This ought to confuse the ID/evolution debate

[Nick Soapdish]

Hi Atofel,......." If our freewill and other things people take for granted cannot be explained by nature, then the naturalistic interpretation of evolution must be rejected on the grounds that a supernatural element cannot emerge from a natural process. ".........

Err, maybe I'm dense, but that sounds totally illogical to me.:bonk:

Sorry, it was poorly worded.

Basically what I am saying is that if we assume that our freewill/mind is part supernatural (i.e. cannot be explained by nature or science), then we cannot really buy into a naturalistic interpretation of evolution. To do so would mean supernature would emerge from nature, which doesn't make any sense.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

atofel-- Where do all these restrictions on that which is 'supernatural' come from? I doubt they came from rigorous empirical testing. For instance, you imply in your last post that if our freewill/mind is part supernatural, that it cannot (all) be explained by nature or science. I see no reason, however, to embrace this assumption; it is perfectly possible that, though our freewill/mind is part supernatural, science/nature explanations work (even if they aren't true). Furthermore, why do claims regarding the supernatural have to 'make sense' at all, and why would it not 'make sense' for supernature to emerge from nature? I see absolutely nothing to substantiate any of these assumptions about what is essentially magic, other than that they are convenient in satisfying certain a priori beliefs.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I think you're mischaracterizing evolution a bit here. There is nothing inherent in evolution which "wants" organisms to survive. Survival is not the "goal" of evolution. Animals and plants are born with both traits that will help them survive, and traits that will not help them survive. The organisms with traits that help them survive end up surviving, not because that is the "goal" but because organisms that can survive better will survive better.

I didn't say evolution has a "goal" or "want". I said the criteria for natural selection is survivability. The "goal" and the "want" is where we perceive the criteria to come from in the human design process.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Where do all these restrictions on that which is 'supernatural' come from?

It is really part of the definition of the word, isn't it? If something is supernatural, then it's cause cannot be fully explained or understood. Therefore, a supernatural phenomenon cannot have a natural cause.

For instance, you imply in your last post that if our freewill/mind is part supernatural, that it cannot (all) be explained by nature or science. I see no reason, however, to embrace this assumption; it is perfectly possible that, though our freewill/mind is part supernatural, science/nature explanations work (even if they aren't true).

Isn't the truth what we are after?

Also, with regards to our consciousness, the only scientific theories that "work" are the ones that require us to pretend it doesn't exist.

Furthermore, why do claims regarding the supernatural have to 'make sense' at all

Isn't that kind of like saying the idea of illogical has to be itself illogical, or the idea of confusing has to be itself confusing? We can understand the concept of supernatural despite it meaning something cannot be fully understood.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Nature does not approach designs and selectively choose which options to pursue and evolve. That would be a selective form of creation.

What about the theory of natural selection?

As far as a supernatural mind is concerned, if you are giving the human mind that distinction, I must also disagree. Humans have a highly developed mind and we use it to invent and build but that is what is natural to human beings.
Using a term like supernatural to describe something natural to an entity suggests a class separate from the rest of the natural world, and I personally can't buy into that.
Faust.

Perhaps this is worthy of starting a new thread.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It is really part of the definition of the word, isn't it? If something is supernatural, then it's cause cannot be fully explained or understood. Therefore, a supernatural phenomenon cannot have a natural cause.

That's a non sequitur. There is zero basis for the assumption that all natural causes can be fully explained or understood (though this is a good methodology), and so it does not logically follow that a supernatural phenomenon (i.e. one whose cause cannot be fully explained or understood) cannot have a natural cause.

Isn't the truth what we are after?

Yes! :jam: That is why I challenged what you were implying, because I do not believe it to be true. You said: "...if we assume that our freewill/mind is part supernatural (i.e. cannot be explained by nature or science)" However, your "i.e." here is broken. It is conceivable that something can be explained by nature or science without that explanation being true. Therefore, just because something can be explained successfully by science does not mean that it is not supernatural. For example, demons could be tricking us into thinking that the first law of thermodynamics is true when it really isn't.....thus, thermodynamics is both supernatural and explainable through science.

Also, with regards to our consciousness, the only scientific theories that "work" are the ones that require us to pretend it doesn't exist.

Well I disagree, but I think that's a topic for another thread.

Isn't that kind of like saying the idea of illogical has to be itself illogical, or the idea of confusing has to be itself confusing? We can understand the concept of supernatural despite it meaning something cannot be fully understood.

I'm not saying we can't understand the concept of "something that cannot be fully understood". You have placed a number of restrictions of supernatural things, and I am wondering how those restrictions follow from the definition. In my opinion, "something that cannot be fully understood" could come from natural processes, or could be explainable by science, or could not 'make sense' just as easily as it could create a half-man half-god baby...in fact, I see absolutely nothing that "something that cannot be fully understood" could not hypothetically do, nor any method for determining its/their capabilities. It's my firm belief that, when discussing the supernatural, there simply is no way to distinguish between a claim that "makes sense" or "doesn't make sense". All claims are equally sensible (or senseless, depending on your perspective).

 

[Nick Soapdish]

There is zero basis for the assumption that all natural causes can be fully explained or understood

I suppose it is just semantics, but it is my opinion that the word "natural" has an operative role in that sentence. You could say that there is zero basis for the assumption that all causes can be fully explained or understood, but when you insert the word "natural", I interpret that to mean it is--in principle--understandable through science. I will concede that it may not be practical to know something which is natural if we do not have adequate instruments for measuring it.

Yes! :jam: That is why I challenged what you were implying, because I do not believe it to be true. You said: "...if we assume that our freewill/mind is part supernatural (i.e. cannot be explained by nature or science)" However, your "i.e." here is broken. It is conceivable that something can be explained by nature or science without that explanation being true. Therefore, just because something can be explained successfully by science does not mean that it is not supernatural. For example, demons could be tricking us into thinking that the first law of thermodynamics is true when it really isn't.....thus, thermodynamics is both supernatural and explainable through science.

Ok, I follow. Of course, there is still that dependency of science having to "work".

I'm not saying we can't understand the concept of "something that cannot be fully understood". You have placed a number of restrictions of supernatural things, and I am wondering how those restrictions follow from the definition. In my opinion, "something that cannot be fully understood" could come from natural processes, or could be explainable by science, or could not 'make sense' just as easily as it could create a half-man half-god baby...in fact, I see absolutely nothing that "something that cannot be fully understood" could not hypothetically do, nor any method for determining its/their capabilities. It's my firm belief that, when discussing the supernatural, there simply is no way to distinguish between a claim that "makes sense" or "doesn't make sense". All claims are equally sensible (or senseless, depending on your perspective).

Perhaps this is related to the semantic misunderstanding of "natural"?

 

[Tawn]

Sorry, it was poorly worded.

Basically what I am saying is that if we assume that our freewill/mind is part supernatural (i.e. cannot be explained by nature or science), then we cannot really buy into a naturalistic interpretation of evolution. To do so would mean supernature would emerge from nature, which doesn't make any sense.

I actually agree with what youre saying here.. which is why I dont buy into the whole free will thing..
problem is of course that most people do.. the idea of no free will is an uncomfortable one..

Of course spinkles has a point.. if there is a supernatural element in humans.. why can this only occur through God? The fact is that the supernatural is beyond natural testing. We cannot ascertain anything about it..

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I actually agree with what youre saying here.. which is why I dont buy into the whole free will thing..
problem is of course that most people do.. the idea of no free will is an uncomfortable one..

I am skeptical about your last statement? Do you find the lack of belief in freewill uncomfortable? I believe people think they have freewill because they can sense it--there is an experiential basis for it.

Of course spinkles has a point.. if there is a supernatural element in humans.. why can this only occur through God? The fact is that the supernatural is beyond natural testing. We cannot ascertain anything about it..

I agree. The belief in the supernatural does not automatically lead to the belief in a personal God, or more specifically, belief in Christianity. However, the belief in the supernatural is necessary for the belief in a personal God (I specify personal God to eliminate pantheism).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am skeptical about your last statement? Do you find the lack of belief in freewill uncomfortable? I believe people think they have freewill because they can sense it--there is an experiential basis for it.

There is an experiential basis for all superstition and delusion.

 

[Tawn]

I am skeptical about your last statement? Do you find the lack of belief in freewill uncomfortable?

Me personally.. hmmzz.. ive always been slightly insensitive I actually find the idea that were all effectively computers to be quite fascinating, not uncomfortable.. thought it is potentially limiting.. its like believing in fate..

I believe people think they have freewill because they can sense it--there is an experiential basis for it.

Deut is correct. Take a hypochondriac for instance. To them the imagined illness definitely has an experiential basis.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

There is an experiential basis for all superstition and delusion.

But an experiential basis is a reason to believe it. If there is no significant reason to doubt it, should we doubt it for the sake of doubting it? Unless you call the faith that our physical senses can measure any aspect of our mental experience a significant reason.

 

[Tawn]

But an experiential basis is a reason to believe it.

Agreed, but its not full-proof. In the case of free will the experiential basis isnt particularily strong as say our ability to see something with our eyes. We know our eyes can be tricked... so this puts the 'feeling' that we have free will on very unstable ground.

If there is no significant reason to doubt it, should we doubt it for the sake of doubting it?

We should doubt everything a little.. however I do think that the basis for believing in free will is so intangible that any reasonable (not necessarily significant) reason for doubting its existance should be given serious consideration.
However, what is disturbing is that people are unwilling to let doubt creep into their mind on this issue at all (or at least it appears that way).

I think there is good reason to have some doubt about free will. One can see the effects that various things have on our decision making processes. Diet for example can have a tremendous effect upon a persons concentration and decision making skills... Additionally, if free will existed, then psychology would really be a bereft subject since if anyone was capable of making any decision they chose then what would be the point in psychoanalysis?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I think there is good reason to have some doubt about free will. One can see the effects that various things have on our decision making processes. Diet for example can have a tremendous effect upon a persons concentration and decision making skills... Additionally, if free will existed, then psychology would really be a bereft subject since if anyone was capable of making any decision they chose then what would be the point in psychoanalysis?

I do not believe it is that simple. Stating we have freewill does not mean there are not limitations or influences on our behavior.

For example, suppose we are crawling through a narrow tunnel for several days. The tunnel has twists and turns, but it does not have any intersections. Once we exit the tunnel and are on open ground we may express a strong sense of freedom. This expression of freedom does not mean we can move any direction we choose--for example, we cannot fly into the air, or tunnel through the ground. However, it does express the ability to have more control over our movement. Of course, there is still some influence the environment places on us (e.g. whether we will go uphill or downhill, through the brush or through the plains, etc.)

 

[Tawn]

For example, suppose we are crawling through a narrow tunnel for several days. The tunnel has twists and turns, but it does not have any intersections. Once we exit the tunnel and are on open ground we may express a strong sense of freedom. This expression of freedom does not mean we can move any direction we choose--for example, we cannot fly into the air, or tunnel through the ground. However, it does express the ability to have more control over our movement. Of course, there is still some influence the environment places on us (e.g. whether we will go uphill or downhill, through the brush or through the plains, etc.)

Im genuinely puzzled.
I dont understand how that example demonstrates free will.. the sense of freedom is an emotional reaction to the change in situation.. am I missing something?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Im genuinely puzzled.
I dont understand how that example demonstrates free will.. the sense of freedom is an emotional reaction to the change in situation.. am I missing something?

Sorry, I was thinking a step ahead of my fingers.

The purpose of my allegory is to illustrate what is meant by "free" in freewill. "Free" is a comparative operator, and should not be perceived as meaning an absolute absence of restraints and restrictions.

The tunnel would be our existance with no freewill. The open land is our true experience (with many terrain features that interfere or guide our decisions).

 

[Tawn]

Sorry, I was thinking a step ahead of my fingers.

The purpose of my allegory is to illustrate what is meant by "free" in freewill. "Free" is a comparative operator, and should not be perceived as meaning an absolute absence of restraints and restrictions.

The tunnel would be our existance with no freewill. The open land is our true experience (with many terrain features that interfere or guide our decisions).

Ah I get you.. yes thats a good allegory..

we really should be discussing this in the free will thread

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

7 Wonders of Mount St. Helens
1. Mountain rearranged beyond recognition in nine hours.
2. Canyons formed in five months.
3. Badlands formed in five days.
4. Layered Strata Formed in Three Hours.
5. River System Formed in Nine Hours.
6. Sinking Logs Look Like Many Aged Forests in Just Ten Years.
7. A New Model for Quicker Coal Formation.

The link above gives detailed information on these 7 topics.

 

[Tawn]

What did you want to discuss or shall I just throw a bunch of links back at you?
Besides, more appropriate to a different thread dont you think?
Suffice to say that if such claims are true then you'd have only removed one of many scientific areas which shows the earth to be very very old.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

What did you want to discuss or shall I just throw a bunch of links back at you?
Besides, more appropriate to a different thread dont you think?
Suffice to say that if such claims are true then you'd have only removed one of many scientific areas which shows the earth to be very very old.

These are all observed since the Mount St. Helens eruption. Yes, this is geoligical evidence that the earth may not be as old as most scientists have theorized it to be, I am not going to argue against evolution, but instead show that there might be more to it. If something we can witness, within our lifetime, disproves that it takes millions of years for these things to happen, isn't that evidence for our young earth creationists?