Start Using Terminology that Avoids an Argument ... or

Well from an electron’s perspective, quantum mechanical randomness is fundamental reality with regard to energy level, location, size, momentum, and any other physical quantity.

I think it will be far easier than getting you to stop using the term “neo-Darwinism”!!!

2 Likes

Ah Christy - the Truly Scientistic will say that if science doesn’t speak to the metaphorical chicken, then the metaphorical chicken truly doesn’t exist.

The trouble is that you then have to discount all the metaphorical particles, waves, fields and place-holding words like “matter” people use to describe the realities they can’t conceive otherwise, plus of course they must discount the mathematical equations used to abstract and symbolise them in a more accurate way. Theories too are metaphors with no concrete existence.

As for the supposed “people” who make theories, well they’re nothing but… particles, waves and fields. Although wait a moment…

Astonishing anyone has the faith for such nihilism!

1 Like

Particles, waves and fields are real. They are not metaphysical nor metaphorical. They real do exist and are measurable.

Patrick

Scientistic materialists tend to be woefully ignorant about philosophy of science/epistemology because it shuns it as not-science and ergo not-real. That’s why the ascendancy of materialism is such a mystery in a supposedly educated age.

It’s a no-win which I certainly can’t hope to correct in a post. However, if you care to learn how some of our leading scientists see it, then you could start with Sir Arthur Eddington (The Nature of the Physical World), Michael Polanyi (Personal Knowledge) or John Gribbin (Schodinger’s Kitten and the Search for Reality). I know it’s easier just to post a denial, but at least then people know who’s doing the homework, and who isn’t.

A taster from Mark H Bickhard and Donald T Campbell in “Downward Causation: Minds, Bodies and Matter” -

According to our best science, there are no elementary "particles" or basic particles at all... What have seemed to be "particles" are now conceptualised as particle-like processes and interactions resulting from quantization of field processes and interactions.

Even in that quote, “field” is left as a homely representation of something whose fundamental nature nobody understands. You simply can’t do science without symbolism. It’s not about be able to measure - it’s being completely unable to comprehend just what it is you’re measuring, and so being reduced to metaphors. And that’s fine until you start believing they’re absolute truth.

In another thread, @Eddie provides a good way of interpreting how ‘foreknowledge’ can be interpreted:

as a “front-loading” of creation. Such front-loading does not mean that God can’t answer prayers in real-time. It simply means God hasn’t really changed his mind since the day of creation.

George

That’s an interesting idea.

But there is a scene where Abraham literally debates back and forth between God on the justification of wiping out Sodom and Gomorrah… Is it encouraged to debate with God …?

Not sure.

-Tim

And for those who theologically require that event … it’s there. But this has nothing to do with invalidating God’s master plan.

George

The philosophy of science is not science. Today the US has millions of people doing science. Is there a hand full of people doing philosophy? Is philosophy still a major in most universities? Here in NJ, many of the universities have drop philosophy as a major and even closed departments.

Patrick, the problem is that science isn’t itself supported by science. The reason why things like metaphysics and philosophy are important is because science itself is based on metaphysics. As Einstein has stated, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” <<< don’t you ever stop to wonder why that is? I think science is great but it’s important to know where it comes from as well as it’s foundations. Sometimes I get the impression that you think science is all there is, and that it’s self-contingent… But it is not.

-Tim

Patrick

You’re simply suggesting that if millions of people are ignorant, it’s OK. In a primitive country, that’s unavoidable. In a supposedly educated one it’s a tragic sign of willful ignorance - not to mention blind fundamentalism.

I anticipated you would make no attempt to actually say what matter is (because nobody can), and that you would instead wave the flag for science against all other truth (rightly laughed out of court by Mazrocon). So I collected just a few testimonies of leading scientists with more insight for you (though it’s hard to get more prestigious than Polanyi, Eddington or Gribbin - look them up). However some educational reading would be more useful, as it would be for a good few scientists:

...the presumed lower level entities do not exist in a theory-independent sense. Modern Quantum Physics put an end to atomism. The so-called fundamental entities (such as electrons, quarks or gluons) represent patterns of reality yet they are not building blocks of reality. They are not primary, but rather secondary and derived. Hans Primas (chemist)
The more deeply we examine the nature of matter, the more elusive, mysterious and mathematical matter itself appears to be. Sir Roger Penrose (mathematician).
The conflating of Nature with the impoverished mechanical conception of it invented by scientists during the seventeenth century has derailed the philosophies of science and mind for more than three centuries, by effectively eliminating the causal link between the the psychological and physical aspects of nature that contemporary physics restores. Henry P Stapp (quantum physicist)
Matter has now turned into an abstract, invisible reality for the modern physicist. Wolfgang Pauli (quantum physicist)
Because of the Pauli exclusion priniciple, matter is informatic, and something akin to mind has already entered the universe. Harold J Morowitz (biophysicist)
In some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is present even at the level of particle physics. David Bohm (theoretical physicist)

Mazrocon/George

How any relationship between the eternal Creator and Abraham in time works out is inevitably going to have some - “difficulties” for us.

But the story of Sodom is presented as a “training opportunity” - Abraham is destined to be the fountainhead of God’s wisdom and truth to the world, so he will need insight into God’s ways, which God is represented as deciding to give him. So it’s not a chance meeting leading to a man trying to change God’s stubborn mind, but God showing , if you like, how his mind works.

So it’s interesting that nothing actually changes for God - he says he’s off down to Sodom and will know what to do about its wickedness when he sees it. Abraham, as we know, keeps pushing the destruction threshold down and God keeps agreeing. God never says he’ll destroy the city with innocent people in it at all.

In the event, the only innocents in the city are Lot and his family, and God gets them out. Not even 5 good people perish. Lesson about God’s ways is learned by Abraham.

George, I agree with you about answered prayer having no implication of God’s will changing. Rather than seeing it as “front-loading”, though, I’d see it, like Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa and other “greats” in terms of God being eternal - that is, present in all moments as he is, was and ever shall be. In those terms, “change of mind” makes as much sense as him dying of old age.

A quote from Susan Oyama is, I feel, useful when discussions and debates arise regarding random, chaos and intentionality:

“The primal Word, bringer of order and meaning to chaos, introduces a comparison of Divine Logos with what I call Biologos. Both involve notions of direction, guiding agency, creative purpose, and meaning—roughly, intentionality. In addition, saying the “same thing” in several languages implies meanings that are independent of their linguistic vehicles, suggesting another characteristic of Logos and many information concepts in biology: their transcendence of, indeed, domination of the material.”

The meaning that we may access when we utter the name (or Word) of God, is singularly so (can never vary) even though we use different languages and come from differing backgrounds.

All scientists subscribe to a notion of laws of nature, even though few laws have been articulated as an absolute statement. I think it is incomprehensible that any scientist who practices his or her discipline, has done so without an awareness that a series of statements and formulas were indicative of laws in the background of the science, or that there was a “something” in Nature that ensured it was and is and will be “what it is”. Consequently, every scientists who has indulged in theoretical contemplations has become involved, to varying degrees, with a philosophy of science (PoS).

I suppose we may say the inverse, that if anyone avoids thinking is terms consistent with a PoS would not be considered a scientist, but merely a laboratory technician.

What does that mean? Science relies on previous science to progress. New science either confirms or falsifies old science. Science moves forward in understanding. In every field of human inquiry we know more today that we did yesterday through scientific investigation.

Not really but I will ponder it now and say that the universe may be comprehensible because human beings have progressed in their understanding of the universe through scientific investigation that some humans can have a reasonably accurate understanding about how the universe works and came to be.

I don’t know if science can determine “all there is”. But I do know that science can help us greatly to live our lives healthier, longer, and more conveniently than in Biblical times.

Notice how many fewer threads Eddie is actively stirring … now that we have reached a (temporary?) point where we are not disputing the meaning of ID, TE or EC?

It provides more time to discuss how to reach our three theoretical target audiences:

  1. Young Earth Creationists (who ultimately may not actually shift their views).

and

  1. Those who are confronted by YEC’s, who believe in God, but haven’t really thought about how God and Science can be harmonized philosophically.

and

  1. Those Scientists who have never considered how God can participate in the evolution of humankind and still not change how Evolutionary forces work and are perceived. The phrase “front-loading of creation” may be instrumental in this particular discussion.

George

Patrick

That is absolutely true, and I trust everyone will agree with that. But what Jon has been so patiently trying to explain to you is that contrary to your (and others) view that philosophy is a waste of time, because nobody ever got cured by philosophy, nor has philososphy produced a better cell phone, we in fact cannot function as a rational sane society without it.

This is a discussion on a somewhat deeper level than the platitude from you I quoted above. Its about the nature of truth, knowledge and reality. You can be free to ignore such things, but if you do, you cannot participate in any discussion of theology, philosophy, or pretty much anything else outside of the narrow confines of natural science. Since you DO choose to so participate, I suggest you at least take a look at some of the very valuable sources that Jon cites, before answering further. Otherwise your remarks are totally akin to the creationist who simply says when confronted by scientific evidence “Nope, I dont believe it” which since he/she has never studied or even read a single text in biology makes perfect sense to him/her.

I totally disagree. We can certainly function in a modern society without it because we are doing it now in 2015. Philosophy is and has been nearly utterly useless in the 21st century and I believe that it will continue to be useless in the future. That is why universities around the country are closing up their philosophy departments. And most colleges just have a few courses in it to fill humanities requirements.

Truth, knowledge and reality comes only through scientific investigation and human reasoning.

I participate to discuss the scientific results and to participate in helping to harmonize these scientific results with those whose faith and beliefs may greatly cloud their ability to reason clearly.

I am mainly referring to Rider University here in New Jersey as it made the news recently that it was having major cut backs due to funding/budgeting. It is closing Philosophy department as well as most foreign language departments as well as the music department. Sociology, psychology and education are untouched.

That seems like an overstatement to me. Plenty of rational, sane societies (well, societies not obviously more irrational or insane than ours) have functioned without any kind of formal philosophical study. Which is not to say that philosophy is without value, but I see no sign that a functioning society requires it.