Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leela
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wanstronian said:
It’s just more assertion. You seem to be implying though, that theists are good because they believe in God, and that if God were somehow disproved they’d all run riot, raping, killing, stealing etc. God is the only thing that keeps them in check.

Atheists, on the other hand, behave morally because that’s what people do. No god required.

So now I have to ask - who’s actually more moral? The people who need God to be good, or the people who don’t? I can’t imagine having to be bribed to act morally - what a pitiful existence that must be!

Anyway, I got involved with a thread on morality recently, it got to the point where a single response was taking 5 posts, I’ve had enough of that for now. None of your arguments are new, and none of them are supported by evidence.

Faith in one’s senses is hardly the same thing as faith in a supreme being. For one thing, this ‘faith’ in one’s senses is being constantly confirmed.Unless you are an extreme solipsist then this is good enough to call ‘fact’ for practical purposes.

So yes, one needs ‘faith’ (more accurately, ‘confidence’) in one’s faculties, in order to believe the accumulated raw data for reasoning. But such confidence is easily gained through repetition and validation.

But we were talking about religious faith. You said:

But religious faith has no place in the process of reasoning and rational thought. This is obvious, by the fact that scientific discovery is not the exclusive domain of theists.
Click to expand...
 
Dang, my post messed up.

T’was a good one too, sorry Wastronian, i’m tired and can’t sum the courage to write up another one.

My apologies, i was an insufficient apologist anyway, as i am sure you would agree, perhaps i’ll answer it some other time.
 
wanstronian said:
With your specific example, the problem is that it is not analagous to the real phenomena that ID pretends to address. The same way that Paley’s watch and Mount Rushmore are poor, though common, examples that IDers use to support their hypothesis, a pot of cooked meat also fails as an analogy. Why? Because it’s clear that all these things have a purpose, and that purpose is clear. But what is the purpose of a human? A tree? etc.

The fallacy of ID is the fallacy of Commutation of Conditionals:

If p then q.
Therefore, if q then p.

If it’s raining, the ground is wet.
Therefore, if the ground is wet it’s raining.

In ID’s case:

If design, then appearance of design.
Therefore: if appearance of design, then design.

It’s also the Argument from Ignorance:

I can’t understand how this could have happened naturally.
Therefore, it couldn’t have happened naturally.

So, to summarise:
  1. ID doesn’t meet the criteria for ‘science’
  2. The logic used to defend ID is fallacious
  3. The evidence presented by ID as unexplainable (as if this would prove anything anyway) is invariably explained by existing scientific theories.
As someone commented upthread, ID is just a way to give Creationism scientific credibility. But ultimately it still relies on the intervention of an unknown, all-powerful entity that we might as well call God, despite the protests of the IDers.
Click to expand...
Wanstronian,
You clearly demonstrate here that at a very fundamental level you don’t know how science works. What counts as an *error *in deductive logic is *basic procedure *in scientific hypothesis testing. You have mistakenly tried to describe science (an inductive inquiry) as a deductive system. (Likewise, and related, you obviously have no idea how reason and faith are related.)
 
If evolution, then appearance of evolution.
Therefore: if appearance of evolution, then evolution.

It’s also the Argument from Ignorance:

I can’t understand how there could be any immaterial entities in the universe.
Therefore, immaterial entities do not exist.

or

I do not know how anything that exists could not be scientifically measurable.
Therefore, if it is not measurable, it doesn’t exist.

or

I do not understand how anything could not be the product of evolution.
Therefore, if it exists it is proof that evolutionary theory is true.
 
Gallowglasser said:
What is the Church’s teaching on freedom of speech, is it imperative that the state must provide freedom of speech in order for that state to be considered good? If the Church says this, i will back down.

Would banning freedom of speech be for the common good, or the greater good?
Click to expand...
Oh, gee, I don’t know!! You’re going to make me work, aren’t you? 😉 I don’t know if my poor addled brain can do it, but I’ll try. I might be able to track down the Church’s teaching on free speech, but banning freedom of speech and its relation to the common good or the greater good? That is philosophy and constitutional law and a bunch of other things; not my fields and ones in which I am not very good at understanding. All I know is that the Church teaches that bad means cannot be used to reach a good end. If you agree with this we’re on the same side.

OK, here we go:

This is from Pope Benedict XVI in an address to the U.S. Bishops:

“As preachers of the Gospel and leaders of the Catholic community, you are also called to participate in the exchange of ideas in the public square, helping to shape cultural attitudes. In a context where free speech is valued, and where vigorous and honest debate is encouraged, yours is a respected voice that has much to offer to the discussion of the pressing social and moral questions of the day. By ensuring that the Gospel is clearly heard, you not only form the people of your own community, but in view of the global reach of mass communication, you help to spread the message of Christian hope throughout the world.”

[bolding added]

marysaggies.blogspot.com/2009/03/catholic-church-and-free-speech.html

This is from the CCC:

2495 “It is necessary that all members of society meet the demands of justice and charity in this domain. They should help, through the means of social communication, in the formation and diffusion of sound public opinion.” Solidarity is a consequence of genuine and right communication and the free circulation of ideas that further knowledge and respect for others.

The common good is discussed in sections 1905-12. I can’t post it all as it doesn’t reference free speech per se but it might help provide some information.

I could find more but I hope this is enough. I think it’s clear that the Church teaches that free speech is good and I think one could honestly say the Church would also teach that a state that does not allow free speech is wrong in that regard.

Does this answer your question? I’m not sure if it does. I found a lot of blogs but I’m careful about using them and most of the ones I saw had questionable content. 😦
 
wanstronian said:
So in the interests of parsimony, it makes sense to not assume an unnecessary and potentially supernatural addition to the process…
Click to expand...
As long as I am having fun with ideas…

Did it ever occur to anyone that parsimony can only apply to non-human living organisms? Human nature “don’t fit no how” that kind of box.😃

Wanstronian doesn’t have to reply because I’m leaving on a jet plane…
Talk to you all later if thread is still open.
 
Betterave said:
Wanstronian,
You clearly demonstrate here that at a very fundamental level you don’t know how science works. What counts as an *error *in deductive logic is *basic procedure *in scientific hypothesis testing. You have mistakenly tried to describe science (an inductive inquiry) as a deductive system. (Likewise, and related, you obviously have no idea how reason and faith are related.)
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that it was unscientific because of an error in deductive reasoning. Its non-scientificness and its logical errors are separate issues.

ID is unscientific because it doesn’t meet the criteria for science. I’ve listed some of these criteria upthread, go look.

So in the absence of any scientific component to the ID hypothesis, one is left with assessing the logic that many IDers use, and which Brendan used above, which is that if something looks like it was designed, it must have been designed, on the basis that things that **have **been designed (unsurprisingly) look like they were. This is logically fallacious, but is not, per se, unscientific.

I was not conflating these two problems, merely addressing them within the same post.

You are absolutely right that a hypothesis, formed from observation of phenomena, is a perfectly valid starting point for scientific endeavour. The problem is, while proper science takes this hypothesis and devises experiments, including methodology, verification and falsification criteria, expected results and so on, and then goes on to perform the experiments and record the results… ID just sits there at the hypothesis stage, smugly announcing “QED.”

This is why ID is unscientific.

Regarding faith and reason, you offer no substantiation so I’ll just say that you’re welcome to your opinion.
 
reggieM said:
If evolution, then appearance of evolution.
Therefore: if appearance of evolution, then evolution.

It’s also the Argument from Ignorance:

I can’t understand how there could be any immaterial entities in the universe.
Therefore, immaterial entities do not exist.

or

I do not know how anything that exists could not be scientifically measurable.
Therefore, if it is not measurable, it doesn’t exist.

or

I do not understand how anything could not be the product of evolution.
Therefore, if it exists it is proof that evolutionary theory is true.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, you’re really caning that poor old Straw Man!

Firstly, we’ve moved beyond the point of saying that a particular biological feature “looks like evolution.” Evolution has been proved, far beyond reasonable doubt, to be the mechanism by which all biological life has achieved its current form. There is a vast, vast body of consistent evidence across many branches of science that supports the theory, to the point where it’s as much a fact as the theory of gravity. No credible scientist in the field of biology, doubts this. Evolution is true.

You might just as well watch something fall off a shelf and say, “Looks like gravity.” It’s a no-brainer.

Contrast to ID, where the phenomena being called out as an ‘explanation’ has no evidence in support of it whatsoever. None. Zip. Zilch. Nor has the ‘theory’ been arrived at through any kind of scientific process. Score two-zip* to Evolution!

So POP! goes your first pseudo-argument.

Regarding your failed attempt at an ‘Argument from Ignorance’ analogy:

Firstly, science doesn’t state that immaterial entities do not exist.
Nor does it state that immeasurable phenomena do not exist.
It simply describes the world it can see.

But the sensible question is: if immaterial entities cannot be detected in any way, and make no causally verifiable difference to our environment, then for practical purposes, they don’t exist. So why bother to consider them? Science works just fine without positing unnecessary, indetectable fairy-dust.

So you see, the reality is very different to your quite blatant misrepresentation.

** as I believe you say in the US? We say ‘two-nil’ in the UK.*
 
I didn’t say that it was unscientific because of an error in deductive reasoning. Its non-scientificness and its logical errors are separate issues.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. I think your post was misleading on this point.
ID is unscientific because it doesn’t meet the criteria for science. I’ve listed some of these criteria upthread, go look.
Click to expand...
Well let’s look at your caricature of the ID argument in the post already in question:
wanstronian said:
With your specific example, the problem is that it is not analagous to the real phenomena that ID pretends to address. The same way that Paley’s watch and Mount Rushmore are poor, though common, examples that IDers use to support their hypothesis, a pot of cooked meat also fails as an analogy. Why? Because it’s clear that all these things have a purpose, and that purpose is clear. But what is the purpose of a human? A tree? etc.
Click to expand...
This is clearly a caricature - right? ID arguments (I’m thinking Michael Behe) simply do not address purpose at the whole organism level in the way your question suggests.
The fallacy of ID is the fallacy of Commutation of Conditionals:

If p then q.
Therefore, if q then p.

If it’s raining, the ground is wet.
Therefore, if the ground is wet it’s raining.

In ID’s case:

If design, then appearance of design.
Therefore: if appearance of design, then design.

It’s also the Argument from Ignorance:

I can’t understand how this could have happened naturally.
Therefore, it couldn’t have happened naturally.
Click to expand...
And this logical fallacy issue just doesn’t make sense. If ID pretends to be a science and you object to that, then it doesn’t make sense for you to address this criticism to it.
You are absolutely right that a hypothesis, formed from observation of phenomena, is a perfectly valid starting point for scientific endeavour. The problem is, while proper science takes this hypothesis and devises experiments, including methodology, verification and falsification criteria, expected results and so on, and then goes on to perform the experiments and record the results… ID just sits there at the hypothesis stage, smugly announcing “QED.”
Click to expand...
This is simply not correct, as you should be able to see even just from examining your fallacious attempt to criticize it as committing a deductive logical fallacy.
Regarding faith and reason, you offer no substantiation so I’ll just say that you’re welcome to your opinion.
Click to expand...
Well you offered no substantiation of your position either, so it’s a little tough to know where to begin in correcting it.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I don’t agree that God by definition of his necessity and non-physical nature can be or should be a hypothesis of science. But I certainly appreciate an honest atheists who looks at the issue of design objectively rather than from some deep seated hatred of religion.
Click to expand...
It **is **possible to dislike religion and still be objective about its hypotheses, you know!

It may be that ID **is **a testable hypothesis, it’s just that I haven’t seen any such tests proposed, nor can I imagine any (which, of course, doesn’t mean they don’t exist…!)

It sounds like an interesting book.
 
Betterave said:
Oh, I see. I think your post was misleading on this point.
Click to expand...
You’re entitled to your opinion.
Well let’s look at your caricature of the ID argument in the post already in question:
Click to expand...
This is clearly a caricature - right? ID arguments (I’m thinking Michael Behe) simply do not address purpose at the whole organism level in the way your question suggests.
Click to expand...
I was just using the example given by Brendan. You’re right - the comprehensively-debunked arguments offered by Behe don’t address purpose at an organism level. (Nor do they actually show the irreducible complexity that they purport to.) But I don’t think it matters. If a designer intentionally drew up the flagellar rotor of the E.Coli bacteria, for example, it seems clear at first glance that the purpose is to move the thing around. But to what end? What’s the purpose of the E.Coli bacteria? Ultimately, if you posit purpose at a suborganism level, surely you have to assume a purpose to the organism as a whole? Not to mention the species. Otherwise, what’s the point of designing a sub-component? “To move it around” explains nothing.
And this logical fallacy issue just begs the question. If ID pretends to be a science and you object to that, then it doesn’t make sense for you to address this criticism to it.
Click to expand...
Again, I’m addressing more than one problem with ID. The first is that it’s not scientific. Another is that many of its proponents rely on Arguments from Ignorance to try and show that it’s true.
This is simply not correct, as you should be able to see even just from examining your fallacious attempt to criticize it as committing a deductive logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Oh? Maybe I’ve been misinformed? What predictive experiments have been devised and carried out? What were the falsification criteria? What were the predictions? Where are the experiments documented? Why haven’t they been accepted by the scientific community?

As I pointed out, I wasn’t discussing scientody when pointing out the logical flaws in many IDers’ arguments, I was criticising those arguments in light of ID’s lack of scientody. And I didn’t just attempt to criticise it, I *succeeded *in criticising it - the logical flaw is self-evident.
Well you offered no substantiation of your position either, so it’s a little tough to know where to begin in correcting it.
Click to expand...
Well I did; I pointed out that atheists make robust scientific discoveries without religious faith. Therefore it seems obvious that religious faith is not required to be able to apply reason. Or do you suppose that atheists get it right completely by chance, and theists come along afterwards and fill in the gaps with faith-based ‘knowledge?’

You said:
…you obviously have no idea how reason and faith are related.
Click to expand...
So why don’t you tell me how?
 
Gallowglasser said:
…in saying faith provides no benefit you’re simply demonstrating how narrow your viewpoint is. Faith (in the religious context) has practical applications in maintaining a stable society and inspiring virtue…
Click to expand...
It would be a lot easier for me to take serious the idea of faith inspiring virtue if I hadn’t just come here from another thread about Giordano Bruno where people of the faith were espousing the idea that anyone who says anything the Church doesn’t like should be punished.

That isn’t virtue, it’s hypocrisy.
 
What Intelligent Design lacks is only a fair look. The book Signature in the Cell gives an excellent overview. The internal machinery of the cell and the way information is read is becoming orders of magnitude more complex as more is discovered. One early prediction of ID was that junk DNA would turn out to be useful. That has now been determined to be the case in general science circles.

And it’s not just a discussion limited to the United States. In England, the www.c4id.org.uk site has launched.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
What Intelligent Design lacks is only a fair look. The book Signature in the Cell gives an excellent overview. The internal machinery of the cell and the way information is read is becoming orders of magnitude more complex as more is discovered.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t help ID’s case, even under a very charitable reading. Rather, the idea that complexity makes the ID thesis more scientific indicts it as unscientific, and confirms what critics have been saying (this is classic God-of-the-gaps credulity).

I think Meyer’s book is the best example I’ve read (and I’ve read a bunch of them now) for the nature of ID as an idea and a movement as popular, religious, mendacious and unscientific.

It’s too bad that Meyer cannot and will not be held accountable for what he writes there – life isn’t fair, but it works in Meyer’s favor from a large, credulous choir.
One early prediction of ID was that junk DNA would turn out to be useful. That has now been determined to be the case in general science circles.
Click to expand...
This is not a prediction of ID. If you suggest it is, then I’d like to see the quotes from the theory that entail this. IDists have supposed that non-coding DNA should somehow (don’t ask them how!) functional, because they didn’t like the implications of so much non-functional content in the genes – it just plays as evidence right into the claims of evolutionary theory. If God designed it, it should, you know, look more designed, they supposed.

But this is not what is meant by “scientific prediction”. A scientific prediction proceeds necessarily from the theory itself, and this is not the case for ID and non-coding DNA. This claim itself thus demonstrates the basic misunderstanding of the poverty of ID in terms of science.

If you know of ID theory that does scientifically predict that non-coding DNA must be functional DNA, I stand to be corrected. I’ve had this challenge open in many venues now for a long time, and no such prediction has ever been provided.

-TS
 
Touchstone said:
This doesn’t help ID’s case, even under a very charitable reading. Rather, the idea that complexity makes the ID thesis more scientific indicts it as unscientific, and confirms what critics have been saying (this is classic God-of-the-gaps credulity).

I think Meyer’s book is the best example I’ve read (and I’ve read a bunch of them now) for the nature of ID as an idea and a movement as popular, religious, mendacious and unscientific.

It’s too bad that Meyer cannot and will not be held accountable for what he writes there – life isn’t fair, but it works in Meyer’s favor from a large, credulous choir.

This is not a prediction of ID. If you suggest it is, then I’d like to see the quotes from the theory that entail this. IDists have supposed that non-coding DNA should somehow (don’t ask them how!) functional, because they didn’t like the implications of so much non-functional content in the genes – it just plays as evidence right into the claims of evolutionary theory. If God designed it, it should, you know, look more designed, they supposed.

But this is not what is meant by “scientific prediction”. A scientific prediction proceeds necessarily from the theory itself, and this is not the case for ID and non-coding DNA. This claim itself thus demonstrates the basic misunderstanding of the poverty of ID in terms of science.

If you know of ID theory that does scientifically predict that non-coding DNA must be functional DNA, I stand to be corrected. I’ve had this challenge open in many venues now for a long time, and no such prediction has ever been provided.

-TS
Click to expand...
Here you go:

(Hypothesis):Table 2. Predictions of Design (1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top