Teleology important for science

[tonyrey]

There are obviously ways

of discerning truth from falsehood but it doesn’t follow that they have anything in common in the materialists’ mindless, atomistic scheme of things…
Empiricism is a method; the results of which lead to a materialist worldview. Empiricism hasn’t got anything in common with the materialist worldview in the sense that it could also have led to a Christian worldview if there was any empirical evidence for it.

Obviously there is no empirical evidence for a Christian world view because empiricism is the theory that** all** knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses - which is self-contradictory. Can a theory be detected by the senses?

They are quite capable of analysis but synthesis is beyond their scope. Persons, for example, don’t exist because there are no intangible entities - only bodies which are unaware of themselves!

Synthesis between what?

Mental and physical activity.

And yes, persons do exist.

How do you define “person”?

It’s obviously false that the human body is intangible.

The human mind is intangible.

It’s also false that I’m not aware of my own existence.

**You **aware of your own existence but your body isn’t…

Freedom and consciousness are meaningless from a strictly scientific point of view because they cannot be detected by the five senses. That is why logical positivism was abandoned because its adherents realised the verifiability principle (or any other principle) cannot be verified because it has no temporal or spatial location! In technical terms abstract concepts have no ontological foundation for those who believe reality consists solely of the derivatives of molecular structures…

We were talking about materialism. In the first sentence you’re suddenly talking about a scientific point of view and in the next you’re criticizing logical positivism. Please stick to the subject.

NB:

Logical positivism, also called logical empiricism, a philosophical movement that arose in Vienna in the 1920s and was characterized by the view that **scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge **and that all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless.

Encyclopedia Britannica | Britannica

Explore the fact-checked online encyclopedia from Encyclopaedia Britannica with hundreds of thousands of objective articles, biographies, videos, and images from experts.

www.britannica.com

I’m also surprised to find out I can’t detect freedom. When I go on holiday to Italy by car, I don’t have to show my passport a single time. If, however, I’m going to visit London, I do have to show my passport. Of course I notice these differences in freedom!

Freedom and differences in freedom are not identical. Freedom is the intangible power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. Like truth, goodness and justice it cannot be detected by the senses.

Probably the most spectacular consequence of materialism is the disappearance of purposeful activity which implies foresight whereas science is essentially retrospective and explains everything in terms of past events. Causality is a one-way cul de sac leading back to the Big Bang and perhaps beyond. Purposeful activity disappears with materialism because science is essentially retrospective.

What? Materialism, science and logical positivism all seem to be the exact same thing to you. They’re not.

They are not exactly the same but they are all based on sense data and exclude any other form of knowledge.

The future has no effect on events and purposeful behaviour is an illusion because it would violate the principle of conservation of energy.

Like others, I don’t see why this is true.

Why not? Science is restricted to physical causes which leave no room for foresight and free will.

Materialism leads inevitably to fatalism…

Nope.

If everything has scientific causes we are biological computers programmed by our genes and environment…

Sorry for my late response, but I have a hard time understanding the argument.

I hope I have clarified it a little. I remember how strange it all seemed when I first started studying philosophy many years ago but now I have a clearer picture of fundamental issues. Feel free to ask more questions.

 

[tonyrey]

I asked you to cite Attenborough stating any of the things you allege materialists believe (“synthesis is beyond their scope. Persons, for example, don’t exist … Freedom and consciousness are meaningless … purposeful behaviour is an illusion because it would violate the principle of conservation of energy. Materialism leads inevitably to fatalism…”).

He says none of that, not one word of it, in those pages.

If you disagree with him, have the decency to disagree with him for what he says and stop trying to put your words in his mouth.

The absence of explicit statements does not alter the implications of his view that “the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy.”

In other words he excludes the existence of a benevolent Creator and confines his explanations to natural causes.

If you had the decency to disagree with me on what I write you would give reasons for doing so but you obviously act on the principle that it is easier and safer to attack rather than defend - unaware that it undermines the credibility of your position…

 

[Bradski]

[In other words he excludes the existence of a benevolent Creator and **confines his explanations to natural causes

.

So the existence of this parasite is not natural. You are conceding that it is divinely designed.

Odd that.

 

[Cheiron]

I hope I have clarified it a little. I remember how strange it all seemed when I first started studying philosophy many years ago but now I have a clearer picture of fundamental issues. Feel free to ask more questions.

Yes, thank you very much. I’ll try to answer as best as I can.

Obviously there is no empirical evidence for a Christian world view because empiricism is the theory that** all** knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses - which is self-contradictory. Can a theory be detected by the senses?

Well, a theory is build on facts that can be detected by the senses. So in a way, yes. Although ‘tested’ is a better word. A theory can be tested and verified/falsified by empiricism. The phlogiston theory comes to mind.

Mental and physical activity.

I’m not a neurosurgeon, so I don’t know how the interaction exactly works. I do know that damage to the brain can impact the mental capacities of people. So the two are obviously related.

How do you define “person”?

That’s a hard question to which I have no clear answer. An individual of the human species is a good definition, thought perhaps not a very useful one.

The human mind is intangible.

Yes and the mind is the very impressive result of a tangible brain.

**You **aware of your own existence but your body isn’t…

That’s true. But I am my body, in a way. Or to quote a Dutch neurosurgeon: we are our brains.

NB:

Britannica.com

Freedom and differences in freedom are not identical. Freedom is the intangible power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. Like truth, goodness and justice it cannot be detected by the senses.

Thank you for the link. Logical positivism has good and bad things… I think the scientific method is the best way to discover facts about the reality in which we live. The basis for that is the vast improvement of human life due to scientific discoveries. I disagree with logical positivists that metaphysical (I prefer ‘abstract’) concepts like freedom and justice are therefore meaningless. That strikes me as an unjustified conclusion, because those abstract concepts describe phenomena in the real world with real consequences for real people.

Why not? Science is restricted to physical causes which leave no room for foresight and free will.

It’s the relationship between the principle of the conservation of energy and purposeful behaviour that I don’t get.

Scientists can make predictions, especially those working in the field of chemistry, astronomy and physics. That’s because they work with mathematics, which allows a precision that the humanities can’t hope to achieve. In fact, making and testing predictions is often how science moves forward.

If everything has scientific causes we are biological computers programmed by our genes and environment…

Right, I can now see how you arrived at that conclusion. My main disagreement with you is that materialism doesn’t necessarily lead to a meaningless life. It seems that many people are programmed to lead meaningful lives. One of my humanist friends is a doctor. Another one is nurse and a third is lawyer (though we can debate whether that’s a meaningful life. )

This argument might also lead us into the territory of free will. I’m not sure what my own position is on free will, so I have to plead ignorance on that. Sorry I can’t be of further help on that.

 

[tonyrey]

So the existence of this parasite is not natural. You are conceding that it is divinely designed.

Odd that.

Non sequitur. There is an element of chance within the framework of Design. In an immensely complex universe it is inevitable there are anomalies and freaks of nature.

 

[inocente]

The absence of explicit statements does not alter the implications of his view that “the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy.”

In other words he excludes the existence of a benevolent Creator and confines his explanations to natural causes.

If you had the decency to disagree with me on what I write you would give reasons for doing so but you obviously act on the principle that it is easier and safer to attack rather than defend - unaware that it undermines the credibility of your position…

None of that has anything to do with what you claim materialists believe.

You held up Attenborough as the “spearhead” of what you claim materialists believe (“synthesis is beyond their scope. Persons, for example, don’t exist … Freedom and consciousness are meaningless … purposeful behaviour is an illusion because it would violate the principle of conservation of energy. Materialism leads inevitably to fatalism…”).

I asked you to cite him saying ANY of that and you’ve failed to do so. I assert that materialists do not believe any of that, and it is instead fanatical religious propaganda. You merely need to prove me wrong by citing evidence and I’ll withdraw that assertion, and apologize for ever having doubted you, and will debate it with you.

After you’ve done the decent thing and backed up your claim with evidence.

 

[Bradski]

Non sequitur. There is an element of chance within the framework of Design. In an immensely complex universe it is inevitable there are anomalies and freaks of nature.

Freaks of nature you say. But when Attenborough confines himself to natural causes, you complain. And now you say that, in this case, he is right.

Some people are hard to please. And some people don’t seem to understand the concept of omniscience. You state quite baldly that God can create the universe and maintains it at every instant, yet cannot control it.

Doesn’t sound omniscient to me. Or to anyone else who understands the concept.

 

[tonyrey]

Non sequitur. There is an element of chance within the framework of Design. In an immensely complex universe it is inevitable there are anomalies and freaks of nature.

In this context the prefix “para” implies the existence of a higher form of life. It is a deviation from the norm.

 

[tonyrey]

Non sequitur. There is an element of chance within the framework of Design. In an immensely complex universe it is inevitable there are anomalies and freaks of nature.

Freaks of nature you say. But when Attenborough confines himself to natural causes, you complain. And now you say that, in this case, he is right.He is mistaken in attributing** all events ** to natural causes. It is an unsubstantiated generalisation.,

Some people are hard to please. And some people don’t seem to understand the concept of omniscience. You state quite baldly that God can create the universe and maintains it at every instant, yet cannot control it. Doesn’t sound omniscient to me. Or to anyone else who understands the concept.

Another non sequitur! He can control it but chooses not to. I think you are confusing
omniscient with omnipotent…

If God constantly intervened to prevent anomalies it would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly system. It would become impossible to predict events and lead a rational existence. We would never be sure what is going to happen next…

 

[tonyrey]

Correction:

Non sequitur. There is an element of chance within the framework of Design. In an immensely complex universe it is inevitable there are anomalies and freaks of nature.

Freaks of nature you say. But when Attenborough confines himself  to natural causes, you complain. And now you say that, in this case, he  is right.

He is mistaken in attributing** all events ** to natural causes. It is an unsubstantiated generalisation.

 

[tonyrey]

None of that has anything to do with what you claim materialists believe.

You held up Attenborough as the “spearhead” of what you claim materialists believe (“synthesis is beyond their scope. Persons, for example, don’t exist … Freedom and consciousness are meaningless … purposeful behaviour is an illusion because it would violate the principle of conservation of energy. Materialism leads inevitably to fatalism…”).

I asked you to cite him saying ANY of that and you’ve failed to do so. I assert that materialists do not believe any of that, and it is instead fanatical religious propaganda. You merely need to prove me wrong by citing evidence and I’ll withdraw that assertion, and apologize for ever having doubted you, and will debate it with you.

After you’ve done the decent thing and backed up your claim with evidence.

If you regard objective philosophical statements as “fanatical religious propaganda” there is no point in attempting to explain what they mean…

 

[thinkandmull]

Free molecules can still obey the rules of conservation of energy. I don’t get that argument still

 

[tonyrey]

Free molecules can still obey the rules of conservation of energy. I don’t get that argument still

“free” molecules don’t have any choice about how to behave.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14169700:

None of that has anything to do with what you claim materialists believe.

You held up Attenborough as the “spearhead” of what you claim materialists believe (“synthesis is beyond their scope. Persons, for example, don’t exist … Freedom and consciousness are meaningless … purposeful behaviour is an illusion because it would violate the principle of conservation of energy. Materialism leads inevitably to fatalism…”).

I asked you to cite him saying ANY of that and you’ve failed to do so. I assert that materialists do not believe any of that, and it is instead fanatical religious propaganda. You merely need to prove me wrong by citing evidence and I’ll withdraw that assertion, and apologize for ever having doubted you, and will debate it with you.

After

you’ve done the decent thing and backed up your claim with evidence.If you regard objective philosophical statements as “fanatical religious propaganda” there is no point in attempting to explain what they mean…

It is said that if a lie is repeated often enough and loudly enough, people will come to believe it. That isn’t necessarily so.

A real whopper may never be believed fully by anyone, no matter how often or loudly it is proclaimed, but for a whopper to be effective, it does not need to be believed in every detail. It is enough that it leaves behind a bad impression. People will think that if anyone bothers to promote such a lie, there must be a kernel of truth in it.

The same goes for exaggeration and false implications. Distort the truth and people will think it has some basis in fact. Take a truth and phrase it in such a way that it looks suspicious, or juxtapose it with an acknowledged evil, and the mind will be tempted to draw all sorts of ill-founded conclusions.

(The above text applies to all propaganda, and is actually the start of an article here on CA about anti-Catholic propaganda - see catholic.com/tracts/anti-catholic-whoppers)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Right, I can now see how you arrived at that conclusion. My main disagreement with you is that materialism doesn’t necessarily lead to a meaningless life. It seems that many people are programmed to lead meaningful lives. One of my humanist friends is a doctor. Another one is nurse and a third is lawyer (though we can debate whether that’s a meaningful life. )

The choice of occupation does not necessarily determine the meaningful or meaningless life.

Everyone has to survive, and everyone has to work to survive. But if people do not relish their existence, that is what suggests a meaningless life. I see nothing in materialism that gives us the relish of life. Do you? If so, tell me what that is please.

On the other hand, it is difficult to dissociate materialism from atheism, and again I do not see anything in atheism that gives relish to life. One might even say that it takes away the relishing of life and leads to depression and even despair.

conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_suicide

 

[Cheiron]

The choice of occupation does not necessarily determine the meaningful or meaningless life.

Everyone has to survive, and everyone has to work to survive. But if people do not relish their existence, that is what suggests a meaningless life. I see nothing in materialism that gives us the relish of life. Do you? If so, tell me what that is please.

On the other hand, it is difficult to dissociate materialism from atheism, and again I do not see anything in atheism that gives relish to life. One might even say that it takes away the relishing of life and leads to depression and even despair.

conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_suicide

Good question. There are a number of things that make my existence meaningful. Sport, music, books, films, conversations with friends - often with a glass of wine. That’s what makes existence enjoyable and meaningful to me. I hesitate to say that this is derived from atheism or materialism, because those concepts don’t contain any imperatives. Also, some atheists might disagree with me and lead meaningful lives in a different way.

 

[tonyrey]

Obviously there is no empirical evidence for a Christian world view because empiricism is the theory that** all**

Can the principle of verification be detected by the senses?

Mental and physical activity.

I’m not a neurosurgeon, so I don’t know how the interaction exactly works. I do know that damage to the brain can impact the mental capacities of people. So the two are obviously related.

“related” doesn’t necessarily imply “caused”…

How do you define “person”?

That’s a hard question to which I have no clear answer. An individual of the human species is a good definition, thought perhaps not a very useful one.

I agree!

The concept of person was developed during the Trinitarian and Christological debates of the 4th and 5th centuries. During the theological debates, some philosophical tools (concepts) were needed so that the debates could be held on common basis to all theological schools. The purpose of the debate was to establish the relation, similarities and differences between the Λóγος/Verbum and God. The philosophical concept of person arose, taking the word “prosopon” (πρόσωπον) [2] from the Greek theatre. Therefore, Christus (the Λóγος/Verbum) and God were defined as different “divine persons”. This concept was applied later to the Holy Ghost, the angels and to all human beings.
Since then, a number of important changes to the word’s meaning and use have taken place, and attempts have been made to redefine the word with varying degrees of adoption and influence.

• wikipedia

Quote:

The human mind is intangible.

Yes and the mind is the very impressive result of a tangible brain.

The power of the mind is evidence that it is independent of the brain…

You aware of your own existence but your body isn’t…

That’s true. But I am my body, in a way. Or to quote a Dutch neurosurgeon: we are our brains.

If we are our brains it doesn’t make sense to say “our brains”. It amounts to saying our brains belong to our brains!

Britannica.com

Freedom and differences in freedom are not identical. Freedom is the intangible

power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. Like truth, goodness and justice it cannot be detected by the senses. Thank you for the link. Logical positivism has good and bad things… I think the scientific method is the best way to discover facts about the reality in which we live. The basis for that is the vast improvement of human life due to scientific discoveries. I disagree with logical positivists that metaphysical (I prefer ‘abstract’) concepts like freedom and justice are therefore meaningless. That strikes me as an unjustified conclusion, because those abstract concepts describe phenomena in the real world with real consequences for real people.

I agree with your disagreement.

Why not? Science is restricted to physical causes which leave no room for foresight and free will.

It’s the relationship between the principle of the conservation of energy and purposeful behaviour that I don’t get.

Scientists can make predictions, especially those working in the field of chemistry, astronomy and physics. That’s because they work with mathematics, which allows a precision that the humanities can’t hope to achieve. In fact, making and testing predictions is often how science moves forward.

Making predictions about physical events is not the same as choosing and implementing a plan which implies a person’s control of events (which doesn’t exist in the scientific scheme of things). In fact there are no such intangible entities as persons, only tangible bodies.

If everything has scientific causes we are biological computers programmed by our genes and environment…

Right, I can now see how you arrived at that conclusion. My main disagreement with you is that materialism doesn’t necessarily lead to a meaningless life. It seems that many people are programmed to lead meaningful lives. One of my humanist friends is a doctor. Another one is nurse and a third is lawyer (though we can debate whether that’s a meaningful life. )

This argument might also lead us into the territory of free will. I’m not sure what my own position is on free will, so I have to plead ignorance on that. Sorry I can’t be of further help on that.

If free will doesn’t exist we cannot be responsible for our thoughts, beliefs, choices, intentions, values, goals, ambitions, principles, ideals or principles. Self-determination cannot exist if there is no self! Even “meaning” becomes a meaningless term because it implies the existence of a rational mind whereas the brain is unaware that it or anything else exists. It simply responds to stimuli like any other bodily organ and cannot grasp the significance of events or even what it is doing. In short materialism is self-destructive and a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the richness of reality.

 

[inocente]

Making predictions about physical events is not the same as choosing and implementing a plan which implies a person’s control of events (which doesn’t exist in the scientific scheme of things). In fact there are no such intangible entities as persons, only tangible bodies.

You appear to be a little out of date. Even law schools have undergraduate courses in neuroscience with section titles such as “Responsibility, mental illness and free will”. - drps.ed.ac.uk/14-15/dpt/cxlaws10176.htm

A quick google also finds:

The Neurobiology of Conscious Intent - psychiatrictimes.com/articles/neurobiology-conscious-intent

Criminal Responsibility & the Neuroscience of Intent - clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/criminal-responsibility/

The Power of Conscious Intention Proven At Last? - blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/03/15/power-conscious-intention/#.V901bzUnrMU

And that’s just googling “intent”. Try a few other search terms, and remember the research moves forward all the time. Propagandists need to raise their game.

 

[tonyrey]

You appear to be a little out of date. Even law schools have undergraduate courses in neuroscience with section titles such as “Responsibility, mental illness and free will”. - drps.ed.ac.uk/14-15/dpt/cxlaws10176.htm

A quick google also finds:

The Neurobiology of Conscious Intent - psychiatrictimes.com/articles/neurobiology-conscious-intent

Criminal Responsibility & the Neuroscience of Intent - clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/criminal-responsibility/

The Power of Conscious Intention Proven At Last? - blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/03/15/power-conscious-intention/#.V901bzUnrMU

And that’s just googling “intent”. Try a few other search terms, and remember the research moves forward all the time. Propagandists need to raise their game.

Propagandists for scientific materialism really need to modify their game because they are merely succeeding in demonstrating they have absolutely no control over their beliefs and conclusions which, according to them, are the result of neurobiological processes - a view totally incompatible with Christ’s teaching that we are responsible for our behaviour. It is self-destructive into the bargain and answers the OP by rejecting the existence of teleology altogether, let alone being important for science!

 

[Peter_Plato]

You appear to be a little out of date. Even law schools have undergraduate courses in neuroscience with section titles such as “Responsibility, mental illness and free will”. - drps.ed.ac.uk/14-15/dpt/cxlaws10176.htm

A quick google also finds:

The Neurobiology of Conscious Intent - psychiatrictimes.com/articles/neurobiology-conscious-intent

Criminal Responsibility & the Neuroscience of Intent - clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/criminal-responsibility/

The Power of Conscious Intention Proven At Last? - blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/03/15/power-conscious-intention/#.V901bzUnrMU

And that’s just googling “intent”. Try a few other search terms, and remember the research moves forward all the time. Propagandists need to raise their game.

Sounds like a promissory note. It isn’t only propagandists who need to “raise their game.” It would seem that neuroscience needs to actually explain how free will and responsibility are compatible with chemistry and physics. It would seem very facile to make compatibilist claims and promises because “research is moving forward all the time;” another thing entirely to be certain about where “forward” actually gets us.

I mean, to know that any movement is headed in the direction of “forward” assumes with some degree of certainty the final destination and that any important “movements” with regard to what will be shown by relevant research will take us where it has been presumed to take us. The practical equivalent of begging the question – something like presuming the outcome.

“Let us not hold our collective breaths,” would be very good advice right about now.