The Irrational Dogmas of Rational Atheism

I was recently re-reading sections of what I think is one of the best and yet most under-appreciated works of Catholic apologetics written in recent decades, Faith and Certitude by Father Thomas Dubay, S.M., published by Ignatius Press in 1985. (And, for the record, I thought that long before I ever wrote or worked for Ignatius.) Fr. Dubay's book is, as the title suggests, especially concerned with skepticism and unbelief, and is an excellent examination of the intellectual premises and varied attitudes held by atheists. In a chapter titled, "Clarifying Our Concepts," Fr. Dubay writes:

Everyone is dogmatic. The statement may startle, but it is easy to demonstrate. We human beings differ not as to whether we consider ourselves infallibly right about this or that but as to what this or that may be. ... All of us have dogmas, some with good reason, some without.

This is Chestertonian in nature, as this quote from G.K.'s Heretics indicates: "Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. . . . Trees have no dogmas" A bit later Dubay states:

Yet despite this confusion [brought about by relativism] there lurks in the human heart a deep need for what we shall call objective truth and the secure possession of it.

Simple enough, but also profound. Those statements came to mind when I stumbled today upon a piece on ScientificAmerican.com (September 2007) titled, "Rational Atheism," which is "An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens," written by Michael Shermer. He is publisher of Skeptic and author of Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt, 2006). He is not too taken with the often harsh and sensational methods of attack someitmes employed by the best-selling authors he addresses his letter to; he pleads for a more calm and reasoned approach that stresses positive thoughts and action: "I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher..." And:

Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.

A higher moral principle....um...based on what? He refers to the "golden rule," which is, if I'm not mistaken (yes, a bit of sarcasm), a religious principle made famous by a man who claimed to be God (His name was Jesus, as I'm sure you know.) The "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" blog remarks:

This is from a guy who says he believes that ultimate reality is matter in motion.   Molecules.  Matter.  Nothing transcendent.  Just matter.  That's it.

Reading Shermer make moral arguments based on objective moral principles, therefore, is  irrational if his worldview is true.  The supreme irony is that Shermer titled his article Rational Atheism.

Exactly. Shermer ends his letter with what can only be read as an overt dogmatic statement: "Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion." Funny how atheists tend to find something out there and above us that is providing objective guidance—a "principle" in this case—but don't you dare think it could be a personal Creator. For example, Sam Harris, in his screed The End of Faith, writes that there “is no reason that our ability to sustain ourselves emotionally and spiritually cannot evolve with technology, politics, and the rest of culture. Indeed, it must evolve, if we are to have any future at all.” If that isn’t an overt statement of dogmatic faith—in the necessity and inevitability of some sort of evolution—what is?

Harris's book, which I've mentioned before, is a rather fascinating read, but not for any good reason. In fact, good reason and reasoning are rarely found, as Harris's favorite argument against "faith" and "religion" (mostly Christianity and Islam) is that religious people and beliefs are ignorant, foolish, backwards, insulting, intolerant, violent, insane, etc., etc. Every religion, he writes, “preaches the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable. This puts the ‘leap’ in Kierkegaards’ leap of faith.” And: “Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity—a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible.”

In glancing through The End of Faith once more, I noted how much it resembles a bad magic act, with the magician (the atheist author) trying to confuse the audience with a flurry of clumsy distractions (name calling; straw men; rapid fire accusations; emoting; whining) so they won't notice that how poorly he performs the "trick" (makes God disappear). It is curious, for example, that a 336-page book with extensive endnotes, written by someone with a degree in philosophy who supposedly relies occasionally on philosophical arguments—and which describes Catholic doctrine and beliefs as "suggestive of mental illness"—does not contain a single reference to Thomas Aquinas. Or John Henry Newman, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Claudel, Josef Pieper, von Balthasar, Mortimer Adler, Hans Küng (a man I often criticize, but whose 800-page book, Does God Exist?, makes Harris's look like third-rate graffiti), Guardini, Richard Swinburne, Rahner, William Lane Craig, Michael Novak, etc., etc. Augustine is mentioned a few times, mostly to call him an anti-Semitic "sadist." Of Pascal: "That so nimble a mind could be led to labor under such dogma [regarding the divinity of Jesus] was surely one of the great wonders of the age." (Funny how bullies only pick on the weak kids when the bigger kids aren't around.) Imagine if a theist wrote a book titled The End of Disbelief and failed to mention, say, Hume, Voltaire, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Marx, Comte, and Sartre, with only passing reference to Darwin, Freud, and Singer. It would be roundly and rightly criticized. By Christians!

Equally revealing is this passage by Harris:

Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century. The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God.

Here, again, it is the omission that stands out, especially from a student of philosophy. What are the famous words of Socrates? "Know thyself." Harris is so fixated on scientific and technological achievement and knowledge that he ignores the perennial greatness of self-examination and knowledge of man—who he is, how he thinks and feels, how he lives and should live, how he should treat others, etc. That is what the well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century knew far better than the average, self-absorbed, unthinking denizen of the Information Age. Of course, Aquinas spends much time in the Summa Theologica considering the nature and existence of God; but he also focuses on the nature and meaning of being human, the meaning of life, the goal of life, the what and why of ethics, and so forth. It is one reason that even non-Christians generally recognize him as a philosophical/theological genius (even if Harris has never heard of him).

As Fr. Dubay points out, there are three untenable conclusions "that necessarily flow from the atheistic choice." They are the belief in blind chance "as the origin of an unimaginably complex universe"; atheism's "lack of rationality and the ultimate nihilism to which it necessarily leads the consistent mind"; and, to the point I've just made, atheism's "inability to explain men and women to themselves." Atheism, especially the popular sort peddled by Harris and Co., tends to spend much time explaining what it doesn't believe and why it hates Christianity. That might be enough for some people to live on intellectually and otherwise, but it's not enough for folks who are really grappling with the mysteries of life and reality.

• See my May 1, 2007, post: "Which atheism do you not believe in?"
• Ignatius Insight author page for Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M.

Excerpts from books by Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M.:              
•  Seeking Deep Conversion | From Deep Conversion/Deep Prayer
•  Designed Beauty and Evolutionary Theory | From The Evidential Power of Beauty
• The Source of Certitude | Epilogue to Faith and Certitude

Related articles from Ignatius Insight:
• The Tragic Misunderstanding of Atheist Humanism | Henri de Lubac
• Are Truth, Faith, and Tolerance Compatible? | Joseph Ratzinger
• Atheism and the Purely "Human" Ethic | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Is Religion Evil? Secularism's Pride and Irrational Prejudice | Carl E. Olson
• A Short Introduction to Atheism | Carl E. Olson
• C.S. Lewis’s Case for Christianity | An Interview with Richard Purtill
• Paganism and the Conversion of C.S. Lewis | Clotilde Morhan
• Designed Beauty and Evolutionary Theory | Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M.
• The Universe is Meaning-full | An interview with Dr. Benjamin Wiker
• The Mythological Conflict Between Christianity and Science | An interview with Dr. Stephen Barr
• Deadly Architects | An Interview with  Donald De Marco & Benjamin Wiker
• The Mystery of Human Origins | Mark Brumley

A short list of books available from Ignatius Press that address skepticism and atheism include:

• Theology and Sanity and A Map of Life by Frank Sheed
• Orthodoxy by G.K Chesterton
• The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton
• Faith and Certitude by Thomas Dubay, S.M.
• The Evidential Power of Beauty by Thomas Dubay, S.M.
• C.S. Lewis' Case for the Christian Faith by Richard Purtill
• Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensees and Philosophy 101 by Peter Kreeft
• Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli, S.J.
• The Belief of Catholics by Monsignor Ronald Knox
• Chance or the Dance? A Critique of Modern Secularism by Thomas Howard
• The Drama of Atheist Humanism by Henri de Lubac, S.J.
• Divine Madness: Plato's Case Against Secular Humanism by Josef Pieper
• Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger
• Truth and Tolerance by Joseph Ratzinger
• A History of Apologetics by Avery Cardinal Dulles

Comments

[LJ]

"In glancing through The End of Faith once more, I noted how much it resembles a bad magic act, with the magician (the atheist author) trying to confuse the audience with a flurry of clumsy distractions (name calling; straw men; rapid fire accusations; emoting; whining) so they won't notice that how poorly he performs the "trick" (makes God disappear)."

Well said, Carl. For some reason that paragraph brought back images of those two charlatans, the King and the Duke, in Huckleberry Finn.

The unwillingness of these atheist evangelists to travel far beyond their attacks on Christianity and then their unabashed misuse of reason and in this case an appeal to some standard of civility, just re-enforce for me a long-held opinion. Most of their motivation as well the motivation of the New Agers that search for a tame God, as C.S. Lewis puts it, or even the motivation of many dissenters within the Church is really unwillingness to put up with Church teaching on sexual mores and life issues. Take away those issues and they would all lose interest.

Any attack on Islam is really smoke and mirrors for their magic act, because they need the appearance of generality of anti-religion, and some Muslims have made themselves convenient object-lessons-du-jour in mad, homicidal, religious fanaticism.

In the end, they are dishonest, as you and Father Dubay point out, and will not take their scientific conclusions to their rational end because they realize what kind of chaotic moral state that would bring about if widely believed. In fact, it would create a world which would have no safe place to do science, or technology for that matter. The world of Darwin is a highly uncivilized and dangerous place, like that of a rabbit in wolf country.

It is a bit irritating that these insufferable puppets of pomposity insolently live and dine off the cultural safety and civilization that enabled the advance of scientific study in the first place, while attacking the very Christianity that provided that civilization and encouraged the study of science as far back as the middle ages. Such ingratitude.

[John Michael Keba]

"It is curious, for example, that a 336-page book with extensive endnotes, written by someone with a degree in philosophy... does not contain a single reference to Thomas Aquinas. Or John Henry Newman, Chesterton..., Guardini, Richard Swinburne, Rahner, William Lane Craig, Michael Novak, etc., etc."

And what of Sir Karl Popper? I can't imagine he made an appearance, did he?

"I too believe that our Western civilization owes its rationalism, its faith in the rational unity of man and in the open society, and especially its scientific outlook, to the ancient Socratic and Christian belief in the brotherhood of all men, and in intellectual honesty and responsibility" - Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies," 5th revised edition (London: Routledge, 1977), vol. 2, p. 243-244.

"I think I have said enough to make clear what I intend to convey by calling myself a rationalist. My rationalism is not dogmatic. I fully admit that I cannot rationally prove it. I frankly confess that I choose rationalism because I hate violence, and I do not deceive myself into believing that this hatred has any rational grounds. Or to put it another way, my rationalism is not self-contained, but rests on an irrational faith in the attitude of reasonableness. I do not see that we can go beyond this. One could say, perhaps, that my irrational faith in equal and reciprocal rights to convince others and to be convinced by them is a faith in human reason; or simply, that I believe in man." - Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge," 5th ed.(London: Routledge, 1974), p.357.

- quotes from Fr. Mariano Artigas (Ph.D's physics and philosophy), "The Ethical Roots of Karl Popper's Epistemology," http://www.unav.es/cryf/theethicalrootsofkarlpopper.html

I can't help but imagine that Popper would regard Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett enemies of open society.

[mmortal03]

"The Golden Rule", or "the ethic or reciprocity" was taught by others way before Jesus taught it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Furthermore, saying that "we all have our dogmas" is playing with different definitions of the word. Yes, all people have "settled or established opinions, beliefs, or principles". The problem comes when a dogma is said to be authoritative, irrefutable or inarguable because a god or deity said so. Testable, evidence-based "dogmas" aren't a problem. Non-religious people are happy to change their "dogmas" if you provide them with the evidence to back up the claims. And if you claim that the practice of relying on our proof within the material world for the evidence is a dogma in and of itself, well thanks, we'll happily take that criticism.

[Rick]

And if you claim that the practice of relying on our proof within the material world for the evidence is a dogma in and of itself, well thanks, we'll happily take that criticism.

Mmortal03, your views seem much more humble than the Dawkins' gang. Still, even the statement I have quoted above is problematic because the claim "the practice of relying on our proof within the material world for the evidence" in itself is self-contradictory because its does not rely on proof within the material world for its own truthfulness, so as a "dogma" it is actually quite irrational. In fact, that claim is remarkably close to your definition of religious dogma because it is "authoritative, irrefutable or inarguable" because you or another says so as an a priori assumption. Like Logical Positivism, scientism, naturalism and materialism are untenable because they cannot verify their own truth claims within their own presuppositions or dogmas. For instance, materialism assumes the metaphysical presupposition that p ="all reality is made of matter and is subject to some sort of quantification." The only problem is that the truth or falsity of p cannot be strictly reduced to matter and quantification. Similar examples can be extended to both naturalism and scientism. And, Dawkins et al. call religion irrational, sheesh!

[John Michael Keba]

"And if you claim that the practice of relying on our proof within the material world for the evidence is a dogma in and of itself, well thanks, we'll happily take that criticism."

It's funny, Rick, you picked out the exact same statement as I, yet I read no humility at all in it. But then, you do seem to have a better grasp of intellectual charity that I do. Alas, I suspect my long years of atheism are to blame!

Anyway, thanks to you, too, MMortal03. You have demonstrated wonderfully the point of the piece. At the core of this statement of self-satisfaction is the fundamental, irrational dogma of your creed: The material world is all there is. When confronted with any evidence to the contrary, you automatically - or should I say dogmatically - dismiss the possibility of the supernatural explanation and a) reject it as a fabrication (hoax, lie, delusion, hallucination - take your pick), or b) maintain that it can be explained materially. If b cannot be achieved you revert to a, or say that the current state of modern science is as yet unable to prove b. In other words, you happily and proudly adhere to an irrational, pseudoscientific philosophy. The dogma to which you adhere is "authoritative, irrefutable or inarguable" not "because a god or deity said so," but merely because it suits your own beliefs.

My all time favorite example of this irrational rationality in action is from a few years back when a neuroscientist offered his explanation of the Resurrection. It seems Jesus and the disciples decocted a reserpine deriviative from an imported Indian plant to induce a three-day state of hypothermic catatonia. The genesis of this rational "explanation"? It seems that mice with frontal-lobe epilespy (everyone *knows* Jesus was this type of epileptic - he did, after all, experience the presence of God and was emotionally labile), when injected with reserpine under restraint, "die" for three days. Well, there you have it! Crucifixion is restraint, is it not? The Empire traded with India, did it not? Despite violating Occam's Razor so many times the latter couldn't cut though butter for months afterward, this explanation found its place in Skeptic magazine. Superior, discriminating intellection at its finest.

Oh yes, almost forgot this: "Non-religious people are happy to change their "dogmas" if you provide them with the evidence to back up the claims." Nonsense. One need only read about the contentious history of the "Big Bang Theory" to see how utterly false this statement is.

[Rick]

John, love you example of the nueroscientist and bad science. Do you remember what issue of Skeptic magazine that explanation was offered in? I would like to pass it on to a colleague who buys into every bogus claim about the resurrection yet claims to be a rational thinker. Someone tried to give me a book called something like the The Physics of Immortality, I could only think that there is nothing in essence "physical/material" about immortality and if it was anything like The Tao of Physics it was probably bad science and theology.

[John Michael Keba]

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/archives/vol09n04.html

[mmortal03]

You guys can pick out all the instances of bad science and inaccurate, illogical rationalizations that have occurred in the past under the name of science and use them to lay blame on science itself all you want, but that stuff means nothing. Just as there are bad religious thinkers, there are bad scientific thinkers.

Furthermore, my point still stands regarding this: "And if you claim that the practice of relying on our proof within the material world for the evidence is a dogma in and of itself, well thanks, we'll happily take that criticism."

No, it can't be proven that only the material exists, just like it can't be proven that a god does or doesn't exist. It just isn't probable.

My point, though, was that that particular understanding is the only "dogma" that agnostic atheists have, and we don't build make-believe stories on top of that. That is it, that is all of it, the only unprovable thing, but from there, all rationality and scientific thought builds out from it. It would be impossible to not see the real fruits that the scientific method and the concept of falsifiability have produced today.

If you guys really want to lay claim to believing that the supernatural exists, and to let some sort of non-transferable personal revelation be your proof of it, if you want to believe that there are exclusive positive fruits that grow out of it as well, then I have no problem with that. You are free to believe it, whatever makes you a better person. I do think that there are many people in the world that do need something to follow, some collectivistic, social urge that they have. I just don't think that it needs to have a supernatural component.

[John Michael Keba]

"My point, though, was that that particular understanding ["practice of relying on our proof within the material world] is the only "dogma" that agnostic atheists have..."

Sorry, no. You also accept as dogma that reason is efficacious and maps the material world. "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible," said Einstein, because he knew that reason has not been able to demostrate why it is reasonable. Karl Popper knew this, too; that is why he spoke of his "faith in reason."

Catholics know that the world is reasonable and discoverable by human reason becasue of revelation, tradition and dogma. Catholic dogma made the scientific method possible. The atheist materialist is dishonest to the precise extent that he or she fails to acknowledge that the scientific method is defensible only by tacit assent to Catholic dogma.

And it also seems that you personally adhere to yet another dogma: falsifiablity. Are you Popperian, or do you accept the modifications of Lakatos? Why do you feel the objections of (to name but a few) the philosopher Feyerabend, or the physicists Sokal and Bricmont, are invalid?

Speaking of invalid, how can you possibly hold that your worldview is logically sound when two of its foundational premises are unprovable? Obviously, you infer soundness from the "real fruits" you claim it has given us. It seems to me, though, that pure scientific materialism, divorced from any anchor in transcendent metaphysics, with its "we do it because we can" attitude, has brought this world to near ecological catastrophe. Atheistic scientific materialsim has, in fact, proved itself to be a decidely unsound and dangerous worldview.

"We don't build make-believe stories on top of that..." Sure you do. Pick up a cosmology book from 1904 and its description of the Universe will be just about as true as a map of Middle Earth. Make-believe or fantasy is an image created by the imagination. Has anyone handled dark matter, or measured one erg of dark energy? Not one experiment has yet provided evidence of strings, yet supposedly and popularly they make the universe elegant. The unattainablity statement of the third law of thermodynamics refers to the generally accepted law of nature that absolute zero can never be reached. The state of absolute zero exists nowhere in the Universe: It exists only in the human imagination, yet our temperature scales are based on it.

Your entire worldview is based on faith. You either fail to realize this, or cannot admit it.

[mmortal03]

I would claim that reason is efficacious, it does "possess the quality of being effective; producing, or capable of producing, the effect intended; as, an efficacious law." So, yes, I do claim that. Theists would claim that they are the ones that are reasonable, though, so I don't think it is a "dogma" that only the atheists hold. Both can't be right, though, in how they apply what they call reason.

"Catholics know that the world is reasonable and discoverable by human reason becasue of revelation, tradition and dogma. Catholic dogma made the scientific method possible."

Atheists don't require know that the world is reasonable. Furthermore, placing anything unexplainable, like god-made miracles, is unreasonable. Catholic dogma may have allowed historically for the conditions of the scientific method to come into being in the Western world, but similar methods have sprung up completely separately from Catholicism, and to claim that it couldn't have appeared without "Catholic dogma", or that it is only defensible through "tacit assent" to it is absurd.

"And it also seems that you personally adhere to yet another dogma: falsifiablity. Are you Popperian, or do you accept the modifications of Lakatos? Why do you feel the objections of (to name but a few) the philosopher Feyerabend, or the physicists Sokal and Bricmont, are invalid?"

I have only read briefly in the past about that debate, so I will not try to b.s. my way though answering you on that one. But, I will ask this: Do you not adhere to the concept of applying falsifiability to the material world, even you somehow think that it doesn't cover everything?

"It seems to me, though, that pure scientific materialism, divorced from any anchor in transcendent metaphysics, with its "we do it because we can" attitude, has brought this world to near ecological catastrophe."

It is ignorance that has brought us there, not scientific materialism. If we have to live here, it is only plausible that atheists too don't want to world they live in to collapse into environmental disaster, either. I think you are claiming here that the only savior of our ecological systems is humans using some sort of external morality to turn the tide, otherwise we are doomed to destroy our planet. This is false. Human nature, wherever it comes from, will not easily accept its own destruction and will continue trying to survive, regardless of theistic religion.

"Sure you do [build make-believe stories on top of that]. Pick up a cosmology book from 1904 and its description of the Universe will be just about as true as a map of Middle Earth. Make-believe or fantasy is an image created by the imagination. Has anyone handled dark matter, or measured one erg of dark energy? Not one experiment has yet provided evidence of strings, yet supposedly and popularly they make the universe elegant. The unattainablity statement of the third law of thermodynamics refers to the generally accepted law of nature that absolute zero can never be reached. The state of absolute zero exists nowhere in the Universe: It exists only in the human imagination, yet our temperature scales are based on it. Your entire worldview is based on faith. You either fail to realize this, or cannot admit it."

And again, I do not make definitive claims about those things, and anyone who does is not a good scientist. Your are confusing theories with definitive proof. The difference between the faith you have and the "faith" that I have is that mine can change given new evidence. Yours remains the same, no matter the evidence, and isn't arguable.

Again, I'll stick with my "faiths" and "dogmas", ask you claim they are, and you can stick with yours. I seems you claim that there is no way to measure which ones are better, so I'll happily stick with mine.

[mmortal03]

Somehow that entire post got mangled. I think I did get the right think copied and pasted in. It should have said:

I would claim that reason is efficacious, it does "possess the quality of being effective; producing, or capable of producing, the effect intended; as, an efficacious law." So, yes, I do claim that. Theists would claim that they are the ones that are reasonable, though, so I don't think it is a "dogma" that only the atheists hold. Both can't be right, though, in how they apply what they call reason.

"Catholics know that the world is reasonable and discoverable by human reason becasue of revelation, tradition and dogma. Catholic dogma made the scientific method possible."

Atheists don't require special knowledge to know that the world is reasonable. Furthermore, placing anything that is unexplainable into the category of having to be god-made is unreasonable. Catholic dogma may have allowed instances historically for the conditions of the scientific method to come into being within the Western world, but similar methods have also sprung up completely separately from Catholicism, and to claim that it couldn't have appeared without "Catholic dogma", or that it is only defensible through "tacit assent" to it is absurd.

"And it also seems that you personally adhere to yet another dogma: falsifiablity. Are you Popperian, or do you accept the modifications of Lakatos? Why do you feel the objections of (to name but a few) the philosopher Feyerabend, or the physicists Sokal and Bricmont, are invalid?"

I have only read briefly in the past about that debate, so I will not try to b.s. my way though answering you on that one. But, I will ask this: Do you not adhere to the concept of applying falsifiability to the material world as well, even if you somehow think that it doesn't cover the whole of everything?

"It seems to me, though, that pure scientific materialism, divorced from any anchor in transcendent metaphysics, with its "we do it because we can" attitude, has brought this world to near ecological catastrophe."

It is ignorance that has brought us here, not scientific materialism. If we have to live here, it is only plausible that atheists too don't want to world they live in to collapse into environmental disaster, either. I think you are claiming here that the only savior of our ecological systems will be humans using some sort of external morality to turn the tide, otherwise we are doomed to destroy our planet. That is false. Human nature, wherever it comes from, will not easily accept its own destruction and will continue trying to survive, regardless of theistic religion.

"Sure you do [build make-believe stories on top of that]. Pick up a cosmology book from 1904 and its description of the Universe will be just about as true as a map of Middle Earth. Make-believe or fantasy is an image created by the imagination. Has anyone handled dark matter, or measured one erg of dark energy? Not one experiment has yet provided evidence of strings, yet supposedly and popularly they make the universe elegant. The unattainablity statement of the third law of thermodynamics refers to the generally accepted law of nature that absolute zero can never be reached. The state of absolute zero exists nowhere in the Universe: It exists only in the human imagination, yet our temperature scales are based on it. Your entire worldview is based on faith. You either fail to realize this, or cannot admit it."

And again, I do not make definitive claims about those things, and anyone who does is not a good scientist. Your are confusing theories with definitive proof. The difference between the faith you have and the "faith" that I have is that mine can change given new evidence. Yours remains the same, no matter the evidence, and isn't arguable.

Again, I'll stick with my "faiths" and "dogmas", ask you claim they are, and you can stick with yours. I seems you claim that there is no way to measure which ones are better, so I'll happily stick with mine.

[mmortal03]

Wow, even that is off. "Somehow that entire post got mangled. I think I must not have gotten the right thing copied and pasted in." I apologize if there are other typos or errors. Hopefully you can extract from it what I was trying to say. :)

[John Michael Keba]

Mmortal03, I probably (most certainly) could have written a better post yesterday morning, but I was both irked and pressed for time (I had a collectivist, social urge to satisfy). I just wanted to make it clear to you that you do not adhere to only one dogma, as you falsely claimed. You accept many. Order a book titled "Physics as Metaphor," by Jones, and while you're waiting go to the Stanford Encyclpedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) and for starters read the essays on "Pain" and "Color" - hopefully, if you have the open mind you claim to have, you will see just how unjustifed your triumphalism is.

"I think you are claiming here that the only savior of our ecological systems will be humans using some sort of external morality to turn the tide..."

No, I said nothing about morals. I said scientific materialism has no metaphysical anchor - it is not a sound philosophy of nature, and because it is not it proceeds without restraint.

"Your are confusing theories with definitive proof."

No, you said scientific atheists do not make up fantasies (make-believe stories). Again, order and read "Physics as Metaphor," (as a starting point) and get back to me. But you seem to want people to believe that only preachers ranting from the pulpit are trying to influence the way people think. That too is nonsense. Journal articles and studies are the epistles of atheism; if an opinion/theory/study favors an atheistic interpretation, it is immediately broadcast as *important* news. If, months later, peer review repudiates the study/theory, no one hears about it. What has turned out to be "make-believe" remains uncorrected in the public perception.

"Again, I'll stick with my "faiths" and "dogmas", ask you claim they are, and you can stick with yours."

I suspect I will. I spent many years in your faith, with your dogmas (alas, if only I had read Chaim Potok in my adolescence!), and found them wanting.

Pax tecum.

[Rick]

mmortal03, Based on the way you have argued, you allow atheism itself to be reduced to nothing but "a collectivistic, social urge." When you make statements like "atheists don't require to know that the world it reasonable" I think you are not even doing justice to atheism. When you make such statements, you make your arguments look silly because you render your own terms meaningless. Science itself requires the very fact of rationality, because if science is not rational it is not possible. Artigas points out that science presumes 3 types of truths that are not scientific and stand outside of its own methods, but nevertheless suppose the rationality and comprehensibility of what it studies: 1) Metaphysical-that what it studies is real, 2) Epistemological-that the objects/things it studies can be known, 3) Ethical-that it is good to know what it studies.
You seem like someone who is in search of truth, then you might want to read some philosophers who are involved in the Philosophy of Science (the ones JMK mentioned are a good start) or look into someone like John Polkinghorne or Peter Hodgson who are physicists that write in the area of science and/or religion. Or, even an atheistic philosopher like Michael Ruse does a far better job of showing the plausible rationality of atheism far better than a Dawkins, while avoiding the religious hatchet job.

[John Michael Keba]

mmortal03, I had intended to disengage from this thread, but Rick's post prompts this addition. He is so much more precise and accurate when it comes to expressing the philosophical side of all of this, as he should be.

Yes, I only suggested places to start. I like "Physics as Metaphor" personally because I read it just before "The Tao of Physics" and it spared me the embarrassment of ever thinking the latter was worth the paper it was printed on (actually, Rick, Capra's presentation of the physics was fine - only his "taoification" of it was so Jaynesian. Or so it seemed to me). But it is good place to start because it immediately brings the question of metaphysics and scientific subjectivity into play. And it is not as technical as the actual philosophers of science (though it leads one to eventually read them). But Polkinhorne is more up to date, though personally I would read "The Modeling of Nature," by Wallace.

The SEP articles on "Pain" and "Color" will immediatley let you see the epistemological problems that still exist when simply trying to understand the very senses science relies upon, either directly or remotely. And they have links to other articles and wonderful bibliographies. As for ethics, scientific materialism pretty much lacks them entirely: Victor Frankenstein victor.

"It seems you claim that there is no way to measure which ones are better, so I'll happily stick with mine."

On the contrary, while I must admit that there are subjective reasons that I am Catholic, I rejected your faith after years of thought, and for very objective and logical reasons. You do not give the impression that you understand at all that to which you so "happily stick." You simply seem to believe.

Don't be a fundamentalist atheist.

[mmortal03]

Let me tell you right now that I was raised Catholic, not that that really matters in terms of the arguments here. If I was going to be a Christian, I would be Catholic, because of all of Christianity, it makes the most sense. I just don't think it contains the ultimate truth that you guys believe it does. I just thought I would put that out there.

"Mmortal03, I probably (most certainly) could have written a better post yesterday morning, but I was both irked and pressed for time (I had a collectivist, social urge to satisfy). I just wanted to make it clear to you that you do not adhere to only one dogma, as you falsely claimed."

I understand. Don't expect me to be coming up with perfect arguments off the top of my head here, either. Hopefully, you can understand that. I use discussions like this to hone my understanding of and my communication skills on the topic.

""I think you are claiming here that the only savior of our ecological systems will be humans using some sort of external morality to turn the tide..."

No, I said nothing about morals. I said scientific materialism has no metaphysical anchor - it is not a sound philosophy of nature, and because it is not it proceeds without restraint."

Fine, if you don't want to call it morals, call it some form of greater knowledge. In other words, something that lets us know where or when to stop, to avoid problems. You were saying there that ultimately, only by turning to the metaphysical can we avoid ecological disaster. I think that is false. The problems are visible to us without the religious institutions telling us that it is, and the urge to solve the problem is with us for reasons of survival.

""Your are confusing theories with definitive proof."

No, you said scientific atheists do not make up fantasies (make-believe stories). Again, order and read "Physics as Metaphor," (as a starting point) and get back to me. But you seem to want people to believe that only preachers ranting from the pulpit are trying to influence the way people think. That too is nonsense. "

What I was trying to say was that scientific atheists don't make up fantasies or make believe stories and call them fact. There will always be liars and manipulators who do try to do that, but that isn't the point. Bad things that occur due to bad science do not imply that Catholicism has got it right, though. Remember, science doesn't claim to be perfect. If bad things occur due to good science, we can talk about that, but, we would be getting into the issue of morality. What really are these good things and bad things?

I am not one to make claims about science being right because of bad religion (bad in the eyes of the religious) being carried out. And so making your other claims doesn't work, either.

"mmortal03, Based on the way you have argued, you allow atheism itself to be reduced to nothing but "a collectivistic, social urge." When you make statements like "atheists don't require to know that the world it reasonable" I think you are not even doing justice to atheism."

Hopefully you read my correction post following that one. That was a mistake that I corrected.

I have read a good bit more of philosophy than the average person, but I don't claim to be as good with my words as those whom I have read. You guys have been very helpful with your suggestions, and if you are going to find anyone with an openness to hear new points of view, you have got the man.

As far as Dawkins is concerned, the issue that turns many people off is his derisiveness towards religion. However, I think that regardless of whether or not he should be more congenial towards the religious, his arguments themselves are usually quite sound. One must distinguish his logic from his presentation.

[Rick]

JMK, I have to find Physics as Metaphor, it looks interesting from the comments made on Amazon. Also, I think I may have a valid criticism of The Tao of Physics in terms of its science, because of the ontology accepted by its science.

My critiques regarding are interrelated in that Capra tends to favor the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM and with this its underlying ontology, which I guess makes sense considering the subject matter of the book. Personally, I think that due to the eastern influences the book is inherently materialisitic in scope and it tends to conflate eastern thought into a unity which I find confusing. The science of the book is open to criticism because of its favoring of Heisenberg and his view on causality. Stanley Jaki argues that Heisenberg's approach is predicated on a fallacy. Heisenberg actually wrote a book entitled Physics and Philosophy in which he tried to argue against causality based on the quantum indeterminism in light of the Copenhagen interpretation. This is problematic because the writing of scientific and philosophical books are usually for the purpose of stating an argument and the nature of such argumentation is designed for the purpose of bringing about an effect. So, if the Tao of Physics accepts such an interpretation denying cause and effect, why read the book? If what Capra says is true, then the book's knowledge claims are basically reduced to some form of esoteric mysticism anyway which, ontologically speaking, in essence isn't real and/or can't be verified. Could we call this "irrationality"?

I suppose this relates to the whole nature of this thread, that without ontological realism, science, as the term is used today, may not even be possible. Often, it tends to fall into irrationality as Dawkins' attests to every time he ceases being a scientist and starts playing a philosopher and/or theologian.

[Rick]

mmortal03, Pick any argument from Dawkins' The God Delusion regarding a proof for atheism and present it here, I assure you because of his assumptions regarding naturalism and materialism, they are not sound and are refutable.

[John Michael Keba]

"Fine, if you don't want to call it morals, call it some form of greater knowledge. In other words, something that lets us know where or when to stop, to avoid problems. You were saying there that ultimately, only by turning to the metaphysical can we avoid ecological disaster."

Metaphysics is not a form of greater, esoteric knowledge, it is the precise inquiry into the ontological realism Rick spoke of. Scientific materialism makes little or no attempt to look into the nature of being. It learned long ago that it can function quite well without ever really defining its concepts: Operational definitions are all that it needs to measure the world/universe. But without a real understanding of the nature of what is being measured, there is a disconnect between what can and should be done. Ethics are just as useless to it as ontology. Scientific materialism simply demands that it be allowed to do whatever it discovers it can. The cris de coeur atheist scientists bleat out in the name of non-interference in their "search for the Truth" about the world are ironic: Scientific materialism doesn't bother with ontological Truth, it simply catalogues, measures, and exploits. Quantum mechanics is a perfect example: Scientists have never needed a settled interpretation in order to use it. My original point remains: Science without a solid anchor in ontology will stumble blindly from unintended consequence to unintended consequence until something gives catastrophically. I suspect the avalanche is not far off.

Rick, I don't disagree with your critique, because I can't: It has been so long since I have read Capra. You are right that Capra needed to use the Copenhagen Interpretation to conflate QM with his cherry-picking of Abhidhamma, Nyaya, Vaisesika, and Taoist thought. His unity of Eastern thought isn't just confusing, I suspect it is something that could only be carpentered together by a Western scientist who fancies himself superior to the disciplines from which he pilfered. My statement wasn't meant to defend his explication of modern physics as the correct one, but simply that he was true to the views he chose. Maybe I missed something; my own objection way back then, as I mentioned, was the way I thought he forced eastern thought into the Danish straight-jacket.

What is Jaki's criticism of Heisenberg? I used to follow all of this stuff the way my neighbors follow the Steelers, but I've been catching up on my neglected Catholic reading pretty much exclusively, and I'm better able to read koine now, than a tensor equation. I think the last thing I've read was a critique of Prigogine's last work.

A neo-Hegelian professor recommeded "Physics As Metaphor" to me nearly twenty years ago, and I was delightfully surprised by it - not all Hegelians are useless, it seems. Yes, you should find it if you can. The first review is spot-on.

[Rick]

JMK, You are correct, I mistook Capra's presentation of physics for his method of science as a whole. After rereading some of the notes I wrote in the book, I think he is actually a clear writer in terms of the difficult science he is presenting. I was trying to show that there could be a flaw in Capra's science based on his ontological assumptions and foundations. Actually, I hijacked part of Fr. Stanley Jaki's argument regarding Heisenberg and Capra's application. Jaki states that the Copenhagen Interpretation is fallacious because it is logically equivalent to the inference “an interaction that cannot be measured exactly, cannot take place exactly.” The word exactly is used in two different senses. The first sense is an operational sense because it refers to the operation whereby “an interaction is measured with numerical exactitude with, no margin of error whatsoever.” It is epistemologically grounded by observation and mathematics. The second sense is ontological and qualitative; because the phrase “to take place” means to occur, happen, to exist. Contrary to the CI, it is not the act of observation that brings about the existence of quantum events, such reasoning is solopsistic in nature in addition to being fallacious.

I agree with your statement "Science without a solid anchor in ontology will stumble blindly from unintended consequence to unintended consequence until something gives catastrophically. I suspect the avalanche is not far off." Dostoevsky and Nietzsche may have seen it coming in the 19th c., I can only think that the Tuskegee and Willowbrook experiments, Nazi and Soviet science, in addition to the nuclear arms race are examples of the consequences you mention. Other examples occur in secular bioethics, which continually allows unborn humans to be treated as a means to an end in everything from abortion to fetal stem cell research. Science, when void of a solid ontology, allows the the principle of utility and its disgruntled offspring "might makes right" to sadly become the norms.

[John Michael Keba]

Rick, thank you for the explanation of why Jaki thinks CI is fallacious. I have seen it before, though I've only read an article or two by him. Certainly Bohm argued similarly, though? And Prigogine. I'm afraid I don't keep detailed notes. Have you read "The End of Certainty," by Prigogine. It is basically an argument for the commensense universe we see macroscopically: There are causal events, and chance events; there is chaos and disorder, yes, but within an overall order; stop pretending anything goes; here is the math that shows why things are as they seem. I suspect Ilya knew his Thomas. I think CI, and all the books it has spawned like "The "Tao of Physics," is a good example of what happens when ontology is ignored.

I would add to your list of scientific horror shows, modern agricultural practices. Chemically-oriented, scientific agronomists point triumphantly to the yields, and think they have proved the worth of their methods. But behind those stacked bushels of wheat, corn, and soy are the consequences: dead earth, now only fit to serve as a matrix for fertilizers, where once living soil flourished; resistant pests without natural predators; adapting diseases that pray on the prolific but fundamentally unhealthy plants; the continuous loss of arable land; the growing ocean dead zones. Fortuntately, if they are not too late, the sustainable agriculture/permaculture movement is growing (pun intended). These groups started when a few people looked past the test tubes and petri dishes, at growing fields both ontologically and ethically, and said, "No thanks, there's a better way." And surprisingly, their crop yields are much the same. Go figure. Maybe there's a slight chance after all that Wednesdays won't become Soylent Green days. I suspect, though, that the Dutch already have Groningen Protocol II ready to process their euthanized infants, elderly, and sundry non-persons (per Singer and Dennett's criteria).

"When a decision is made to cope with the symptoms of a problem, it is generally assumed that the corrective measures will solve the problem itself. They seldom do. Engineers cannot seem to get this through their heads. These countermeasures are all based on too narrow a definition of what is wrong. Human measures and countermeasures proceed from limited scientific truth and judgment. A true solution can never come about in this way." - Masanobu Fukuoka, "The One-Straw Revolution," 1975.

"This also is plain to us that he who knows only one science, does not really know either that or the others, and he who is suited for only one science and has gathered his knowledge from books, is unlearned and unskilled." - Tommaso Campanella, "City of the Sun," 1602.

Masanobu was a soil biologist before he became interested in ontology. :-)

[mmortal03]

"Science without a solid anchor in ontology will stumble blindly from unintended consequence to unintended consequence until something gives catastrophically. I suspect the avalanche is not far off."

Who said that scientists don't study ontology, or, in a similar sense, that scientists don't consult or read material produced by philosophers on issues related to metaphysics and ontology? There is nothing wrong with Dawkins discussing philosophical topics. Just because he is a scientist does not mean that everything that he writes about must be proven fact. Dawkins understands that there is a distinction between fact and propositions. And there is no need for there to be a creator to discuss these topics. Why does ontology have to be synonymous with a god or more specifically in this blog's case, Catholicism?

[Rick]

Who said that scientists don't study ontology, or, in a similar sense, that scientists don't consult or read material produced by philosophers on issues related to metaphysics and ontology?

The problem is not a scientist who studies philosophy, but when a scientist starts waxing about metaphysical issues he ceases being a scientist and becomes a philosopher. A science is only as good as what it can empirically quantify and verify, this relates more to epistemology than metaphysics. When a scientist derives metaphysical conclusions from his empiricism, he does justice to neither science nor philosophy.

Why does ontology have to be synonymous with a god or more specifically in this blog's case, Catholicism?

Well, any ontology worth its salt, if not rooted in a necessary cause for all that exists, becomes nothing but a form of idealism and thus solipsism.

[John Michael Keba]

"Who said that scientists don't study ontology, or, in a similar sense, that scientists don't consult or read material produced by philosophers on issues related to metaphysics and ontology?"

Well, you could take the time to look at the *required* curricula for undergraduate and advanced degrees in the hard sciences, instead of allowing your argument to devolve to the "Says not, says to" level. But for one, Professor Emeritus Edward A. Remler, Department of Physics, The College of William and Mary, in his paper "Physics, Metaphysics and Pedagogy," delivered to the faculty of the same institution, wrote

"Physicists, as teachers, are generally aware of relevant issues, but they are not sufficiently aware of their potency if only because, as physicists, they come from the minority of students for whom metaphysical issues were not potent."

And,

"Physicists share common views about metaphysics as it applies to their work. Their views are implicitly learned during a long professional training. They do not need to be explicitly taught."

And nothing has really changed in the last nine years. Personally, I find the notion of learning metaphysics by osmosis risible (though admittedly physics does lend itself to the discipline, so his "as it applies to their work" might not be all that objectionable), and thought the professor's paper generally weak and demonstrably in error, but that is neither here nor there. The simple fact is that, while any individual scientist may study philosophy on his or her own, it is not core to the general training. And we are talking about your beloved scientism generally. And if physicists (in general) only get an implicit exposure to ontology, biologists don't even get that (in general). Which fact is easily verified by Richard Dawkins.

"There is nothing wrong with Dawkins discussing philosophical topics. Just because he is a scientist does not mean that everything that he writes about must be proven fact."

First of all, most of what Dawkins writes about, as a biologist, is not proven fact. If biology were nothing but, or even mostly, facts, they could be catalogued in a database and there'd be no need for so many biologists. As for Dawkins discussing philosophical topics, well, *technically* there *should* be nothing wrong with it, but in reality Oxford should hire someone to stuff a rag in his mouth whenever he tries to do so, or smack his fingers with a ruler whenever he tries to write about it. A college philosophy sophomore with a single course in symbolic logic and one in epistemology can tear his philosopical musings apart. I feel sorry for the professional philosophers, atheist and theist, who have critiqued his work: They must feel mentally soiled afterward. I notice that you did not respond to Rick's challenge to present a Dawkin's argument for his critique: very, very, wise.

"Why does ontology have to be synonymous with a god or more specifically in this blog's case, Catholicism?"

No one has made that claim here. Would you like me to pretend I'm a Buddhist? Theravada or Mahayana? (I can't do Vajrayana very well). I can do the Abhidhamma moderate justice, I think. Ontology is the study of being qua being, not the study of God; if it were, we'd be talking about theology and I would agree with you wholeheartedly that scientists do not need to study theology.

This whole exchange came about because you proffered a false view of scientific materialism's objectivity and lack of dogma. It only tangentially touches Catholicism. And it really doesn't seem to be going anywhere, either. The interesting thing about this whole exchange is that, despite the clear evidence to the contrary in our writings, you still seem to think that Rick and I can only be Catholics for subjective, irrational reasons. It's almost as if you think we discuss Heisenberg, QM and CI, Capra and Jaki, with one part of our brain, then flip a switch in order to say the Rosary. Were it like that, I'd still be studying Paticcasamuppada.

There was an article on this or another website about the Catholic author Walker Percy. It reported that when once asked why he was Catholic he replied, "What else is there?" The article's author thought this a exemplary and witty reply, if I remember right. I do remember that I found it a poor one. His answer should have been, "Because it is true."

Read some of the books that have been mentioned. Take your bust of Dawkins off the shelf for a week or two, an read some of his critics - especially the atheist ones. Read some general metaphysics (there's a nice beginner's text at http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gm.htm). And see if you can figure out just why this statement so thoroughly undermines your claim to rationality: "Atheists don't require special knowledge to know that the world is reasonable."

And be well.

[mmortal03]

"I suppose this relates to the whole nature of this thread, that without ontological realism, science, as the term is used today, may not even be possible. Often, it tends to fall into irrationality as Dawkins' attests to every time he ceases being a scientist and starts playing a philosopher and/or theologian."
It is nice to know that you guys feel that way, that Dawkins should only be allowed to stick to some isolated, restricted role. This, coming from people making such bold claims regarding ontology, physics, metaphysics, philosophy, apologetics, ethics, science and other apparently such distinct and isolated fields. Statements being made about the existence of the scientific method being made possible only through Catholic lines of thinking? This stuff is unbelievable.

"I notice that you did not respond to Rick's challenge to present a Dawkin's argument for his critique: very, very, wise."

You underestimate me, and you have somehow misread me as some sort of Dawkins poster child. These stereotypes, appeals to emotion, and uses of misleading vividness that abound throughout this discussion continue to disappoint me. But maybe my distinctive feeling of disappointment is really an unmeasurable quale, unexplainable by science. Whoa, you really must be right!

"It's almost as if you think we discuss Heisenberg, QM and CI, Capra and Jaki, with one part of our brain, then flip a switch in order to say the Rosary. Were it like that, I'd still be studying Paticcasamuppada."

You are really placing words into my mouth here. The point that I was making was that your arguments are not convincing anyone to join the religious camp. You are just making the people who already believe something feel better about themselves by bashing it as best you can with your biased fearmongering nitpickings at science. I agree with you that science cannot exist in a vacuum, but from there, we diverge on what should be considered.

Also, don't being saying that I was the one that caused this whole discussion, in some dispensary or dismissive fashion, like it was some fruitless, worthless endeavor to here. I have never claimed to have gotten everything right in my posts, but I think I have made some valid points that have been left unanswered. It is your black or white, "it has to be in the bin or out of the bin" kind of categorical thinking that has contributed much to where I think your errors lie.

"Read some of the books that have been mentioned. Take your bust of Dawkins off the shelf for a week or two, an read some of his critics - especially the atheist ones. Read some general metaphysics (there's a nice beginner's text at http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gm.htm). And see if you can figure out just why this statement so thoroughly undermines your claim to rationality: "Atheists don't require special knowledge to know that the world is reasonable.""

I don't claim that Dawkins has all the answers, and again, you are making quite haughty assumptions. Furthermore, how about you DO start making your arguments for those other religions. Make sure not to use any argument contained in "The Tao of Physics", though, since you have dismissed the whole of it, in total. (And don't try to say that I must, then support it, as that would be assuming too much, and would be faulty logic).

I would like to know more about where you think some ultimate validation for the reasoning for your arguments even actually comes from, if such logical, fact-based methods applied to or within science are so utterly and obviously intractable or false? Is the Catholic Church the only one in the world allowed to do such horrible things like "cataloging" (the CCC), "measuring" (the priests and the marriage tribunals), and supposedly "exploiting" (the collection boxes and the "moral guidance"), that you claim science is guilty of?

I have no problem reading new and interesting material, and I will definitely consider the sources you have suggested.

"The problem is not a scientist who studies philosophy, but when a scientist starts waxing about metaphysical issues he ceases being a scientist and becomes a philosopher. A science is only as good as what it can empirically quantify and verify, this relates more to epistemology than metaphysics. When a scientist derives metaphysical conclusions from his empiricism, he does justice to neither science nor philosophy."

I disagree with this. I don't think empiricism and basing one's outlook on the metaphysical on it is unjust.

"Well, any ontology worth its salt, if not rooted in a necessary cause for all that exists, becomes nothing but a form of idealism and thus solipsism."

Here you go again with your black or white thinking, and your sweeping generalizations.

[Rick]

"Here you go again with your black or white thinking, and your sweeping generalizations."

Yes, logic is basically black or white, and if your premises are true and arguments are valid, then one can make a generalization. Science makes generalizations all all the time, so one can do it in terms of metaphysics or first principles and their knowledge claims as well. If you can provide me with an example when a scientist moves from making an empirical truth to a metaphysical universally valid one, then I can show the flaws in such a reasoning process.

"I don't think empiricism and basing one's outlook on the metaphysical on it is unjust.

So, then based on this logic, would you say the Intelligent Design is a valid type of science? They move from empirical claims to the claim of design within nature based on irreducible complexity. If Dawkins, Heisenberg and the like can move from empirical claims to the metaphysical, then they have no right claiming the ID is not a science nor barring it from classrooms. It can't be both ways, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But, science is not taught that way in classrooms, it is only when scientists decide to play the role of philosopher that they move from the science to claims that God does not exist. If this is true, then ID should be given its equal time. I would not argue for such a method based on what I stated about empiricism and metaphysics. If you could provide an example of your reasoning, please do so.

Arguments regarding natural philosophy and theology are aren't about convincing anyone to join a camp. Religion is a very complex phenomena, most of the arguments in this post do not deal with the content of revelation. I would argue the main point of this thread deals with the idea of rationality and religion, and that religion is not irrational as claimed by the Dawkins' gang. What Dawkins fails to realize is that one could equally apply the claims he makes to his own philosophy and actually show how irrational those claims are. For instance, in his delusional work on religion, Dawkins critiques Thomas Aquinas' 5 ways claiming they are vacuous and offer no proof for God's existence. Aquinas' Summa is written for beginners in theology and it assumes that its readers have already established the existence of God via the study of natural philosophy,the 5 Ways are not meant to offer any definitive proof since they are but a sketch of things that its readers have already studied in detail. Dawkins thinks that such proofs are but proof of the irrationality of religion. But, then Dawkins turns around and tries to disprove the existence of God by starting with the premise "there is no God". He critiques Aquinas' 5 Ways as vacuous, but in essence he is following the same method that Thomas assumes in the Summa, but Thomas was only sketching the details to show the relationship between natural philosophy and theology. Only, Dawkins begins his argument with the premise "God does not exist" and then proceeds to claim to prove that very thing. So, Thomas' reasoning and methods are called vacuous, but Dawkins' sees no flaws in his circular method which is an obvious misunderstanding of Thomas and the 5 Ways. So, I ask: Who is being irrational here?

At this point, I am not exactly sure what you are arguing for, so unless we want to establish a common point of discussion, we only seem to be arguing in circles.

[mmortal03]

"So, then based on this logic, would you say the Intelligent Design is a valid type of science?...It can't be both ways, what is good for the goose is good for the gander"

No. you are again thinking in terms of black and white. Trying to build theories upon empirical findings is neutral. However, some theories are more credible than others. You don't just say, "Oh, well, because building theories upon empirical findings might be wrong, that we can't do it at all."

I don't think that what ID has tried to do is credible, and even though they have claimed that they do try to do this, I don't think they have really tried to do it in an honest fashion. Now that is just an opinion. You could make the argument that Richard Dawkins has done the same thing, but I thing the means and the end are quite different here for each case, and each should be judged on their own merits. I think there is more honesty and good scientific reliance in Dawkins hypotheses, but that is just my opinion. Remember, though, that if we ever find evidence that contradicts something that Dawkins has hypothesized about, I have nothing to lose by changing my position.

Furthermore, one must always be careful to be consistent with established science, not just base one's ideas on little pieces of it, that is, unless you have made some massive discovery and have good reason to. Yes, there have been cases where new science has supplanted or broadened the old, but I don't that that that is what ID followers are trying to do. Instead of trying to do their own work on showing that ID is true in a scientific manner, they just play around with philosophical musings, use bad or vague science, try to use confusing philosophical language to trick people into believing it, and distort the actual meaning of certain scientific findings that have already been established.

So, what is not fine, and what I think ID has done, is to pick and choose empirical data and misinterpret scientific findings such that it fits their idea of Christianity, or some other religion. I know there are people out there in the ID crowd that try to separate ID from their religious views, but they are just doing that to finagle themselves into some more credible position (that is, nearer to established science). As soon as they remove their need for some intelligent designer, which is always some religious-based component, they cease needing to have some sort of ID, and might as well just quit deluding themselves by trying to fit their models to it.

ID should not be given "its equal time", because not all hypotheses are equally good.

"At this point, I am not exactly sure what you are arguing for, so unless we want to establish a common point of discussion, we only seem to be arguing in circles."

Yes, I agree that unless someone comes up with something that will make one of us see the other's way, then we aren't going to get anywhere further with this.

[Rick]

Your little scoffs about thinking in terms of black and white is just a red herring and a logical fallacy, thinking logically sometimes involves the use the use of a disjunction. What is becoming apparent is you lack sufficient knowledge about empirical science or philosophy to argue correctly about either. If you allow Dawkins to move from empirical science to metaphysical claims denying the existence of God, you have no right denying ID the same thing. ID is right in that there are some things in nature that are irreducibly complex and can't be solved by ontological reductionism, that does not mean that one should invoke design in those cases. The problem, in either case, is not with their empirical claims, but moving from empirical claims to metaphysical ones that generalize about the nature of reality as a whole.

[mmortal03]

I agree with you that sometimes thinking in terms of black and white IS very acceptable, but I don't think that it is where you are applying it.

"What is becoming apparent is you lack sufficient knowledge about empirical science or philosophy to argue correctly about either."

I consider that ad hominem from my standpoint, and it is an appeal to authority on your part. I actually think that you have something in your head blocking YOUR understanding on the issue, but proving it would be difficult. It could be that my words are not clear enough, along with your words not being clear enough, but who knows?

"If you allow Dawkins to move from empirical science to metaphysical claims denying the existence of God, you have no right denying ID the same thing."

Again, black and white thinking here. I never saying that they can't make their claims, I just said that their claims don't come across as being as credible as Dawkins'. Now, that isn't a proof, and I never said that it was. If you want empirical proof that God exists or doesn't, good luck with that one.

[Rick]

Well, it becomes apparent that you understand neither an ad hominem nor an appeal to authority.

I think that I understand the issue well enough. Perhaps I should ask what books of Dawkins or those concerning ID you have read? In arguing about ID, you fail to see that they are scientists who accept evolution and that their method of proving God's existence is the same as Dawkins' atheistic proof. There science is not vague at all, it is the method and the metaphysical conclusions of both. Your posts and "black and white thinking," or lack thereof, shows little or no understanding of ID or Dawkins as you cite neither correctly, if the method is flawed then the knowledge claims of both are flawed as well.

Explain to me, either scientifically or philosophically, why any of Dawkins' claims concerning atheism in The God Delusion deserve more credit than the claims of ID?

[mmortal03]

"Well, it becomes apparent that you understand neither an ad hominem nor an appeal to authority."

You have got to be kidding me. I knew you would go at that, because of your know-it-all attitude, so I even referred to the definitions of each for myself before I referenced them, just to make sure. One, You were attacking my intellect, and, two, you were claiming your authority over me through your knowledge.

By the way, you have also used misleading vividness throughout this thread. Look them all up (again?) on wikipedia (and if you don't trust wikipedia, look them up somewhere else).

"I think that I understand the issue well enough. Perhaps I should ask what books of Dawkins or those concerning ID you have read? In arguing about ID, you fail to see that they are scientists who accept evolution and that their method of proving God's existence is the same as Dawkins' atheistic proof. There science is not vague at all, it is the method and the metaphysical conclusions of both. "

I did refer to those specific type of ID scientists earlier, as well. Again, I think their logic hasn't been as sound as people like Dawkins. One book that have looked at is "Origins of Life" by Rana and Ross. However, I don't mean to get into a debate of specific comparisons, not because I can't, but because I don't have the time, currently. I have convinced MYSELF through various essays and readings and presentations of many different authors, and naming names would only get you more riled up. I don't intend to try to convince you of anything here.

"Your posts and "black and white thinking," or lack thereof, shows little or no understanding of ID or Dawkins as you cite neither correctly, if the method is flawed then the knowledge claims of both are flawed as well."

Who said they were both using the same methods?

Your strict, categorical, "have to be in one job or the other to make claims", or, your "if you use one broad method of hypothesis about the metaphysical, then each differing specific claim using this method must each be wrong", is what I am talking about.

"Explain to me, either scientifically or philosophically, why any of Dawkins' claims concerning atheism in The God Delusion deserve more credit than the claims of ID?"

I would rather not. Dawkins speaks for himself.

[Rick]

I have taught Logic at the high school and college levels, so I don't need to reference text books, especially in reference to arguments such as yours that tend to lack logic . The fact that one would look something up on Wikipedia and hold it as a legitimate source is laughable. What is even more laughable is that you try to use fallacies without understanding them, you only make yourself the fool with this folly.

There are legitimate appeals to authority, as one could do with Dawkins. But you appeal to him in name only, no direct reference to him at all in anything. Only these vague appeals to ignorance like "Dawkins speaks for himself," which are fallacies. Even Wikipedia might state that! The fallacy of an Appeal to Authority goes to an illegitimate authority. I cited no authority, so there can be no fallacy, I was only showing the weakness of your argument. Nice try though! Next, I did not attack your intellect, I stated that based on your posts you appear to lack sufficient knowledge about philosophy and empirical science. That is not a fallacy, you may think it's one, if I had called you stupid or another name, that would be an ad hominem. In no way did I attack you, only the lack of knowledge displayed in your arguments. Wow, I did that without looking it up in a text or Wikipedia, amazing! If you want to come onto a Catholic blog and debate people about faith and/or philosophy, you should bring more to the table.

To make statements referring to ID stating, "I think their logic hasn't been as sound as people like Dawkins" without presenting even the least bit of evidence as to what either's logic might be only shows me that you haven't read them or do not understand either of them. When I ask you to present an example, you don't or can't. So, what should I or anyone else reading your weak circular arguments think? When I speak of a method, on multiple occasions I stated the move from empirical observation to metaphysics is faulty, I gave examples relating to QM, ID, and Dawkins. In none of those cases did you counter what I said, you only voiced the rather weak argument that Dawkins has more scientific or empirical validity. HOW CAN THE STATEMENT "THERE IS NO GOD" CARRY ANY SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY? Easy, it can't! Dawkins thinks that based on his quantitative science, he has disproved the existence of a non-quantifiable entity! He moves from truths of biology to that metaphysical claim, that is his method. If he is allowed to use that method, so should ID. If you can't see or get that, I am sorry!

Look, seriously if you want to debate this issues, read and learn much more. Otherwise, at this point you are wasting my time and yours! Your arguments are rather weak philosophically your circular and highly subjective. I do not say that to demean you. Statements like "I have convinced MYSELF through various essays and readings and presentations of many different authors" without citing any of them, either in name or content of their arguments, is but a personal pat on the back in the face of your own ignorance. As I stated in one of my early posts, based on the way you have argued, you allow atheism itself to be reduced to nothing but "a collectivistic, social urge." Yes, my friend, your appeals to ignorance and arguments have done no justice to atheism and actually have done a good job of showing its irrationality!

Peace!

[mmortal03]

"I have taught Logic at the high school and college levels, so I don't need to reference text books, especially in reference to arguments such as yours that tend to lack logic."

I figured this might be the case. I always seem to find myself in the company of seniority when discussing these issues. Speaks loudly for the ineptitude of the younger generations, doesn't it?

"The fact that one would look something up on Wikipedia and hold it as a legitimate source is laughable. What is even more laughable is that you try to use fallacies without understanding them, you only make yourself the fool with this folly."

I don't hold Wikipedia as a legitimate source, but I also don't knock it as an illegitimate one, either. It is useful as a guide, and quite often contains legit information. I have found that many people that are younger than you, your students, I guess, find it to be quite informative, and it is excellent to use to broaden one's general knowledge of any subject. If it is inaccurate, people who have taught logic or philosophy like you have should correct it. It is really easy to do, and is the whole point of it.

I don't try to use fallacies without understanding them. I am in quite a minority of the general population, in the sense that I actually really do try to understand things before I use them. Sometimes that happens to not be the case, and I get caught, and I generally take it hard, because knowledge and honing the accuracy of my words a large goal of mine.

You are right that it was not one single claim that you were trying to disprove based on stating that my knowledge you assumed was inadequate, but the impression that I got was that you were stating that MORE THAN ONE of my arguments were silly due to this.

Just as you claim that I haven't tried to give logical proofs for my opinions, you haven't done so for many of yours, either.

"There are legitimate appeals to authority, as one could do with Dawkins. But you appeal to him in name only, no direct reference to him at all in anything. Only these vague appeals to ignorance like "Dawkins speaks for himself," which are fallacies. "

You are right. But I thought I made it clear that wasn't claiming that it was a proof. I said that I didn't want to get involved in doing that right now, and it is not due to my lack of trust in my ability to do so, or my lack of knowledge, or me being scared to get into it with "you experts" or anything. It is just simply due to the fact that I did not intend to have this go that far into it in the first place, and I don't have the time right now to do it justice. I am not here to rewrite books that are already there.

"Next, I did not attack your intellect, I stated that based on your posts you appear to lack sufficient knowledge about philosophy and empirical science. That is not a fallacy, you may think it's one, if I had called you stupid or another name, that would be an ad hominem. In no way did I attack you, only the lack of knowledge displayed in your arguments. Wow, I did that without looking it up in a text or Wikipedia, amazing!"

I am glad that you didn't have to look it up in Wikipedia. It wasn't my first time dealing with it, either, but, remember, I am not a philosopher by trade, so I don't think there is anything wrong with not keeping every single written philosophical concept in my head all the time. I tend to be very good with thinking logically, I just don't always have the proper terminology to go along with it. I think it would only be logical to refresh ones memory on things before he goes at it. So, attack me on having to do that if you want.

Furthermore, you were vague about what part of my posts that you thought that I was lacking knowledge on, so, for all I know, until you clarified, you actually were trying to attack certain claims of mine. I haven't really made many moves in that direction here, as you have noticed, because it was never my intention.

One problem here is that I can tell that certain claims that you are making are clearly false, and I have tried to explain why this is the case, but since I haven't the time to sit here and write a book about it by defining a proof for each and every piece, you state that it must be because I don't have the ability. I have been trying to keep things brief, and have purposefully NOT tried to sit here and draw out proofs, because I thought you would get what I am trying to say WITHOUT having to do that. You could make some sort of character judgment about me leaving the discussion, that I can't stand the heat or something, but the truth is, I just have other responsibilities.

"If you want to come onto a Catholic blog and debate people about faith and/or philosophy, you should bring more to the table."

I respect your standards, but I also think you would be more respectable if you left your assumptions about me out of your posts and just made claims and gave your proofs. I think you have also made a lot of subjective claims here. Also, just because this is a Catholic blog doesn't mean there should be restrictions on opinions being given. You would never hear me say, "You are on an atheist blog. If you are too dumb to handle our best logician, you should leave."

Don't you think that a Catholic blog is worthy of you actually dispersing or teaching your knowledge of proper philosophical form and proofs, such that you don't continue to keep all your answers to yourself? Spread the answers, and don't be vague with them. State it in terms that your students can follow.

"To make statements referring to ID stating, "I think their logic hasn't been as sound as people like Dawkins" without presenting even the least bit of evidence as to what either's logic might be only shows me that you haven't read them or do not understand either of them. When I ask you to present an example, you don't or can't."

I purposefully stated that what I wrote WAS NOT A PROOF OF ANYTHING. How about the third possibility that I actually have read them and that I CAN understand them, but that I just haven't the time to rewrite their arguments here? That is why I said that Dawkins speaks for himself. Not that every one of his statements are provable, but that they make sense, and that I am not going to sit here and re-write out what he has to say, when he spent the time doing it best himself.

I said that I was not interested in proofs, because they take time, or they aren't possible, and I never came into this thread with the idea of providing proofs. There is no prerequisite above that says that by stating opinions here one is required by law to only give impenetrable proofs in his posts, and otherwise he is not allowed to comment. A lot of the topic can't be proved either way, anyway, and I understand that, too. But somehow, you go ahead and criticize stuff when I specifically tell you that that wasn't the point. Its like you aren't listening to me, and only reading into what I say with what you want to hear.

I'm sure you will think that it is "only convenient" that I am bowing out, and that it is due to my lack of ability that is actually the reason, but that would be you committing an error of logic.

"As I stated in one of my early posts, based on the way you have argued, you allow atheism itself to be reduced to nothing but "a collectivistic, social urge." Yes, my friend, your appeals to ignorance and arguments have done no justice to atheism and actually have done a good job of showing its irrationality!"

You are using my "collectivistic, social urge" words out of context, and I really don't see the relationship with that and atheism at all.

Thanks. I think that your arguments have done no justice to theism and actually have done a good job of showing its irrationality, as well. Talk about being subjective.

Look, I have spent another late night typing a response, I have purposefully not contained herein any proofs, I STILL have written a ton, and that is going to be the end of it. You are free to respond. Thank you for you time.