Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:22:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020913101042.K22737-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D814298.6E3D3675@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > The mathematical formalism of symbolic logic. > > > > Now you are contradicting what you said earlier. You said that > > a person *can't* evaluate their reason against an objective > > standard. Which is it? > > A person can't evaluate *their* reason against an objective > standard; they can, however, evaluate *another person's* reason > against a subjective, yet *consensus*, standard. That is absurd and reduces to subjectivism. If you can't evaluate your own reason against an objective standard, why do you think you can evaluate somebody else's? On your view, there CAN BE NO "consensus" standard. It's all subjective. Moreover, even if you could, why should *anybody* agree to go along with the consensus, if it is all just subjective anyway? How can there *be* a consensus if all everybody has is a subjective standard? > > > > > "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". > > > > > > > > Yes it is. But it is *your* premises that preclude the possibility > > > > that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. > > > > > > No it doesn't. Look up the word "emergent", and tell me that > > > again, without being disingenuous. > > > > Just admit that your clinging to the concept of "emergence" is a faith > > commitment. Just once! Or show how it is possible given your > > naturalism. > > Because it's not directly based on faith. What is your justification for believing in the uniformity of nature? Every attempt you have made has assumed the uniformity of nature. That's called FAITH. It is also the case with "emergence". You have never even attempted to justify your belief in it, you just restated it over and over. That's called FAITH. > In the limit, it reduces to an argument based on three of the > things which I hold to be axioms. You could call each of these > "items of faith". But you must go through many steps to work > back to those. Here. Let me help you. One of them is "the > external universe exits independently of my perception of it". You can't even justify *this* given your worldview. What justification do you have for believing that the universe exists independently of your perception of it? Remember David Hume? He argued that he was "a bundle of perceptions", but even this begs the question. You have to take it for granted. That's called FAITH. > > > > I'm not arguing that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. > > > > I'm arguing that *your* premises lead to that conclusion. > > > > > > Well, you are wrong. My premises lead to emergent properties > > > and self-organization and the Anthropic Principle and Mach's > > > Hypothesis. > > > > No, your premises *are* those things. > > No, they aren't. They *lead* to those things. Okay, so what are they? What premises lead you to the conclusion that matter has self-emergent properties? Of course you know very well as soon as you state them, I'm going to ask you to give a justification for them. > Just because *you* don't know why you hold certain things to be > true, doesn't mean that I don't know why *I* hold certain things > to be true. I know exactly why I hold certain things to be true, but I don't think you do. I can give you a justification for everything which we all take for granted everyday. I don't think you can, but you are welcome to try. > > > Then do us the favor of not insulting our intelligence by using > > > rhetorical techniques which you know to be deceitful. > > > > Why don't *you* do us all a favor and present a proper refutation > > instead of just asserting that my arguments are unsound? > > OK. > > I refute your right to appeal to divine authority to refute > evolutionary theory. Please demonstrate: I have never appealed to divine authority to refute evolutionary theory. I *have* said that evolutionary theory is impossible given naturalistic assumptions. > 1) That God exists I *have* done this, by showing the impossibility of the contrary. It's called an indirect proof, or a transcendental argument. If the denial of a claim undermines the preconditions of rationality, it is unreasonable to deny that claim. You have yet to refute it with anything other than wild assertions about my reasoning ability. > 2) That the Bible is, in fact, the revealed Word of God In the nature of the case, God's word is self-authenticating. It *must* be this way. How else can God confirm His word, but through His word? Why do you find that to be such a problem. > 3) That the contradictions in the Bible are the result > of transcription errors What I'm saying is that a worldview must be evaluated for internal consistency. The doctrine of infallibility allows for the possibility of transcription errors. Why must every apparent contradiction be proven to *your* satisfaction, particularly when you don't apply that same standard to every other historical document? Why the double standard? Why is it reasonable for you to assume that there can never be transcription mistakes in the Bible? Haven't you ever heard of the science of textual criticism? You are imposing unreasonable standards on the text. > 4) That the meaning of the statements which you use in > support of your arguments are *not* the result of > transcription errors, the existance of which you > will have proven in step #3. Why do you assume that transcription errors would lead to doctrinal errors? It does not follow. Remember that list of purported contradictions that was posted? Do you see anything in there that would lead to a doctrinal error? > > > No, I do not. I merely need to show that human reason can be > > > accounted for by the action of the laws of physics on matter. > > > > Which you *have not done*. > > I have referenced work which I am also capable of deriving. I have > avoided referencing work which I'm not capable of recreating, since > I want to avoid an appeal to authroity argument. If you really want to avoid an appeal to authority argument, you should not reference it at all. Refutation by footnote is not at all a convincing argument, regardless of whether or not you think you can derive the work. > Are you going to insist that I rewrite the text of the books I > have referenced, on the basis of calculation carried out on the > mailing list, in order to be able to use the references? No, but you could at least provide a rough sketch. Also, your explanation should also explain how the action of physics on matter avoids the conclusion of determinism. > > > I don't have to show a thing about determinism. Determinism is > > > irrelvant. It's only you who holds free will to be sacrosanct, > > > and thus part and parcel with human reason: not me. > > > > Are you, or are you not a determinist? > > I am not a determinist. Nor am I, or have I ever been, a member > of the Communist Party, Senator McCarthy. Okay, so you don't believe in free will, and you don't believe in determinism, and you claim that the choice between the two is a false dilemma, what is that third option that you are being so coy about? > > > If you want to drag determinism into this, then you need to prove > > > that it's even relevant to the discussion. > > > > I did. The reductio showed that your presuppositions lead to > > determinism. > > No, It did not. It failed to account for Heisenberg's Uncertainty > Principle, which permits a mechanistic universe to have indeterminate > outcomes to macro events by means of quantum coupling. So how does the fact that we cannot measure precisely the momentum and position of a particle give us a way to save reason? The indeterminacy has to do with our ability to measure since by attempting to make a measurement we disturb the system. How does this prove that the universe is not deterministic? All it proves is *our* lack of ability to know the position and momentum of a particle. Moreover, it sounds to me like you are attempting to resurrect the notion of chance, which you claim not to hold to. Also, isn't what you are saying above contradicting what you said earlier? To wit: From: <http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=323169+0+/usr/local/www/db/text/2002/freebsd-chat/20020901.freebsd-chat>; > And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity > above a quantum level is a popular misconception. > > All the ranting and raving about my reductio being > > unsound is only that, ranting and raving. > > No, it's physics, which we can accurately utilize to predict > attributes of matter, such as the color of a compound before > we create it. And how, again, does this account for reason? > > I think I see why you object so vehemently to the reductio. It's > > because you agree with the reductio's conclusion. You don't think > > determinism is absurd at all? If that's the case, why didn't you > > just say that? > > I disagree that the laws of physics result in a clockwork universe. What is your justification for believing that? I don't think the universe is clockwork either, but at least I have a justification for that belief. > I disagree with your conclusion, because the assumptions you put > into it -- that if the universe is *only* governed by the laws of > physics, it *must* be a clockwork -- does not follow. How does it not follow? Your appeal to HUP certainly does not help you out in the least. How do you begin with matter and physical laws and end up with anything but determinism? Are you saying that the physical laws are not universal? Are you saying they are in constant flux? What is your justification for believing that *any* of the laws we have observed will continue to hold tomorrow? > The universe can *both* be governed *only* by the laws of physics, > yet *still* not be a clockwork. How? What you are asserting is absurd. If *only* physical law governs the universe, physical law is the *only* thing we can appeal to in order to explain reason. Garbage in, garbage out. There can be no freedom, no reason, no logic, no ethics, no anything except matter in motion. > > > > Given your premises, there is no way you can know whether *your* > > > > reason is correct and that other people's reasoning is fallacious. > > > > > > I can. I can test whether or not one or the other is more predictive. > > > > What good would that do? On your view there would be no way to correct > > one's own reasoning, since it is hardwired into the system. > > That really depends on whether or not you are willing to discard > axioms, when someone proves to you, on the basis of your own > internal rules, that the resulting internal model of the universe > does not match observation, or that your model has an internally > invisible, yet externally visible, inconsistency. On your view, where do you get the notion of "willing to discard axioms"? You *can't* discard them, they are hard-wired into the system. How could anyone "disprove" your axioms when they cannot be changed? Moreover, your appealing to "will" seems to place you back in *my* worldview. You've already repudiated the doctrine of free will. You've also repudiated determinism. What is there left in between? > > > > It may be fallacious according to the internal laws of logic that > > > > are pre-programmed in *your* head, but that wouldn't prove anything, > > > > since you don't know that what is in your head is what is in anybody > > > > else's. > > > > > > Yes, actually, I do know. I rather expect that the mathematics > > > necessary to prove this is beyond you, however. > > > > Oh, that's convenient. > > No, it's a pain in the ass, because without that, you are going > to blindly cling to your model because it's all you understand. Yeesh, have a little humility for once. I could just as easily claim any absurdity and dismiss any contrary argument from you on the basis that "you won't understand the math." Why don't you just drop the ad-hominem fallacies, okay? > > > You don't know whether I believe this is "a random chance universe" > > > or not. You only know that I have argued for evolution, and certain > > > aspects of the universe which you have taken, inaappropriately, to > > > mean that I believe the universe is a clockwork, which is not a > > > conclusion you can legitimately draw from my statements. > > > > *You* are the one who brought up randomness as an out for saving > > reason. > > No. I merely stated that it was emergent. Not that there was > randomness from which it emerges. It was your posting of 29 Aug 2002 > that brought in "random". See previous note in which I quote your message where you appeal to randomness in order to avoid determinism. > > I assumed it based on your own appeal to it. If you would > > clearly outline exactly what it is that you *do* believe, it would > > certainly clarify things a bit. > > If I were to delineate all my axioms, and you shared all of them, > you would not automatically share all my conclusions. So what? Lets examine those axioms to see if they are cogent. > I would have to demonstrate the derivation of all intermediate > ideas, until I got to, as an example, evolution, so that I could > demonstrate that it followed from my -- and your -- axiomatic > basis. I would need to "show my work". I'm not asking for anything that comprehensive. Just a justification of your axioms. > For this to be successful, you would have to already understand > your own axiomatic basis, and you would need to address every > single intermediate contradiction, through application of self > examination. Here is my basic axiom: In order to make sense out of logic, science, rationality, human freedom, human dignity, universals, human language, objective standards, and all the rest, there must be some Being who is Himself objective, self-existent, and perfect in every respect who can reveal those things to me through revelation. > > Of course, then you are borrowing (again) from *my* worldview. > > I do not need to borrow from your worldview. I have come to > many conclusions which happen to coincide with social consensus, > including certain aspects of Biblical and Judeo-Christian doctrine. Social consensus is worthless in the face of tyranny, which by the way cannot even be defined let alone opposed on your worldview. > I will say that society is *very lucky* my derivations of > principle match its own to such a high degree. Personally, I > would argue "evolutionary pressure resulting in concordance", > rather than "luck". 8-). So was Russian society *unlucky* that Stalin's derivations of principle *did not* match theirs? 8-) > I will tell you that I do not act as I act out of fear, and that > I think there are very few people who can honestly say that. Yeah, but normally we call those people sociopaths. > > Ironically, this is exactly the state that the apostle Paul says > > in Romans 1 that unbelievers are in. They willfully *suppress* the > > truth about God and themselves in unrighteousness. 8-) > > Faith requires that you not have proof, but believe anyway. This *is not* the Christian conception of "faith". The apostle Peter admonishes Christians to "always be ready to give a defense of the hope that you have" in I Peter 3:15. Moreover, this idea of "faith" does not square with Romans 1, where Paul says *all* men know God, His existence being "clearly seen" (1:20) by the things that are made. The Thomistic notion of faith is unbiblical. Faith is not in opposition to reason, nor does faith take over where reason leaves off. Faith is the *foundation* of reason, and when men reject God, they "became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (1:21) > Say > you could successfully derive all of the observable universe from > a set of axioms which did not include a belief in God. And say > further, that God was not part of the observable universe, by > which I mean that you could not prove God's existance from an > axiomatic basis that did not include the existance of God as an > axiom. Now say you believed in God anyway. THAT would be faith. No, that would be irrational. Don't think of faith that way. At least try to think of it in the way the Bible presents it, as the necessary foundation for everything else. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020913101042.K22737-100000>