Evidence for Design?

[Al_Moritz]

Is science willing to state that there is something (anything) outside of the realm of science? Have you ever seen that in any scientific papers – namely, that there is something outside of science that exists?

That is NOT the business of science to make such statements, and no scientific paper makes such a statement. Again, for the umpteenth time, science follows methodological naturalism, and anything outside that method falls outside science – by definition, no but and if, no uh and ooh.

If scientists want to make such statements, that is their personal business, but when they do, they do not make such statements as scientists.

Does the fact that you find the scientific evidence unconvincing contribute to your belief in the immaterial component of the mind?

No, not only is there no scientific evidence in favor of rationality being purely material *), philosophical considerations lead to the conclusion that there cannot in principle be such scientific evidence. Rationality requires freedom of thought, and physical determinism simply does not allow for that.

---

*) the correlation of brain activity with mental activity is a non-starter. Scholastic philosophers like Aquinas predicted such correlation many centuries ago, because human thought requires accompanying mental images that are delivered by the brain.

 

[reggieM]

That is NOT the business of science to make such statements, and no scientific paper makes such a statement. Again, for the umpteenth time, science follows methodological naturalism, and anything outside that method falls outside science.

First of all, thanks for your replies. My questions and comments are not intended to be pesky or insolent – I especially appreciate your perspective as a scientist.

I’m just looking at the gray areas and exploring the various concepts.

Two things strike me about your definition:

1. You say that “anything outside that method falls outside of science”. So, science has to determine if something is “inside” or “outside”, apparently. If science determines that something is “outside” – then it necessarily says that there is something outside of naturalism. This is what you’ve done. In order to “limit” science, there has to be boundaries. But boundaries mean that there is an inside and outside – thus, things outside of science actually exists.
2. I think most scientists today will reject the idea that there is any “outside” at all. Absolutely everything is “inside” of science. There is no limit, no exception to that.
   That is what science really is today.

No, not only is there no scientific evidence in favor of rationality being purely material *),

Can you name any prominent scientists that agree with that statement? Are there any scientific papers that state that there is no such evidence?

… philosophical considerations lead to the conclusion that there cannot in principle be such scientific evidence. Rationality requires freedom of thought, and physical determinism simply does not allow for that.

What does this say about an entire body of science (the entire world of evolutionary science on the origin of the mind and consciousness), that pursues evidence which cannot, in philosophical principle, even exist?

Would it necessarily be true that science itself today is pursuing subject-matter that is actually outside the realm of science?

 

[reggieM]

…philosophical considerations lead to the conclusion that there cannot in principle be such scientific evidence. Rationality requires freedom of thought, and physical determinism simply does not allow for that.

That is evidence of intelligent design in nature.

We observe that rationality exists in nature (in human persons). Rationality requires freedom of thought. Physical determinism cannot produce that kind of freedom or rationality.

Thus, rationality has a non-physical origin and is evidence of the existence of a Designer (who possesses freedom, rationality and intelligence).

 

[Al_Moritz]

That is evidence of intelligent design in nature.

We observe that rationality exists in nature (in human persons). Rationality requires freedom of thought. Physical determinism cannot produce that kind of freedom or rationality.

Thus, rationality has a non-physical origin and is evidence of the existence of a Designer (who possesses freedom, rationality and intelligence).

I agree with you. But this evidence is philosophical evidence, NOT scientific evidence.

I will reply to your other post later, probably tonight.

 

[reggieM]

I agree with you. But this evidence is philosophical evidence, NOT scientific evidence.

I see it as scientific evidence.

Proposal: Rationality has a non-material origin.
Falsification: Display scientific evidence that rationality is an entirely material process.
Actual results: No such scientific evidence can be shown.
Best inference from the data: Rationality has a non-material origin.

 

[ricmat]

But this evidence is philosophical evidence, NOT scientific evidence.

Which one is better?

 

[Al_Moritz]

I see it as scientific evidence.

Proposal: Rationality has a non-material origin.
Falsification: Display scientific evidence that rationality is an entirely material process.
Actual results: No such scientific evidence can be shown.
Best inference from the data: Rationality has a non-material origin.

O.k., it is now obvious that you are unable and/or unwilling to follow my correct analytical argument about what is scientific and what is not. Under these circumstances, answering your post # 42 would be futile and a waste of my time.

Thanks for the discussion, have a great day.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Which one is better?

There is no ‘better’, there are just different categories of knowledge.

I will repeat from above:

That disease of wanting to give anything the label ‘scientific’ just to make it ‘sound better’ appears to come from the culture of scientism, which is the idea that only scientific knowledge is rational and valid knowledge. Not just atheists, also Christians appear to be infected with this culture.

 

[reggieM]

O.k., it is now obvious that you are unable and/or unwilling to follow my correct analytical argument about what is scientific and what is not. Under these circumstances, answering your post # 42 would be futile and a waste of my time.

Thanks for the discussion, have a great day.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I think the questions in post #42 are difficult, and I don’t think I’m unwilling to hear what you have to say.

The question of what science is or is not, or what it should be or not – is not a question that science can answer, in the first place. And I think I showed that science itself does not respect the distinction that you are very adamant about maintaining.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony - if you can somehow prevent this thread from being shut down, then you’ll deserve much more than a tip of the hat.

There is no need whatsoever to bring the forbidden topic into this discussion because we are concerned with the limitations of science and not what it has been misguidedly thought to explain…

.

… your OP is one of the best explanations I’ve seen on design – I’m going to save it as a resource.

It’s a summary of my thesis and subsequent reflections so I can’t claim it is new or entirely original but a synthesis of critiques of attacks on the Design argument !

 

[tonyrey]

What? you can’t think of *any *other scenarios, right or wrong? You surprise me.

The onus is on you to **prove **a non sequitur on my part.

No court decisions are infallible if they refer to matters of fact rather than logical consistency with established laws.

Well, no in either case. But the design=creationism is a gimme, whatever specious sliced hair arguments attempt to distinguish it.

Then please explain why belief in Design **necessarily **entails instant Creation.

But so many people were being SO silly that it actually came to a court case. Those amazing Americans!!!

Court verdicts are fallible.

 

[Whadyamean]

The onus is on you to **prove **a non sequitur on my part.

Then please explain why belief in Design **necessarily **entails instant Creation.

Court verdicts are fallible.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[tonyrey]

I see it as scientific evidence.

Proposal: Rationality has a non-material origin.
Falsification: Display scientific evidence that rationality is an entirely material process.
Actual results: No such scientific evidence can be shown.
Best inference from the data: Rationality has a non-material origin.

1. Neuroscientists work on the principle that the mind can be explained in terms of brain functions
2. Therefore neuroscientists are attempting to establish a metaphysical as well as a scientific explanation of the mind
3. Even though we believe they are misguided they are entitled to their opinion and modus operandi
4. Therefore science and metaphysics cannot always be clearly demarcated
5. The Design argument is another attempt to establish a metaphysical conclusion based on scientific facts
6. SETI uses scientific methods to discover a metaphysical conclusion, i.e. whether **persons **exist elsewhere in the universe
7. That metaphysical conclusion has no bearing on the metaphysical nature of persons

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for presenting your view.

 

[jschutzm]

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

What are your views?

In all of these discussions… the issue of “morality” and right and wrong comes up.
But I would say THIS…

Without an example, or without a “law giver” as I believe Acquainas argued or a without a “perfect form” as I believe Plato would have argued… WHY do we even prefer “good” over evil? How or where did this sense of “good” vs. wrong even come about? – Anotherwards, how do we even KNOW about these 2 dichotomies? - how do we even HAVE a concept of it? Where did that come from?

We don’t see animals wrestling with good vs. evil. Why is good even considered good? And why do we “prefer” it over evil and not merely just be morally neutral or ethically agnostic? - anotherwards, somewhere in the middle, doing whatever we feel like, like animals without a worry about good bad or anything else?
Assuming there is no creator/designer at least.

IF a designer did not at least impart its preference on this universe in the form of some sense of morality… WHERE did it come from? IF a non-theist can not give me very detailed explanation… beyond “over millions of years” then I feel they should at least reserve some space for a supernatural explanation. Not many will.

But for me, without a creator/designer - a ‘prime mover’ or an ‘esse’ in Greek, I believe, which means roughly “to be” (the state of being itself) I can not fathom HOW we have a concept of good and evil and I can’t tell you why I would innately prefer ‘good’ over evil.

However, WITH a creator… I can very much see how our universe would obey his laws and prefer good over evil because there were be some objective definition of what that is.

 

[reggieM]

1. Neuroscientists work on the principle that the mind can be explained in terms of brain functions
2. Therefore neuroscientists are attempting to establish a metaphysical as well as a scientific explanation of the mind
3. Even though we believe they are misguided they are entitled to their opinion and modus operandi
4. Therefore science and metaphysics cannot always be clearly demarcated
5. The Design argument is another attempt to establish a metaphysical conclusion based on scientific facts
6. SETI uses scientific methods to discover a metaphysical conclusion, i.e. whether **persons **exist elsewhere in the universe
7. That metaphysical conclusion has no bearing on the metaphysical nature of persons

Irrefutable - and superb.

 

[reggieM]

In all of these discussions… the issue of “morality” and right and wrong comes up.
But I would say THIS…

Without an example, or without a “law giver” as I believe Acquainas argued or a without a “perfect form” as I believe Plato would have argued… WHY do we even prefer “good” over evil? How or where did this sense of “good” vs. wrong even come about? – Anotherwards, how do we even KNOW about these 2 dichotomies? - how do we even HAVE a concept of it? Where did that come from?

We don’t see animals wrestling with good vs. evil. Why is good even considered good? And why do we “prefer” it over evil and not merely just be morally neutral or ethically agnostic? - anotherwards, somewhere in the middle, doing whatever we feel like, like animals without a worry about good bad or anything else?
Assuming there is no creator/designer at least.

IF a designer did not at least impart its preference on this universe in the form of some sense of morality… WHERE did it come from? IF a non-theist can not give me very detailed explanation… beyond “over millions of years” then I feel they should at least reserve some space for a supernatural explanation. Not many will.

But for me, without a creator/designer - a ‘prime mover’ or an ‘esse’ in Greek, I believe, which means roughly “to be” (the state of being itself) I can not fathom HOW we have a concept of good and evil and I can’t tell you why I would innately prefer ‘good’ over evil.

However, WITH a creator… I can very much see how our universe would obey his laws and prefer good over evil because there were be some objective definition of what that is.

That was excellent.

 

[Whadyamean]

IF a designer did not at least impart its preference on this universe in the form of some sense of morality… WHERE did it come from?

You put it there?

But for me, without a creator/designer - a ‘prime mover’ or an ‘esse’ in Greek, I believe, which means roughly “to be” (the state of being itself) I can not fathom HOW we have a concept of good and evil and I can’t tell you why I would innately prefer ‘good’ over evil.

Does your inability to fathom necessitate therefore from the Universe a “designer?” “Esse,” no doubt. Designer? That’s as far as I can see the fabrication of lack of penetration, need, and unfinished business.
However, WITH a creator… I can very much see how our universe would obey his laws and prefer good over evil because there were be some objective definition of what that is.“Obey” implies a kind of separation which, though it may appear actual, may not be of the nature you suspect?

 

[tonyrey]

In all of these discussions… the issue of “morality” and right and wrong comes up.
But I would say THIS…

Without an example, or without a “law giver” as I believe Acquainas argued or a without a “perfect form” as I believe Plato would have argued… WHY do we even prefer “good” over evil? How or where did this sense of “good” vs. wrong even come about? – Anotherwards, how do we even KNOW about these 2 dichotomies? - how do we even HAVE a concept of it? Where did that come from?

We don’t see animals wrestling with good vs. evil. Why is good even considered good? And why do we “prefer” it over evil and not merely just be morally neutral or ethically agnostic? - anotherwards, somewhere in the middle, doing whatever we feel like, like animals without a worry about good bad or anything else?
Assuming there is no creator/designer at least.

IF a designer did not at least impart its preference on this universe in the form of some sense of morality… WHERE did it come from? IF a non-theist can not give me very detailed explanation… beyond “over millions of years” then I feel they should at least reserve some space for a supernatural explanation. Not many will.

But for me, without a creator/designer - a ‘prime mover’ or an ‘esse’ in Greek, I believe, which means roughly “to be” (the state of being itself) I can not fathom HOW we have a concept of good and evil and I can’t tell you why I would innately prefer ‘good’ over evil.

However, WITH a creator… I can very much see how our universe would obey his laws and prefer good over evil because there were be some objective definition of what that is.

In an amoral universe morality is an anomaly!

 

[tonyrey]

1. Neuroscientists work on the principle that the mind can be explained in terms of brain functions

I wish everyone shared your opinion, Reggie, but we mustn’t be too ambitious… .