Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

[tonyrey]

If there were some detectable (by any reliable and testable means!) evidence of any supernatural reality, rather than just philosophical and theological blustering about the assumed limits of scientific knowledge, then you can bet that scientists would be the first to embrace it.

1. Does your knowledge of yourself count for nothing?
2. Do you believe all your mental activity is in principle scientifically explicable?
3. If so would you concede you are a biological machine?

 

[Sair]

Since when has science replaced philosophy? It may be a tempting prospect for materialists but then they will have to explain how science can explain in principle not only itself but everything else as well!

Philosophy is meaningless if it fails to take science into account. The trouble with theology is that it has a tendency to try to be philosophy independent of science. You can posit any supernatural entity you like - it might be the Flying Spaghetti Monster - to explain any natural phenomenon you like, but it’s all meaningless until you pony up with the evidence. By all means, show how a supernatural entity is necessary to any given natural phenomenon, but don’t just assume that because scientific inquiry hasn’t yet uncovered the whole truth, it isn’t capable of doing so. This is just the ‘god-of-the-gaps’ argument re-imagined for a slightly different audience.

 

[Sair]

1. Does your knowledge of yourself count for nothing?

Maybe not nothing, but certainly not the whole truth. How often do people claim that others know them “better than I know myself”? Sometimes the external perspective is indeed more reliable than the internal one.

1. Do you believe all your mental activity is in principle scientifically explicable?

Yes, I do. Even if there is some supernatural influence, I believe this should be detectable in a way that is distinct from natural phenomena.

1. If so would you concede you are a biological machine?

Actually, I would - but that’s because I don’t think there’s any diminishment of humanity involved in supposing that humans are biological machines. It amazes me, actually, that theistic believers so often accuse nonbelievers of being arrogant, when the latter divest ourselves of all assumptions that our importance ranges beyond our individual experiences and our interactions with others in our immediate communities.

 

[tonyrey]

Since when has science replaced philosophy? It may be a tempting prospect for materialists but then they will have to explain how science can explain in principle not only itself but everything else as well!

Have I implied science is irrelevant?

The trouble with theology is that it has a tendency to try to be philosophy independent of science.

Theology is independent of science - and to a certain extent independent of philosophy. It is based on belief in spiritual reality just as materialism is based on belief in material reality.

You can posit any supernatural entity you like - it might be the Flying Spaghetti Monster - to explain any natural phenomenon you like, but it’s all meaningless until you pony up with the evidence.

All explanation is meaningless if it is ponied up with nothing but material evidence.

By all means, show how a supernatural entity is necessary to any given natural phenomenon, but don’t just assume that because scientific inquiry hasn’t yet uncovered the whole truth, it isn’t capable of doing so.

“yet” implies blind faith in the power of science.

This is just the ‘god-of-the-gaps’ argument re-imagined for a slightly different audience.

With equal facility it can be said this is just the same old ‘science-of-the-gaps’ argument for every conceivable audience! It is time for materialism to be established on a rational foundation rather than an emotional preference…

 

[Sair]

Have I implied science is irrelevant?

In large part, you have - by supposing that it is incapable of plumbing the depths of reality, or even approaching any reality that “really matters”.

Theology is independent of science - and to a certain extent independent of philosophy. It is based on belief in spiritual reality just as materialism is based on belief in material reality.

Analysis of Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings is likewise independent of science and philosophy, except as it relates to the imagined world of the novels involved.

All explanation is meaningless if it is ponied up with nothing but material evidence. “yet” implies blind faith in the power of science.

Nothing but material evidence? Are you ignoring all material evidence now? And, no - ‘yet’ implies provisional faith in science, and an unwillingness to invest genuinely blind faith in what are, let’s be honest, undemonstrable and unprovable doctrines - why else call it ‘faith’?

With equal facility it can be said this is just the same old ‘science-of-the-gaps’ argument for every conceivable audience! It is time for materialism to be established on a rational foundation rather than an emotional preference…

What more rational basis can you have than the obvious success of scientific materialism, independent of any imagined intervention by a supernatural designer for whom there is no evidence? When you have a demonstrable alternative to scientific materialism, come back with your evidence. Until then, you have only empty objections to an obviously successful epistemological system.

 

[tonyrey]

Have I implied science is irrelevant?

Ironically I have pointed to the success of science as evidence of the power of reason - without which we wouldn’t know anything, let alone what really matters…

Theology is independent of science - and to a certain extent independent of philosophy. It is based on belief in spiritual reality just as materialism is based on belief in material reality.

Analysis of Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings is likewise independent of science and philosophy, except as it relates to the imagined world of the novels involved.

Fiction is not in the same category as religion unless one is a materialist.

All explanation is meaningless if it is ponied up with nothing but material evidence. “yet” implies blind faith in the power of science.

Nothing but material evidence? Are you ignoring all material evidence now?

Non sequitur.

And, no - ‘yet’ implies provisional faith in science, and an unwillingness to invest genuinely blind faith in what are, let’s be honest, undemonstrable and unprovable doctrines - why else call it ‘faith’?

Your biased choice of terms is significant. For science it is "provisional " but for religion it is “blind”!

The acid test is whether you rely on science alone to make **all **your important decisions…

With equal facility it can be said this is just the same old ‘science-of-the-gaps’ argument for every conceivable audience! It is time for materialism to be established on a rational foundation rather than an emotional preference…

What more rational basis can you have than the obvious success of scientific materialism, independent of any imagined intervention by a supernatural designer for whom there is no evidence?

How does scientific materialism explain your love for persons and animals? Does it determine all your moral values and goals in life?

When you have a demonstrable alternative to scientific materialism, come back with your evidence. Until then, you have only empty objections to an obviously successful epistemological system. In large part, you have - by supposing that it is incapable of plumbing the depths of reality, or even approaching any reality that “really matters”.

Come back with your evidence that science answers all your personal and social questions… I shall be fascinated to know the results!

Why did you feel the need to supplement materialism with pantheism?

 

[markeverett49]

Assuming that you mean “rule out” in an a posteriori sense and in view of the fact that we’ve only begun to investigate our brains and their capabilities (let alone all other potential material bases), I assume then that you’re still open to the possibility that immaterial things like consciousness could be the result of material processes. I hope, as well, that you acknowledge the possibility that we may never know – one way or the other – how things like consciousness arise.

It is important to remember that materialism is a very old idea. Materialists pre-date Aristotle. (“There is nothing but atoms and the void” is a line going back to Democritus.) The problem with this is that it fails to explain so much that we know to be true. It has always been hard for materialists to explain how we understand concepts. To take a simple example, the first time someone showed you a dog and called it a dog—perhaps your family had a dog, or the neighbors did—you learned what a dog was, and you have recognized what dogs are ever since. So have I. But you didn’t see dogs I saw and I didn’t see the dogs you saw, yet we learned the same thing from them. How is that possible on a materialist view?

Then there are syncategorematic words, such as “if,” “by” and “and”, which have no meaning when standing alone (-which is not to say that they are meaningless!) but require the presence of other words for their meaning. (“If the Nelson kids drop by and ask to see the puppies, let them.”) It’s hard to understand, on a materialist view, how such words are used and learned, yet we all learn and use them with no difficulty. (It’s hard to recall being puzzled about such words, but if you consider how you might teach “if” or “by” to a chimp, you realize there’s a lot to those little words.)

This leads up to something many philosophers have pointed out. If an ARGUMENT --which is not some physical thing–can change a MIND, how can the mind be a wholly physical thing? (Another way to see this is to ask, “if materialism is true, how can people interpret the same text differently?” And I don’t mean something like Scripture–which is from long ago, in translation, and difficult–but a comment made by a person running for political office, or a friend at work. If materialism is true, then MISunderstanding is a problem. (Consider what we would think of matches if they only ignited when certain people struck them.)

There is much more on just these few examples. Perhaps most difficultly, if the mind is just the brain, then dogs and chickens and chimps might be considered persons too because they also have brains.

 

[prodigalson2011]

In large part, you have - by supposing that it is incapable of plumbing the depths of reality, or even approaching any reality that “really matters”.

The only “matter” science can deal with–the only “reality” it can plumb–is that of matter. Meaning, value, beauty… these are all universal human experiences about which science is (and must be) completely silent.

Analysis of Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings is likewise independent of science and philosophy, except as it relates to the imagined world of the novels involved.

I would disagree with Tony that theology is independent of philosophy. Theology is a development of more basic philosophy, moving from universals to particulars.

Nevertheless, it is fallacious to compare historically grounded religious ideas to known works of fantasy.

Nothing but material evidence? Are you ignoring all material evidence now?

This is about the most incoherent and illogical deduction one could draw. How do you move from “needing more than material evidence” to “needing no material evidence at all?”
If I were making a cake and I said I needed more than flour, would you assume I needed no flour at all?

And, no - ‘yet’ implies provisional faith in science, and an unwillingness to invest genuinely blind faith in what are, let’s be honest, undemonstrable and unprovable doctrines - why else call it ‘faith’?

This is the most typical, tired, worn out straw man of “faith.” Why do you say you have faith in a spouse or a friend? Because you love and place trust in that person.

What more rational basis can you have than the obvious success of scientific materialism, independent of any imagined intervention by a supernatural designer for whom there is no evidence? When you have a demonstrable alternative to scientific materialism, come back with your evidence. Until then, you have only empty objections to an obviously successful epistemological system.

Science is great for answering questions about the material world. But it cannot explain why it exists. Science only deals in “hows”; not “whys.” Philosophy, including religious philosophy/theology, deals in “whys.”

There are plenty of strong arguments for theism and Christianity in particular, if one takes the time to really study them. A cursory reading will almost certainly prove insufficient as the materialist mindset uses many terms in an entirely different sense than classical philosophers did/do.

And, most importantly, no one lives their entire lives based on empirical evidence, and if they do they’re going to be a pretty lonely and miserable person. Can you imagine someone trying to use the scientific method to deduce whether his wife loves him? Whether a sunset is beautiful? Almost all if not everyone who claims to be a materialist or empiricist lives their lives in utter contradiction to their self-professed beliefs.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Maybe not nothing, but certainly not the whole truth. How often do people claim that others know them “better than I know myself”? Sometimes the external perspective is indeed more reliable than the internal one.

People may be more aware of your patterns of behavior better than you, but there are things beneath your observable existence that are known only to you and those you choose to share it with. And even then, there are things about you that are purely experiential and cannot even be communicated to others.

If you reduce yourself to what other people observe of you, then I pity you. You are pretty much writing yourself off as a robot with delusions of self-hood, and arbitrarily ascribing more reality to the external manifestations of your interior life than your interior life itself. Much like, in the case of modern psychology, more significance is ascribed to the neuroses than to the self that they effect. The same indignity applies: it is assumed that a person’s self is composed of their brain/experiences rather than being merely effected or altered by them.

Yes, I do. Even if there is some supernatural influence, I believe this should be detectable in a way that is distinct from natural phenomena.

Since our bodily senses (and sciences) can only, by themselves, observe natural things, how would you propose we go about scientifically detecting supernatural things?

I have to conclude you haven’t invested much time in studying the two sides of these arguments. These are some very basic fallacies you’re trotting out.

Actually, I would - but that’s because I don’t think there’s any diminishment of humanity involved in supposing that humans are biological machines.

You don’t see any decline in dignity from being a self-controlled entity with the free will to choose its own destiny to being a bundle of chemical reactions with no real self-control to speak of and complete delusions of personhood?

From being a self to a system?

I think the testimony of the gulags weighs against you. If you don’t think there is any diminishment of human dignity in moving from intended, invaluable persons to accidental, disposable machines, I would think twice before talking about others holding indemonstrable doctrines, as you seem to hold some that are demonstrably absurd.

It amazes me, actually, that theistic believers so often accuse nonbelievers of being arrogant, when the latter divest ourselves of all assumptions that our importance ranges beyond our individual experiences and our interactions with others in our immediate communities.

The atheists who get accused of being arrogant are the ones who tout their unbelief as if it is some irrefutable mark of intellectual and personal superiority. In short, the ones who are arrogant.

 

[Julia_Mae]

He didn’t think that ‘the strongest will survive’ was the defining problem. It’s nothing to do with strongest or biggest or fastest. He didn’t mean fittest as you perceive it. Darwin meant that the ‘fitter’ animal was one that was best ‘fitted’ to its environment. That can actually mean that something smaller (and hence weaker) can survive in times when there’s less food when something larger (and hence stronger) would die.

Hence the present lack of dinosaurs.

 

[Julia_Mae]

If there were some detectable (by any reliable and testable means!) evidence of any supernatural reality, rather than just philosophical and theological blustering about the assumed limits of scientific knowledge, then you can bet that scientists would be the first to embrace it.

If you believe this, you haven’t met many scientists.

There is, in fact, plenty of evidence of what you call “supernatural reality.” There are qualified scientists researching this. And the same scientist who had no trouble at all getting published in a journal when he was researching in the accepted realms, can hardly manage to get published at all if he steps outside the standard issue scientific box.

Remember, when Newton proposed universal laws of gravity, he was accused of bowing to mysticism and laughed at.

 

[tonyrey]

Then the difference between molecular systems and rational beings must also be simply a difference of degree. Is that correct?

No response!

 

[markeverett49]

That’s not correct. We have reached a point where we can control our own environment, so there’s a very good argument that for humans at least, evolution does not mean what it used to mean.

He didn’t think that ‘the strongest will survive’ was the defining problem. It’s nothing to do with strongest or biggest or fastest. He didn’t mean fittest as you perceive it. Darwin meant that the ‘fitter’ animal was one that was best ‘fitted’ to its environment. That can actually mean that something smaller (and hence weaker) can survive in times when there’s less food when something larger (and hence stronger) would die.

I’m glad you mentioned these two things.

As to the first, nothing in Darwin (or neo-Darwinian theory) allows for any species to slip the net of evolution. Darwinian theory REQUIRES humans to re-produce until many are forced to starve (-or die in fight over a diminishing food supply.) That’s how the theory works. That is its description of how organic life: all organisms reproduce as much as possible and overwhelm their food supply. (If you take humans out of it, it’s not at all clear this is an accurate description of the lives of gorillas, either, or dogs.)

As to the second, you are right that by “fit” or “favoured races” Darwin meant those who survived, for whatever reason. Those immune to the bubonic plague survived it, while many of those who weren’t died. Darwin saw struggle as the defining characteristic of organic life. That’s the engine of his theory. Without the struggle—brought about by ceaseless reproduction and a diminishing food supply–evolution falls apart.

 

[cornbread_r2]

…]

Then the difference between molecular systems and rational beings must also be simply a difference of degree. Is that correct?

There are probably already computers that exceed the rational decision-making capabilities of many humans.

 

[tonyrey]

There are probably already computers that exceed the rational decision-making capabilities of many humans.

1. Do they have any** insight** into what they are doing?
2. If you asked them why they exist could they answer you rationally?
3. Would you rely on them to make all your important decisions for you?
4. Do you believe we are programmed by nature to think as we think and act as we act?

 

[markeverett49]

There are probably already computers that exceed the rational decision-making capabilities of many humans.

Humans built those computers.

 

[cornbread_r2]

1. Do they have any** insight** into what they are doing?
2. If you asked them why they exist could they answer you rationally?
3. Would you rely on them to make all your important decisions for you?

In answer to all three: At this stage in development, probably not. I didn’t intend to imply that computers and humans are equal in all respects, just that some computers probably already exceed the rational decision-making capabilities (i.e. weighing probabilities) of many humans. Do you agree with that? Note that there already exist medical diagnostic programs that assist doctors every day in making rational decisions regarding patient care.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Humans built those computers.

I think we’re quickly reaching the point where we won’t be able to design more sophisticated computers without computer assistance. Sophisticated modern aircraft don’t stay aloft without it.

 

[markeverett49]

In answer to all three: At this stage in development, probably not. I didn’t intend to imply that computers and humans are equal in all respects, just that some computers probably already exceed the rational decision-making capabilities (i.e. weighing probabilities) of many humans. Do you agree with that? Note that there already exist medical diagnostic programs that assist doctors every day in making rational decisions regarding patient care.

Such machines are useful and I applaud their development. The mistake lies in thinking that logical thought is the acme of human intelligence. It is not. That we understand universals at all—triangle, man, government–is a much more complex matter than the fact that we can reason that if triangle A is larger than B and B is larger than C, then A must be larger than C.

Here’s a snippet on the immateriality of the intellect—a “Firing Line” interview with Mortimer Adler. (His book “Intellect: Mind over Matter” is a solid, accessible account of the main arguments for the immateriality of the intellect.)

youtube.com/watch?v=wW-PeayslSA

 

[markeverett49]

I think we’re quickly reaching the point where we won’t be able to design more sophisticated computers without computer assistance. Sophisticated modern aircraft don’t stay aloft without it.

That we use them to assist us shows a great difference between them and us, no?