Now I didn’t say that Matt. I said that the thought experiment, couched in the terms it is, purports to give us a way to consider Ockham’s Razor vs. God’s guidance, yes?

It is the terms themselves that I have trouble with. There are many such stories, some thought experiments like this, some just jokes.

They kind of irk me when they involve ‘how God making things’ as compared to ‘some other intelligent being’ making things, because God isn’t supposed to have made the universe anything at all like we or some other intelligent beings make stuff.

Me getting some wood and sawing and measuring and screwing together and coming up with a chair is not a good analogy to God making the universe at all now.

Me thinking of a chair and a chair ‘poofing’ into existence IS.

Nevertheless, I was pointing out the the Ockham’s Razor weathered vs.’tooled by a being’ thing didn’t work, and it doesn’t.

Fine by me if Plantinga was pointing out to theists, and ONLY to theists, how God might ‘work’ through evolution. Hey, that’s perfect.

Plantinga is not changing from the neutral to the Christian perspective and even if he was calling this sermonising is not really a response.

Plantinga was not addressing the question was not wether evolution, taken by itself in isolation from any other facts provides good reason for an agnostic to accept theism. He in fact concedes that, the answer to this question might be no.

The question was whether a person who believes in God, who is appraised of current evolutionary theory is rationally compelled to give up belief in God. In other words wether evolutionary theory discredits or disproves belief in God.

The question of wether X proves Y is a different question to the question of wether Y disproves X.

I’m sorry, this is just not true. Imagine, you and I go on a space exploration, land on a planet and you point out a rock that looks for all the world like an arrowhead.

Here’s what I’m thinking would and would not happen. 1) We look at each other with ‘surprise’ on our faces! 2) The word ‘Ockham’ does not spring to your theistic or my atheistic mind.

Adding the knowledge that there is ANY kind of life noticable on the planet would make the possibility of it being an arrowhead even more intriguing.

Finally the knowledge that there is intelligent life there, makes it more likely that the arrowhead is, in fact, an artifact and not simply chance weathering.

Seems to me that Plantinga is bending over backwards to create, in our mind, not just an analogous situation, but an analogous situation where God is a ‘given’. We’re being led by Plantinga, and you, since you agree, to consider the possiblity that intelligence is behind evolving DNA, by imagining a similar(?) situation where we KNOW already that there is intelligence which may be involved.(or not)

Seems to me that since you and Plantinga are determined to believe that there IS intelligence involved in the processes of the universe, of course Ockham’s razor WOULD suggest God’s involvement.

Anyone daring to suggest Ockham’s Razor as an alternative to your God hypothesis is simply not looking at the problem from your perspective, and it seems to me that Plantinga’s thought experiment is designed to change our perspective, to twist our perspective from neutral towards a Godly perspective.

Is this philosophizing, or is it just sermonizing?

Rally there is nothing much of substance to reply to that hasn’t already been covered. Just a few points though.

1: You assert: “Its a little disengenous for a scientist who runs a blog on religion and philosophy to complain when theologians and philosophers criticise scientific pronouncements in this area don;t you think?”

I guess that’s always the trouble with asserting the motives of others. To reiterate:

I come from the perspective of a scientist, with some philosophical interest and background. My motivation for starting Open Parachute was to argue the emotional and philosophical case for science – and in particular to defend it against attacks of those who oppose and misrepresent science. This of course brings one into conflict with things like ID/creationism and other religiously motivated propaganda. I naturally argue against them. Similarly I argue against the misrepresentation of, and attacks on, scientific epistemology and other aspects of scientific philosophy. It’s a passion of mine. Again these attacks are very often religiously motivated.

Otherwise my only political interest in religion is a human rights one – my concern over the exclusion of a third of NZ’s population from the National Religious Diversity Discussion and Statement was one of the initiating factors for my blog.

Apart from that – I of course have a scientific fascination for the evolution of human self awareness (consciousness) and the role of ideas. Religion, (its origins, evolution and current social role) is one of those that interests me from a scientific viewpoint.

You seem to want to ban me from discussing, commenting on, people who use philosophical/religious arguments to attack humanity’s scientific achievements (let alone distorting empirical facts in their attacks). What’s the matter? Don’t you like, or aren’t you used to this sort of challenge? Just because I engage with the ideas you present should not be interpreted as me complaining about your right to present your own ideas – come off it! That is paranoid.

Personally I enjoy challenging these ideas. I say – bring them on. Better out than in. The light of day is the best disinfectant. And I will continue applying light to ideas I consider mistaken or malicious.

So don’t go away with the idea I am complaining – just because I desire to correct you when I think you are wrong in your comments on science or engage with you in your other assertions.

2: A specific question from you: “I would here simply ask you a question. As you well know the contention that scientific theories provide approximately true descriptions of the world is actually a controversial philosophical position, the position of scientific realism. While this is a popular view there is are significant rival interpretations of what science does various forms of anti-realism. In light of this why should any scientific theory be taught as true in public schools?”

A lot of things are controversial “philosophically.” You should be aware of that. You should be aware that there are a whole range of philosophical views – some of them quite out of touch with reality – some would even say mad. The important things is that there is not that controversy in the real philosophy of science or within science itself. We do have our controversies and they of course can involve philosophical details – but nothing that crude.

I should warn that there are plenty of people out there claiming to specialise in the “philosophy”, “sociology” or “history” of science who we would consider academic charlatans – quite divorced from the reality of science. They might of course appeal to you (in fact, I know that one of them Plantinga, does appeal to you). They have no credibility with me. That is why I am not impressed by your arguments which appeal to the vague authority of academic philosophy and theology. (I always find such arguments from authority a sign of weakness).

Similarly vague arguments for “empirical evidence for Gods existence ” don’t impress me either. After all, it’s not as if you don’t have an ideological barrow to push. As always, I am far more impressed by the actual evidence, the presentation and discussion of that evidence, rather than continual assertions that there is evidence. I can engage with the former. The later is not worth engaging with.
.-= My last blog-post ..Saving the planet with condoms =-.

[...] a recent dis­cus­sion a local sup­porter (I think) of the­is­tic evo­lu­tion put it this way: Both “the­is­tic [...]

Of course, there is no difference between astronomy, physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry and evolutionary science here. Scientists get on and do there job and gods never come into it – and won’t until (or if) some evidence requires it.

Well according to a large number of scientists and philosophers of science this is false. Many in fact have stated that science rules out God aprori. Given the large number who have said this your comment requires substantive argument not assertion.

Of course some people will use scientific knowledge to justify the religious positions (theism and atheism) as you were doing here, but that’s beside the point.
The real problem here is that there has been an organised attempt to suppress evolutionary science in the public sphere, and particularly in education. And the motivation for this has been religious. You surely can’t doubt that?

I agree there has been this ( the Scopes trial for example, though it needs to be noted that much of what is said about the Scopes trial is false)

However you are being a bit selective here. Since the time of Huxley there has also been attempts to use evolutionary theory to attack and criticize theism and many leading scientists (Gould, Futyama, Dawkins and various others) have stated both that evolution is certain and it proves that God does not exist. If Scientists are going to use science to make theological and philosophical claims and then they cannot complain when theologians and philosophers criticize them for doing so.

Its a little disengenous for a scientist who runs a blog on religion and philosophy to complain when theologians and philosophers criticise scientific pronouncements in this area don;t you think?

Moreover many members of the scientific community have used the courts to out law any discussion of theological criticisms of evolutionary theory from the public schools and have been much more successful in doing so. Hence I think its fair to say that much of the antagonism is from your side.

(Although I think you have argued for the same suppression yourself).
Well this is really a separate subject, but as you are aware I have refuted this charge on more than one occasion. I will simply repeat myself. I argued that , in a pluralistic society, its often unjust to teach evolutionary theory as true in public schools, I defended the idea that it should be taught as the best scientific hypothesis. Now if merely refusing to teach something as true in a pluralistic context is suppression then the widely accepted view that we should not teach that Christianity or Islam is true in public schools would constitute the suppression of these religions.

I would here simply ask you a question. As you well know the contention that scientific theories provide approximately true descriptions of the world is actually a controversial philosophical position, the position of scientific realism. While this is a popular view there is are significant rival interpretations of what science does various forms of anti-realism. In light of this why should any scientific theory be taught as true in public schools?
Wouldn’t honesty require the theory be taught and then students be informed that whether the theories function to provide us with approximate truth or do something else is a matter of debate amongst the relevant experts, and why not also teach them something of the issues involved in the debate. To teach theories as true seem to me to actually teach a controversial view of philosophy of science. What’s the justification for this?
We consider religious belief has nothing to do with this – We keep it out of science and will continue to do so until (or if) there is objective evidence which requires including it.

That seems a question begging response, after all some people who argue for the inclusion of theological propositions in science argue they should be included in as part of the background evidence against which theories are tested. To exclude it from being so included on the grounds that the evidence you test theories against does not justify such claims is obviously circular.

Moreover the claim that there is no empirical evidence for Gods existence is a controversial claim. Those who study the arguments for Gods existence disagree over this issue. Some argue the evidence is sufficient, some argue it’s not. If thislack of consensus is the reason why theological claims are excluded then I would ask why science does not also exclude all scientific claims over which there is significant debate and lack of consensus.
Why not exclude punctuated equilibrium or steady state theories ? Or differing interpretations of quantum mechanics? It’s funny how scientists have no trouble including these things even though there is dispute over whether the evidence supports them, there fairly obviously is some special pleading going on here.
.-= My last blog-post ..Published – Three Strikes: Proportion and Protection =-.

So to see your wee cheerleading comment does raise the question of just what the heck you’re talking about.

Thanks

BTW – the commentluv installed here just isn’t able to read my feed for some reason.