of life.' - Then it will be a moot point as to whether such an explanation can be considered 'scientific'. - It is a constitutive principle of modern science that nature is a closed system of cause and effect and that, for an explanation to be considered 'scientific', it must not invoke as a postulate any agency outside of that system; i.e. any supernatural agency. This is the principle of methodological naturalism, and is what did for the scientific status of the theory of evolution by intelligent design in the case of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. - There are also other problems with considering creationism to be a scientific theory. It isn't falsifiable; i.e. it is incapable of being tested by experiment or observation. And it has no heuristic value; i.e. it doesn't generate any problems requiring further investigation and research. As theologians will tell you, there is no way of disproving that supernatural agency exists and had at least a hand in making things the way they are. And the explanation 'because God made it that way' is the final word on any matter. - For such reasons as these I'd still go with the theory of evolution by natural selection as a scientific explanation of how properties of populations of organisms change through time. However lousy it may turn out to be, it is still the best lousy theory we currently have. You maintain that the theory of evolution by natural selection has problems explaining the complexity of life. I don't agree for the reasons I've adumbrated several times now without reply. But even if it did have such problems, this provides us with no immediate reason to abandon the theory (and, moreover, to effect a revolution in the constitution of science to allow us to ascribe scientific status to currently non-scientific theories); it calls meantime only for further investigation and research towards solving those problems within the scope of the current theory.

Definitions (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:15:23 +0000

Right on Peter P! The arrogance of atheists, assuming that science will reach atheistic conclusions, somehow solving all issues and 'proving' God cannot exist, is amazing to me. Atheists seem to deny how much faith they have in science. All you have to do is read lay literature on scientific findings and see how complex life really is, and the mathematical laws of probability take over. Each year life is shown to be more and more complex, and some supernatural force becomes more likely to explain the origin of life.

Definitions (reply)

Peter P — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:50:06 +0000

First of all, my apologies to George for not replying sooner to his post on March 31st . I've been doing battle with one of life's more primtive forms which refused to acknowledge my superiority. - I had asked why atheists refuse to acknowledge their faith in chance. George's reply was that science has come up with theories to explain other aspects of the universe, so he thought it reasonable to suppose that it would also provide one to explain the origin of life as something perfectly natural with say just a smattering of chance. I hope that's a fair summary. - Meanwhile the argument has moved on apace, with George's attack on dhw's use of "chance". George came up with a golfing accident analogy, which actually confirmed dhw's use of chance, and with a description of the orgin of life, which also confirmed dhw's use of chance. However, even after accidentally shooting himself in the foot, and even after David Turrell's devastating SCIENTIFIC exp;lanation of why the odds against chance creating a simple living cell are "stupendously enormous", I bet George will still say atheism doesn't involve faith in chance. I like the expression "quasi-religious", so long as its not meant derogatively, because I see no difference between say Christian faith in God and atheist faith in chance, and personally I've got equal respect for both. Its just the scientific camouflage of atheism that bugs me. But at least I think my original question has been answered. It's the old adage: there's none so blind as those that will not see.