Reflectorites
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:43:47 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
>SJ>Here is an Amazon.com listing on Phil Johnson's latest book, "The Wedge
>>of Truth," ...The review of the book states: ...
>>"More important, while we may learn a great deal from science, it
>>does not offer us unlimited knowledge. In fact, most scientists
>>readily acknowledge that it cannot deal with ultimate purposes and
>>meaning in life. So to what authority will we turn for these?
>CC>Why do we need an *authority* other than reason? We don't use authorities
>as the final arbiter in science, so why should there be any in any other field?
Leaving aside the myth that "science" does not rely on "authorities" (see
tagline), if Chris thinks he can work out "ultimate purposes" by "reason"
alone then good luck to him. If reason alone was adequate to work out
ultimate purposes, and better minds than Chris's have been trying to work
them out by reason alone for at least 2,500 years, then they would have
worked them all out long ago.
The problem is one's *starting point*. Reason is OK working from
premises to conclusions, but at some point, the premises have to be simply
*assumed*. Those premises themselves cannot be based on reason
because then one is either using another more fundamental assumption or
one is reasoning in a circle.
And the differences in starting points is probably the main factor in
explaining differences in major positions:
"Reason implies more than logic, however, because logic is merely a way
of getting from premises to conclusions. Logic works from metaphysical
assumptions, or pictures of reality, and it leads in very different directions
depending on the starting point." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
1995, pp.38-39)
>SJ>The deficiencies in science and naturalism call for a cognitive
>>revolution, a fundamental change in our worldview and thinking
>>habits. And it all begins with a wedge of truth.
>CC>Ah, yes, cognition is now to be replaced with "truth" that is achieved by
>some non-cognitive means.
It doesn't say that "cognition is now to be replaced with `truth'"
or that that "truth" is to be "achieved by some non-cognitive
means". It is saying that there is a need for "a fundamental *change*
in" cognition, i.e. science's naturalistic "worldview and thinking
habits".
>SJ>The wedge of truth does not abandon a foundation of rational
>>thought but acknowledges that reason encompasses more than
>>science can provide.
>CC>If this is true, it's a radical departure from his other books.
Chris sets himself up as the final arbiter of reason and truth and then from
that narrow base pass absolute judgments on people like Johnson who
would eat him for breakfast in reasoning power!
If Chris wants to appear rational (instead of emotional), he should try to
acknowledge in a detached way that Johnson and he work from different
assumed *starting points*.
It is then OK to critique Johnson's starting points, but at the end of the day,
bcause Chris is not God, the rational thing for Chris to do is admit that
Johnson could be right and Chris could be wrong about their assumed
starting points, and therefore about all the downstream conclusions that
flow from those starting point.
For Chris to continually criticise Johnson's reasoning powers when the
real issue is clearly his different starting point from Chris, is itself
bordering on the irrational.
>SJ>Johnson wants to put back on the table for
>>public debate issues that have often been ruled out of court. In
>>splitting the foundations of naturalism, Johnson analyzes the latest
>>debates about science and evolution. He incisively pinpoints
>>philosophical assumptions and counters the objections to intelligent
>>design raised by its most recent critics."
>CC>Again, if this last sentence is true, it's a radical departure from his
>other books. Is he *finally* going to pickup the burden of proof for
>non-naturalism and for design theory?
Here again, Chris wants to make his naturalistic assumptions as the default
position, rather than have a level playing field where the evidence for and
against naturalism and design can be presented and people make up their
own minds.
To me this is a sign of *weakness* on Chris' part. If Chris thought his
view of reality was true, he should have no need to have the playing field
tilted in his favour. A *level* playing field is all that Chris would need in
that case.
CC>Or is he going to rehash his previous
>arguments and reformulate his previous misrepresentations of evolutionary
>theory and naturalism, in order to give himself theories that can be easily
>refuted (while *claiming* to have refuted the real thing, of course)?
Chris by this shows that *to him* there can never be genuine critiques of
"evolutionary theory and naturalism" that are not "misrepresentations".
This shows that *for Chris*, it is impossible for any one "to have refuted
the real thing". If any critic looks like doing so, Chris has a range of
defense mechanisms including declaring his own position to be the default
position to personally discrediting the critic!
But Johnson has no need to wait for the approval of Chris and his ilk.
Johnson's books are best sellers and are being read by a wide range of
influential people. Johnson is on a personal friendship basis with atheist
Darwinists like Provine and Ruse who acknowledge that his critique of
"evolutionary theory and naturalism" is on the mark. The atheist Nobel
prize-winning physicist, Steven Weinberg even described Johnson as:
"The most respectable academic critic of evolution may currently be
Professor Phillip Johnson of the University of California School of
Law." (Weinberg S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," 1992, p.247)
>SJ>With the increasingly high profile that Johnson has gained in the 9 years
>>since "Darwin on Trial", this book will probably be *very* influential. Its
>>Amazon.com sales rank is already 7,997, which is quite high, considering it
>>is not even out yet.
I can't remember if I have already done this, but someone pointed out to
me privately a few days later t hat Amazon.com had "The Wedge of
Truth" ranked at 70,228, which is a lot lower than the 7,997 which I
quoted. I saved my copy of Amazon's web page and it definitely had
"Amazon.com Sales Rank: 7,997". But when I rechecked Amazon.com's
link it had "Sales Rank: 60,090", so it must have been an error by
Amazon.com.
>SJ>When the book comes out and if it sells well, the scientific materialists
>>will face an agonising dilemma. If they ignore the book it will look like they
>>cannot answer it. But if they review it in a "hatchet job" manner (as
>>happened with Darwin on Trial),
>CC>I've read "Darwin on Trial." Perhaps you should read it too.
I am glad to see that Chris has at least read "Darwin on Trial". That puts
him ahead of some of Johnson's critics! For example Pennock wrote a
book critiquing Johnson, and made a point about Johnson ignoring
something in DoT. But in DoT Johnson had actually covered that point but
it was not in the index! If Pennock had actually read DoT, instead of just
dipping into it, he would have found it.
>CC>Reviewers
>hardly needed to do a hatchet job on it, since Johnson pretty much did that
>himself, right in the book. It does not take a genius to see how bad the
>arguments in that book are.
See above. Chris probably doesn't realise it but he only weakens his own
credibility as an objective critic by claiming that Johnson's arguments are
"bad". Since other leading Darwinists like Provine and Ruse regard
Johnson's arguments with respect, it really shows that *for Chris*, there
can be no good arguments against Darwinism.
>SJ>they will provoke a flood of letters to the
>>editor from Johnson's many supporters and provole counter articles in the
>>media and on the Web which will only publicise the book further.
>CC>This may be true, but it won't improve the quality of Johnson's arguments
>any. Johnson has so many supporters because so many people are ignorant of
>both rational philosophy and naturalistic evolutionary theory, and because
>so many people have a deep psychological vested interest in supporting some
>version of creationism.
Chris is free to believe this sort of thing if he finds it comforting. But does
it ever occur to Chris *he* might "have a deep psychological vested
interest in supporting some version of" evolutionism?
>CC>The philosophical views of the Dark Ages (the views
>that *made* them the Dark Ages) are still very popular. Both actual
>superstition (such as Christianity) and superstitious ways of thinking
>still dominate our culture.
Of course is Christianity is *true*, then it is *Chris* who is
believing in "superstition"!
>SJ>Their best bet probably is to review it as briefly and as low-key as possible
>>and hope that most of their readers won't notice. But the problem then
>>would be that a weak review would be unacceptable to the more hard-core
>>scientific materialists among their readers, and they would get floods of
>>letters to the editor anyway!
>>
>>I am glad it is their problem, and not mine! :-)
>CC>I'm not sure that it's anyone's problem -- yet. If it makes the *topic*
>more popular, it may provide a market for my own work on naturalism and
>non-naturalism, showing how absolutely empty non-naturalism is, how
>cognitively *pointless* it is, how non-naturalistic theories, both in
>philosophy and in science, provide nothing that's not more parsimoniously
>available in naturalism.
I have already addressed this `naturalism is more parsimonious' claim in a
response to Richard:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 05:28:21 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[...]
>But I will now take off my ID hat and put on my Christian theist hat!
>
>"Most scientists" (and presumably Richard) believe that the universe either
>"(b) sprang into existence ex nihilo, or (c) existed for all eternity...". So
>why exactly is it unbelievable that a Creator "(c) existed for all eternity"
>and caused the universe to "(b) sprang into existence ex nihilo"?
>
>Especially since there are *big* problems with matter having "(c) existed
>for all eternity" - even atomic nuclei eventually decay after hundreds of
>billions of years, and that is a mere microsecond compared to eternity.
>And if matter decays over time, and it has been existing for all eternity,
>it would already have come and gone by now.
>
>So the atheist would therefore have to try to come up with some explanations
>for this, and immediately his so-called "parsimonious" theory becomes
>*less* "parsimonious" than the Christian theist's theory.
>
>And there are even bigger problems with the universe having "(b) sprang
>into existence ex nihilo", ie. out of literally *nothing at all*. It is probably
>*unbelievable* for the human mind to accept that this whole universe,
>could pop into existence out of literally *nothing* at all. And as soon as the
>atheist tried to explain this, again his theory would immediately become
>*less* "parsimonious" than the Christian theist's theory.
>
>And that is just for starters. Once we get into the *fantastic* fine-tunedness
>of the universe for life, the atheists "parsimonious" theory has to start
>postulating infinite numbers of unobservable universes, all with different
>laws of physics in order to explain just this one.
>
>So if the atheist's "parsimonious" explanation for the origin of the universe
>quickly becomes un-"parsimonious", then why would an atheist like
>Richard continue believing it anyway?
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that naturalism only *seems* more parsimonious than theism, but
it immediately has to rely on a whole raft of ad hoc auxiliary hypothesis to
stay afloat.
>CC>Non-naturalism's functions are *not* cognitive.
>They are *psychological*. They provide thought-free pseudo-solutions to
>various kinds of intellectual problems, such as whether and how the
>Universe came to be, what life is and how it came to be, the meaning of
>life, etc.
Sounds to me like Chris is admitting that he has no good explanation
for "how the Universe came to be, what life is and how it came to be, the
meaning of life", so he is trying to declare it a "pseudo-"*problem*?
If not, maybe Chris can tell us: 1. "how the Universe came to be"; 2.
"what life is and how it came to be"; and 3. "the meaning of life"?
>CC>In fact, *so* deep is the avoidance of thought in non-naturalistic theories
>that many non-naturalists argue that without their non-naturalism, there
>*is* no meaning to life, no basis for morality, etc. But this does not
>prove anything except that they have not bothered to think deeply about
>these and similar questions. They are like children who say that there
>*must* be a Santa Claus, because there *cannot* be any other means by which
>toys could get under the tree during the night before Christmas. Such
>children would be wrong, and these types of claims about naturalism are
>wrong for the same reasons
Instead of Chris just asserting the above, it would be interesting to have
him try to actually rationally *demonstrate* it (i.e. without relying on his
usual `discredit the opposition' and `tilt the playing field' tactics).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is said that there is no place for an argument from authority from science.
The community of science is constantly self-critical ... It is certainly true that
within each narrowly defined scientific field there is constant challenge to
new technical claims and to old wisdom. ... But when scientists transgress the
bounds of their own specialty they have no choice but to accept the claims of
authority, even though they do not know how solid the grounds of those
claims may be. Who am I to believe that quantum physics if not Steven
Weinberg, or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is
that they may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell them about evolution."
(Lewontin, Richard., "Billions and Billions of Demons", review of "The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark", by Carl Sagan,
New York Review, January 9, 1997, pp.30-31
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19970109028R@p6)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 17:45:31 EDT