|
Real_Solitude -> RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. (5/21/2008 5:44:56 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
But a point can be drawn from an "inference to the best explanation" type of argument in this way:
We do not and cannot predicate what the exact conditions of the early earth were like, or the even earlier beginning of the universe, by an appeal to direct or indirect observation. Of course, no sane person would argue that we could "directly" observe such conditions because we weren't there.
Furthermore, we cannot make an appeal to indirect observation of such conditions either, since such "conditions" would have to be identical with the present. But this contradicts the "evolutionary" notion of change and progress. Because the evolutionist sees change/progress in an ascending ladder of minimal complexity towards upwardly sophisticated complexity (perhaps maximally so). Therefore, the primitive earth and the primitive universe must have had a somewhat different configuration than it did now; otherwise, what's the use of even speaking of evolution, progress and change.p
Actually, in many cases, we can make direct observations of the early universe. Every time you look up into the night sky, you are effectively looking backwards in time. We know what a younger universe looked like (in part) because we can observe it. We can make indirect observations of it because of what evidence was left behind. We can measure the CMB, as well as other methods, to help place the age of the universe.
Of course the younger universe/solar system/Earth looked different than they do now. They look different now than they did ten years ago. Not by a lot, but there are measurable changes.
quote:
Now here is what we have as a datum that we can observe directly and indirectly: human beings.
Human beings, besides being in possession of a mere physical body, are also in possession of qualities like love, logic/rationality, intentionality (being able to think of things or think about things; even non-existent things), ability to create, ability to act, ability to perceive beauty, ability to communicate, act as moral agents, etc. And these very qualities mark humankind apart from all other types of things within the material universe.
With this in view, let us ask whether theism or atheism can offer some sort of explanation for this creature called man. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that neither theism nor atheism can dogmatically affirm what the conditions of the early earth and universe were like. Of course, the atheist will want to say that the universe, whatever it's primitive conditions, had no beginning. The theist will disagree. So let's set that debate aside and deal with evidence that is daily before us.
I'll take you premise, that we can only truly know about what we can directly observe.
If this is true, prove to me that abstract qualities are not products of the physical. As specific attributes (speech, morality, creativity, etc...) can be 'knocked out' by affecting specific areas of the brain, and the areas that regulate specific attributes have been shown to be generally consistent across multiple people, this indicates that the qualities you mention are products of the physical, or at least tied intimately with the physical.
Further, humans are far from the only animals to posses many of the qualities you mention. Crows and certain primates have been shown to be able to 'create' tools by manipulating their environment. Many animals communicate. Many animal groups even show what we would recognize as basic tenants of morality.
Who says the atheist will say the universe had no beginning? There are very strong indicators that space-time did indeed have a beginning. If this doesn't count as the universe beginning, I don't know what would.
quote:
I propose dealing with "human beings" as a datum that, like other phenomena that we observe, we want/need to subsume under some explanatory umbrella (i.e. like the behavior of material objects subsumed under the umbrella of "gravity").
Human beings can think, will and act; indeed they are "personal" and "animate" vs. "impersonal" and "animate"/"impersonal" and "inanimate".
Question: which theory/hypothesis is better able to account for these unique features of humankind that I had mentioned above?
[...]
Therefore, the atheist would have us believe in alchemy, as well as the notion that water truly can rise above it's source....which is really the bottom line regarding "epiphenomenalism" and "supervenience" views of the mind!!!
The 'atheist' would have you believe nothing. Being an atheist holds to nothing except a non-belief in a deity.
It is the scientist that would have you believe that, as you say, water truly can rise about it's source.
We see, based on the laws of nature, things combining. We see molecules form from atoms sheerly because specific circumstances force them to. We know that more complex things can come of simple things. This isn't proof that humans came from stardust, but you can't completely discard the notion that simple-to-complex does happen in some magnitude.
As for the mind:
I honestly don't know if everything you think is simply a direct product of events that began when time did. It may be that consciousness is an illusion. It may also be that consciousness is a chaotic quality, and emergent quality, etc... That the sum is greater than the parts, and that the matter we're made of has 'found a way' to influence its own destiny.
We know the mind and brain are connected. The remaining question is, "How intimately?"
We don't know enough to answer that question. Saying that you have an answer to this is pointless without anything to back it up.
quote:
I suppose you can argue that it just did, in fact, happen that way. Again, I already pointed out that we have no way of "knowing" what the universe/earth was like (even just 100 million years ago). How could we? Scientific instruments that "measure" the early earth/universe? They can only measure the present.
Besides, that argument would be a red herring to my point; which is that humans are categorically different then any kind of physical/material event or object in the known universe.
No matter which side you choose, it did 'just happen'.
I still say that your notion that we can't know about the past is flawed. You are (I assume) reading this while sitting at a desk. Prove to me that that desk existed ten minutes ago. If you want to get all philosophical about it, you really can't. You can offer evidences towards that desk having existed ten minutes ago, but you can't prove that it wasn't spontaneously generated two minutes ago, along with everything else, in its exact condition. This kind of thinking, however, is pointless. To get anywhere in discussion, especially scientific discussion, we must agree to a two (minimum) basic premises.
A. The universe exists.
B. The universe follows laws. (E.g. Tables don't pop into existence)
Using these two premises we can determine much about what has happened, and what is going to happen.
Unless you can offer a good reason that either of these two premises should be discarded, your argument is broken. If the universe follows laws, we can 'backtrack' those laws to determine what previously happened. We can observe similar phenomena (such as the formation of solar systems) and assume that our formed in pretty much the same way. Etc...
If you throw out either of the two premises, discussion is useless.
This is why I like science better than philosophy. Philosophy asks "is the universe real?" While science gets on with actually figuring out how the bloody thing works.
"Humans are categorically different than any kind of physical/material event or object in the known universe," is painting with too broad a brush. Supernova are different than anything non-supernova. Ice is different than anything non-ice. Snowflakes are different from anything non-snowflake. These statements are truistic and meaningless. Humans have unique properties, yes. So does everything else.
quote:
So you can take your pick:
The non-personal/non-rational/non-intentional (i.e. the universe) can produce the personal/rational/intentional (i.e. man qua volitional/intellectual/moral/creative).
Or
The personal/rational/intentional (i.e. God) can produce the personal/rational/intentional (i.e. man).
Finally, the question of the "existence or non-existence of God" is a philosophical question. To dismiss philosophical arguments altogether is itself a philosophical vs. scientific argument. But for the record, I don't buy into Gould's "NOMA" doctrine; nor do I think "science" is as rational as the scientists claim....but that would be steering us into a philosophical debate parenthetical to my argument above.
Philosophy has its uses. I will not dismiss philosophy entirely. However, philosophy does tend to engage in a lot of 'useless' business. That is, things that really don't have any application outside of thought experiment.
As to your question, I'm still not sold on the deity. I can not definitively say that only the natural exists, or that things followed a simply-to-complex schema, with humanity as one of its fruits. I can say that I have seen no compelling evidence for a creator. I can say that, from what I have seen, the simple-to-complex origin seems plausible.
I am willing to be sold on the god concept, and even the God concept. But for this to happen it would require either evidence that contradicts what I know, or a new explanation that encompasses all that has previously been explained in a better way.
|
|
|
|