Chance or Purpose?

[The_Catholic]

Hi Alec,

I’m delighted that I get to ask you questions.

Regarding: “The intellectually rigorous position is either to find divine providence operating in all these things or in none of them.”

Would the “intellectually rigorous position” of finding divine providence have to be a scientific one, philosophical one, or simply analytical? Or something other?

Regarding: “One can believe that God in His omnipotence and omniscience loaded the dice so that humans would evolve, but that is a purely religious and faith-based belief.”

How is that different from Neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis which finds a world of magnificent diversity spawned from a mixture of cells at the foot of the tree of life? Not only are the marvelous species diverse but some of the mechanics. Given that evolutionary theory doesn’t address the origin of life, how does it address the source (already with life) of all that has evolved including amoebas and humans. I am looking for a scientific answer even if it may have a few holes.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

Hi Granny!!

 

[hecd2]

I’ll stand by what I said.

Have you read the book?

Sorry - I missed your question the first time round: yes, I’ve read the book.

Have you read the book?

Yes.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

Hi Alec,

I’m delighted that I get to ask you questions.

Regarding: “The intellectually rigorous position is either to find divine providence operating in all these things or in none of them.”

Would the “intellectually rigorous position” of finding divine providence have to be a scientific one, philosophical one, or simply analytical? Or something other?

In this case, one can make a scientific argument for the fact that randomness is a fundamental feature of many natural phenomena, and a theological or philosophical argument that contingency does not preclude divine providence acting in them (as Ratzinger has done). Or one can make a theological argument that randomness and contingency are illusions and that God directs all things, and, leaving aside the problem of free will, reject the existence of contingency in Nature. Or one can accept the scientific argument and reject the notion of divine providence altogether. All of these are, at least, internally consistent arguments. We can object to any of them on the grounds of their premises, and make counter-claims - but they do not fall into the obvious error that Schoenborn does - which is to accept both the existence of randomness in nature and the proposition that it does not preclude divine providence EXCEPT for his bogey man of evolution. He tries to make evolution into a special case and fails badly.

Regarding: “One can believe that God in His omnipotence and omniscience loaded the dice so that humans would evolve, but that is a purely religious and faith-based belief.”

How is that different from Neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis which finds a world of magnificent diversity spawned from a mixture of cells at the foot of the tree of life?

It’s not different, or at least it’s not incompatible. Neither the Modern Sythesis nor any other scientific theory says anything directly about the existence or non-existence of God. The theory itself must be methodologically atheistic (ie it cannot appeal to god(s) as causes), but its proponents can be theists (of all sorts), agnostics or atheists. Some theistic scientists can and do believe that God in His omnipotence and omniscience loaded the dice so that humans would evolve, and this does not prevent them doing good science because the world continues to act as if God does not intervene, and it does not prevent them being good theists because God’s ways are mysterious.

Not only are the marvelous species diverse but some of the mechanics. Given that evolutionary theory doesn’t address the origin of life, how does it address the source (already with life) of all that has evolved including amoebas and humans. I am looking for a scientific answer even if it may have a few holes.

The genetic evidence is that the root is complex, but that all living things descend from archaea and bacteria. The complication is that archaea and bacteria exchange genetic material, and, of course, it is very likely that the cells of eukaryotes, from amoebae to humans, are the result of several symbioses between different bacteria and archaea - for example, the evidence is that mitochondria were originally free living bacteria - does that help?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

No, I’m not missing the point. Schoenborn began his campaign with his absurd article in New York Times and followed it up with an even worse article in First Things magazine.Throughout, his arguments have been characterised by his fear of the concept of random processes, at the same time as showing that his lack of understanding of the operation and consequence of randomness in nature.

You ask: does evolution have a purpose to it? If by that you mean “is the purpose of evolution to lead to the emergence of human beings?”, then the scientific answer is absolutely not. One can believe that God in his omnipotence and omniscience loaded the dice so that humans would evolve, but that is a purely religious and faith-based belief. The scientific evidence is that evolution is a natural phenomenon with random elements, and that it is no more purposeful than gravity, or symmetry breaking, or tropical storm formation, or the life cycle of Plasmodium falciparum or human conception. The intellectually rigorous position is either to find divine providence operating in all these things or in none of them. Schoenborn’s claim that one of them is especially divinely directed, along with his attack on the concept of randomness (or Chance as he calls it), and on the fundamental framework of modern biology, the Synthetic Theory, is intellectually flawed. His assertion that scientists should not use their knowledge of the natural world to draw philosophical and theological conclusions that disagree with his world view is also fallacious.

If Schoenborn’s position was merely to promote natural theology and deplore the fact that many scientists reach an atheistic conclusion, that would be fine, but he goes way beyond that and way beyond his competence.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

“way beyond his competence”? Is the Cardinal Catholic? Your comment “His assertion that scientists should not use their knowledge of the natural world to draw philosophical and theological conclusions that disagree with his world view is also fallacious.” shows what I’ve been talking about here all this time. And what part of science deals with theology?

If one does not believe in any gods, or the supernatural, what does it matter?

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Catholic]

“way beyond his competence”? Is the Cardinal Catholic? Your comment "His assertion that scientists should not use their knowledge of the natural world to draw philosophical and theological conclusions that disagree with his world view is also fallacious." shows what I’ve been talking about here all this time. And what part of science deals with theology?

If one does not believe in any gods, or the supernatural, what does it matter?

Peace,
Ed

This is exactly why the Cardinal wrote the book too, because scientists keep trying to push their “ideology” D) into the theology.

 

[hecd2]

“way beyond his competence”? Is the Cardinal Catholic?

Yes, in his articles and his book, Schoenborn makes assertions that go way beyond his competence. The fact that he is a Catholic Cardinal doesn’t make him immune to error.

Your comment “His assertion that scientists should not use their knowledge of the natural world to draw philosophical and theological conclusions that disagree with his world view is also fallacious.” shows what I’ve been talking about here all this time.

Have you also been arguing that it is a fallacy to claim that scientists shouldn’t use their experience and knowledge to determine their worldview?

And what part of science deals with theology?

Science doesn’t deal with theology, but scientists, like everyone else have world views. Science can also deal with religious claims that intersect the natural world (such as origins, literal Adam and Eve, worldwide Noahic flood etc). Schoenborn’s error is in claiming that scientists shouldn’t use what they know about the world to arrive at a worldview. That’s nonsense. Everyone should weigh up all of their experience and knowledge to arrive at their world view.

If one does not believe in any gods, or the supernatural, what does it matter?

It matters because the truth always matters.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

This is exactly why the Cardinal wrote the book too, because scientists keep trying to push their “ideology” D) into the theology.

And you think Schoenborn’s book is going to stop anyone publicly declaring their personal philosophy and the reasons they hold it? It would have to be a vastly better book than it is to do that. It would have to avoid the errors of fact and philosophy that plague it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Yes, in his articles and his book, Schoenborn makes assertions that go way beyond his competence. The fact that he is a Catholic Cardinal doesn’t make him immune to error.
Have you also been arguing that it is a fallacy to claim that scientists shouldn’t use their experience and knowledge to determine their worldview?
Science doesn’t deal with theology, but scientists, like everyone else have world views. Science can also deal with religious claims that intersect the natural world (such as origins, literal Adam and Eve, worldwide Noahic flood etc). Schoenborn’s error is in claiming that scientists shouldn’t use what they know about the world to arrive at a worldview. That’s nonsense. Everyone should weigh up all of their experience and knowledge to arrive at their world view.
It matters because the truth always matters.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

“the truth always matters”? If you told this to the Cardinal directly, what do you think he would say? Now that it’s been established that scientists do, in fact, use science to arrive at a worldview - it is more clear than ever why most leading scientists are atheists.

So, I suggest you contact the Cardinal and tell him what you’ve discovered to be not true in the Bible. Honestly. Mentioning any of those things here does not seem to be productive. Humani Generis clearly shows that the Church is open to an investigation of this issue, both for and against. But the problem is the atheist-scientist orthodoxy.

If God never appears in the equations or the observations then certainly, He must not exist. The problem, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently found out, is that God painted the image on the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Any scientist could examine it whenever he would like.

Peace,
Ed