Re: Is Darwinism Self-Refuting? (was: An intelligent discussion with Intelligent Design's designer)

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:06 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: Is Darwinism Self-Refuting? (was: An intelligent discussion with Intelligent Design's designer)"

    >Chris
    >I agree with the basic point made here, also. However, I don't think there
    >is much point to seeking to find scientific evidence for their God, unless
    >they can somehow define how there could be scientific evidence for *God* as
    >distinguished from evidence for, say, alien beings who make universes like
    >ours (out of existing substance) via technological means for their science
    >classes, etc.

    Well, if this alien being did everything that their God is supposed to do,
    then for all practical purposes it would be a God. If it looks like a God
    and quacks like a God...

    A super-powerful alien being wouldn't have the absolute moral authority that
    they claim for their God. But, as far as I'm concerned, even if their
    absolute God (eternal, omnipotent, etc) existed, I would not accept its
    claim to absolute moral authority (though I would probably obey its
    edicts!).

    >I reject the dichotomy between values and facts, though I don't think
    >empirical science has anything to do with values in any basic sense. It is
    >one of the jobs of philosophy to uncover and validate basic values. Science
    >can tell us about some of the facts to which these values apply. Thus, if
    >we decide that human life is a basic value, science can give us enormous
    >assistance in promoting our survival and wellbeing.

    I think that individual values may be arrived at by reasonable means, based
    on logical inference from other moral values combined with premises about
    the world. But I fail to see how there can be any rational basis for our
    most fundamemtal moral values. If we decide that human life is a basic
    value, on what do we base that decision? We are into a potentially infinite
    regression, which, at some point, must start with a value judgment that has
    no basis.

    Unless... The one possible ultimate value is personal satisfaction. I'm not
    sure about this, and I hasten to add that this wouldn't mean that we should
    all behave selfishly. Behaving altruistically may bring us psychological
    satisfaction.

    In any case, regardless of whether there can be a rational basis for values
    in principle, it's obvious that in practice many values people hold are not
    rational. So I *do* claim that there's a dichotomy between facts and values
    (or at least *some* values).

    >Though Gould's approach, as I understand it, seems superficially plausible,
    >it ultimately fails because it permits unreason in the field of values.
    >While *science* can be said to be irrelevant to philosophical values,
    >reason cannot be irrelevant to discovering and validating values. The basic
    >"law" of rationality is to believe all, but *only*, what one has adequate
    >cognitive validation for, and Gould's way violates this principle.

    I don't understand why you seem to be equating facts with reason. I equate
    them with science, which you seem to agree is irrelevant to (philosophical)
    values.

    I reject Gould's approach because I cannot imagine a religion which did not
    make factual claims (beyond those supported by science). All religions that
    I know of do so. If a value system existed that appealed only to
    reason and scientific facts, would it be called a religion? Humanism is
    probably such a system and it's not generally considered a religion.

    Richard Wein (Tich)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 16:56:11 EDT