Hawking wants to know the mind of God and if he could reprogram his brain, as appears likely to do with it being possible to artificially change our memories, he could literally become his own God by programming his own mind to believe he actually is God.
My favorite response to this charge was made by Craig Venter (or one of his associates): "We're not playing."
True enough, they are not. But science is driven by more than the curiosity of inquisitive scientists. It is also driven by funders who have a variety of interests, but which generally boil down to making money, it is driven by governments (which have a variety of interests), by citizens' concerns which run in various directions, advocacy groups, and so on. And I don't think that most of the research is bad. Nobody thinks we are playing God when we look for cancer treatments and new antibiotics, or study the structure of the brain. (Not that none of it has unintended consequences.)
Where God-acting comes in most critically is genetic research on animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, fungi, et al (including our esteemed selves) that may reverberate far beyond the vision of the researchers involved. There is no reason to grant a level of trust to geneticists or other specialists that we don't grant to anyone else.
GMO crops designed to kill some pest directly, or indirectly by tolerating herbicides/pesticides, may not be any threat at all to whichever animal (including us) that consumes the GMO produce. But GMO crops may result (have, actually, resulted) in changes in production that affect food production ecology adversely. Mono cropping and very, very large fields has eliminated a great deal of bee foraging food (blossoming plants) which adversely affects bees. A reduced population of bees (not only the familiar honey bee, but various wild pollinators) has a negative consequence for insect-pollinated crops. No pollinators, no apples, plums, pears, berries, cherries, oranges, grapefruit, peaches, melons, squash, and so on -- a good share of our diet.
There are other consequences of mono cropping, like a world-wide vulnerability to some disease agent that might drop corn or bean yields through the floor. Like water pollution from intensive fertilization, and so on and on.
Two greek words: hubris and nemesis. Hubris, the excessive pride, Nemesis, the punishment.
Barry EtheridgeOctober 27, 2016 at 20:24#289120 likes
Where God-acting comes in most critically is genetic research on animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, fungi, et al (including our esteemed selves) that may reverberate far beyond the vision of the researchers involved.
I fear that as the first recorded example of genetic engineering occurs in the Old Testament this is rather shutting the gate long after the horse has bolted. As for mono-cropping the idea that this is somehow linked to advances in genetic engineering is surely unsupportable. It's been happening for as long as there has been agriculture, it's most obvious 'disaster' being the desertification of most of Northern Africa!
Nobody? I think you'll find that a long way from the truth!
Figuratively, nobody. Even fundamentalist evangelicals (like strict Baptists sects) readily avail themselves of medical treatment, though they are likely praying quite fervently. Christian Scientists try very hard not to use medicine, but there are only 85,000 of them world wide.
Where God-acting comes in most critically is genetic research on animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, fungi, et al (including our esteemed selves) that may reverberate far beyond the vision of the researchers involved.
— Bitter Crank
I fear that as the first recorded example of genetic engineering occurs in the Old Testament this is rather shutting the gate long after the horse has bolted. As for mono-cropping the idea that this is somehow linked to advances in genetic engineering is surely unsupportable. It's been happening for as long as there has been agriculture, it's most obvious 'disaster' being the desertification of most of Northern Africa!
They were putting fish genes in strawberries to manage damage from frost in the OT? They were engineering Roundup resistance in corn plants in the OT? Right.
No, I don't think mono cropping of the sort I am referencing here has been going on for the last 10,000 years, give or take a few. The Mono cropping of which I speak has these features;
Millions of acres are planted with one crop (like corn, soybeans).
The gene lines of the seeds have been narrowed to produce seed with very specific characteristics. The plant leaves and or roots may contain genetically engineered poisons to kill insect pests.
Along with very specific crop characteristics comes very specific disease resistance.
If 70% of Iowa is growing 1 strain of corn, and when (not if) some disease attacks one field of the crop, the disease will sweep across the state, wiping out most of the crop--and cross state boundaries too. The same is true of other food crops like rice and wheat.
A more natural example illustrates this: Commercial banana plants are all clones. They have to be, because the bananas don't produce seeds. The bananas grown up until the 1960s went extinct as the result of a fungal disease which wiped out the plants (and still wipes them out). The Cavendish Banana which is successor world standard, is also under threat from a new fungal disease.
Bananas won't disappear -- there are many other varieties. But most varieties tend to not taste as good, ripen as predictably, ship as well, or have other features that makes them less desirable, like being more difficult to grow. (Most of them have seeds.)
The solution isn't very complicated: Plant variant strains of crops, or different crops altogether, on adjacent fields. (That farmers don't do this is largely economic, and not a result of genetic engineering.) But the narrow range of strains is still a very real threat.
Another feature of "green revolution" plant breeding is that the plants usually require substantial fertilization. That feature raises the cost of growing the crop, increases the amount of agricultural pollution, and so on.
Hubris is excessive over-reaching--not just mere pride, but really grandiose ambition. Hubris (serious over-reaching) is a moral flaw because the proud, long reach is into territory where harms to others are not evident or consequences are not visible.
In Greek drama, the hero's hubris -- vaulting ambition -- was punished by Nemesis, a divinity. You've heard "pride comes before a fall"? It was Nemesis who made sure there was a fall.
Money is doing all the driving at the point of guns. You cannot play God when the brightest lights are life on, but nobody is ever home. Fukushima and Chernobyl are two examples of people playing God with money.
Reply to MonfortS26 We seem to have guidelines that guarantee hubris will happen. Donald Trump as businessman is probably no more hubristic than any other tycoon type. As a presidential candidate he's clearly engaging in hubristic bragging, such as claiming that he is the only one who can protect people's guns, or some damn thing like that. (In fact, his ability to "protect people's guns" is rather limited.) Saying he will make Mexico pay for the wall is hubris too.
IN running for the presidency, Trump is reaching way beyond his grasp. Trump is of course not the first candidate to reach farther than his or her grasp.
I'm wondering what we would be obliged to acknowledge if it became evident that the fundamental constituents of the Universe are not actually physical. And I think that day approaches.
Reply to MonfortS26For Venter and many other scientists, the Universe is essentially matter and energy, unendowed or undirected by intelligence. Intelligence, they say, is the product of the actions of matter and energy, which, given time and lots of chances, spontaneously evolves into living forms including homo sapiens. So, in this worldview, h. sapiens are the only intentional beings, that we know of, in the Universe. Sure, there might be other intelligent species, but we haven't discovered them, so for now, we're the only beings capable of forming intentions and acting purposefully in a universe of blind forces.
So in that sense, man has displaced God - hence Venter's comment.
I'm wondering what we would be obliged to acknowledge if it became evident that the fundamental constituents of the Universe are not actually physical. And I think that day approaches.
I meant this part. I would agree that intelligence is likely a product of matter and energy though. I've always felt Descartes had it backwards and that it should be "I am therefore I think".
Reply to MonfortS26 I would agree that intelligence is likely a product of matter and energy.
I don't agree. I don't think there's anything in the sciences that justifies that view - it is not even known what intelligence is. Customarily, it is said the be 'the product of evolution', and in one sense it is, but to say that this is all it is, is called 'biological reductionism'.
Reply to Wayfarer Yes but someone has to pave the way in the sciences. There may be no justification for my view, but in order to justify my view all other views must first be ruled out. My understanding is that most science is a reductionist philosophy, so viewing the mind from a strictly materialistic perspective is the best way achieve as much of an understanding of it as possible. If there is more than "the product of evolution" in relation to intelligence, then what might that be?
Reply to MonfortS26 The neo-darwinian, materialist account of mind is the dominant paradigm in the secular west. It is in some respects a secular religion, i.e. it defines what educated people are expected to believe.
Reductionism and indeed scientific method is extremely useful in its domain of application, but really it's the philosophy of scientists and engineers; break processes up into steps, systems into chunks, understand the principles by which they're combined. It is fantastic for a huge range of things but when it is applied to questions beyond its scope is when it morphs into scientism.
There was a book published on this very subject by a respected philosopher, Thomas Nagel, a tenured professor, called Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. He makes clear, he's not pushing a religious barrow, he claims to be an atheist, but one who says that materialism simply doesn't add up from a purely rational perspective. It was a very controversial book because it questioned the accepted dogma - the Guardian named it 'the most despised book of 2012'.
Reply to MonfortS26 It's not necessarily at all! But, it's beyond the scope of materialism. And they're actually two different things. But there are neuro-scientists, and other scientists, who are not at all materialistic in their approach, so it's not an problem of science per se, it's more an attribute of Western secular culture. That's pretty well what Nagel's saying also.
Reply to MonfortS26 Well, science is one thing - scientific method, the discovery of principles, making of predictions, testing hypotheses. It can be used across an enormous range of subjects for all kinds of purposes.
But scientific materialism is another matter - it's the belief that the only valid knowledge is scientific knowledge, that the scientific account of the world is the only real one, and so on.
it's beyond the scope of materialism. And they're actually two different things. But there are neuro-scientists, and other scientists, who are not at all materialistic in their approach, so it's not an problem of science per se, it's more an attribute of Western secular culture.
It has nothing to do with Western secular culture. Secularism is about the separation of church and state, a principle that is supported as passionately by religious people (excluding some of those belonging to whatever the locally dominant religion is) as by the non-religious. I guarantee you that Christians in Syria, Muslims in India and Hindus in Bangladesh would love for the culture in which they live to be much more secular than it is.
Your bete noire is reductive materialism, a worldview which I also vigorously reject. But you keep on linking it to other really good things about Western culture, such as secularism, scepticism and an appreciation of science, which is irritating, as it has nothing to do with those things.
Reply to Wayfarer No provide examples. First of all you are saying that money isn't everything. While I would agree, that isn't what I mean when referring to materialism. Materialism is the belief that the material world is all that there is. You seem to be proposing some other idea and I'm curious as to what that idea could be.
AndrewK: It has nothing to do with Western secular culture. Secularism is about the separation of church and state, a principle that is supported as passionately by religious people (excluding some of those belonging to whatever the locally dominant religion is) as by the non-religious.
I really do understand it - secularism is the principle that one is free to follow any religion or none, but this particular conversation started off with the remark about whether Craig Venter is 'playing God' and his quip that he's not 'playing'. Anyway, I regard Venter (et al's) 'aggressive naturalism' as a kind of faux religion, so my remark stands.
Reply to Wayfarer I read your article, and I find it to be religious bullshit. To argue that scientists have "faith" in science is a joke. It's not having faith in something if it produces reliable results. Religion does not. I don't see any logical attack on scientific materialism or naturalism for that matter that isn't in defense of a religion.
Reply to MonfortS26 It's not 'my article', it is the first thing that came up on a google search. Obviously you can't understand the distinction made in the article between scientific method and scientific materialism and it's not up to me to educate you.
Reply to Wayfarer If you have a point you should be able to articulate it. All you did was say I was wrong and pull up an article weakly supporting your belief. The reason I'm posting my viewpoint on here is because I want people to disagree with me. You disagree, and you went through the effort of commenting, but now It's not up to you to educate me??. Is that the case or do you just not have an actual argument and you're trying to back out.
Reply to MonfortS26 You've asked a lot of questions in this thread, and I have tried to answer them. That article, which I found when you asked, gives a reasonable account of the issue, with references to recognised authors - but you just said it's 'religious bullshit' - so what's to discuss? If you take that approach then really I don't want to bother.
I'm sorry if I offended you by insinuating that the article you posted was religious bullshit. I don't have a very favorable opinion of religious belief. I see it as corrupting the minds of the youth and damaging our scientific advancement towards a better tomorrow. This article was from a website called sciencemeetsreligion.org . The whole concept here seems that religion should't have to be subject to the scientific method because science is a religion in itself and I find that claim to be laughable.
""But religion is not the only victim of this worldview. If we fully accept scientific materialism, we would also have to discard art, literature, music, and many other fields of human endeavor that are essential aspects of our modern world. More importantly, we need to ask what is the status of scientific materialism itself under this worldview. As John Haught observes [Haught2008, pg. 45]""
Why would we have to discard art, literature, music etc by operating under the perspective of materialism?
"When scientists ridicule religious faith, it is worth observing that scientists also take faith with them into the research laboratory. As British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead has noted, modern science, as it developed in the West, was based on a faith in the existence of rational, discoverable laws"
you just said it's 'religious bullshit' - so what's to discuss?
Your opinion, not the propagandist one of that article. I don't see any rational reason to believe anything other than what I can prove beyond reasonable doubt. Accepting that proof isn't everything is slowing down the progression of mankind. However I am very open to new ideas. If I seem hostile in presentation it is because I'm quitting smoking and haven't smoked a cigarette in a week. You disagree with me and that leaves me with room to learn. I would appreciate it if you could explain why you disagree with me.
It's not having faith in something if it produces reliable results.
It is having faith in the principle of induction - the belief that the future will be like the past. As Hume pointed out, there is no way to logically ground belief in that principle - one has to take it on faith.... or (we expect, based on our faith in that principle) starve.
Personally, I'm happy to take that leap of faith, as Hume himself was.
Reply to andrewk Maybe the problem here lies in my definition of faith. I see faith as being knowledge without justification. I have knowledge beyond reasonable doubt that the future will be like the past, but I wouldn't say that is unjustified because I see it as being unreasonable that the future not be like the past in cases of natural law. Isn't that the point of investigating natural law?
I read in one of your other threads you were brought up in a dogmatic Christian household, I can understand why you have those views. But there are many objections to materialism aside from the obvious.
Here are some quotes from scientific materialists:
The Astonishing Hypothesis is that You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.
Francis Crick
We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.
Richard Dawkins
Love it or hate it, phenomena like this [i.e. organic molecules] exhibit the heart of the power of the Darwinian idea. An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe.
Daniel Dennett
Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, but I think these make the point. The underlying belief of that kind of hardline materialism is that life really is like a complex chemical reaction, and what we understand to be minds and other people, really are like, in Daniel Dennett's words, 'moist robots'. There was a huge amount of literature and drama around these themes in the 20th century.
A lot of these people say they're humanists, but 'secular humanism' has its roots in the Italian Renaissance. it was critical of religion and the church - got into trouble for it - but in no way was it materialist in the above sense. It tried to bring back the classical Greek philosophers and their metaphysical principles. That was the basis of 'secular humanism' in the renaissance. It was nothing like what materialism says.
None of the above are bad people - Crick was a major scientist - but it's not by virtue of their philosophy, in my view. It's because they grew up in a humanistic culture, that valued freedom of thought, freedom of expression, critical thinking, and scientific discovery. And all of that is a consequence of the development of the Christian West. I think what you would see as a consequence of putting their ideas into action, is a culture that is a lot less free, because it grants the human being no intrinsic reality.
I don't have a very favorable opinion of religious belief. I see it as corrupting the minds of the youth and damaging our scientific advancement towards a better tomorrow.
As if minds aren't being corrupted already by the free availability of online pornography and all of the nefarious activities that people get up to on the internet. you can loose your home without leaving it, gambling on the internet.
I don't see any rational reason to believe anything other than what I can prove beyond reasonable doubt.
There was a powerful philosophical movement called Logical Positivism which was started by a brilliant phllosopher, A J Ayer, when he was still in his twenties. He published a book called Language Truth and Logic, which argued for 'the principle of verificationism'. Very hard to summarise it, or the arguments around it, I spent a whole semester on it. But suffice to say that in the end, it had to be admitted that Ayer's principle of verificationism couldn't be justified on it's own terms. Why not? Because the statement that 'every proposition has to be verifiable with respect to some state of affairs', could not itself be verified by those means. (I'm paraphrasing here.)
And all of that is a consequence of the development of the Christian West. I think what you would see as a consequence of putting their ideas into action, is a culture that is a lot less free, because it grants the human being no intrinsic reality.
It may be a consequence of the development of the Christian West, but does Christianity contain any value to the future of society? I don't think taking away a source of "intrinsic reality" would be a bad thing. It would force people to think for themselves instead of accepting a false notion of there being a correct view of reality. It would lead to a more authentic society in my opinion.
As if minds aren't being corrupted already by the free availability of online pornography and all of the nefarious activities that people get up to on the internet. you can loose your home without leaving it, gambling on the internet.
I don't see pornography and gambling as being damaging to the human intellect in the same way that religion is.
There was a powerful philosophical movement called Logical Positivism which was started by a brilliant phllosopher, A J Ayer, when he was still in his twenties. He published a book called Language Truth and Logic, which argued for 'the principle of verificationism'. Very hard to summarise it, or the arguments around it, I spent a whole semester on it. But suffice to say that in the end, it had to be admitted that Ayer's principle of verificationism couldn't be justified on it's own terms. Why not? Because the statement that 'every proposition has to be verifiable with respect to some state of affairs', could not itself be verified by those means. (I'm paraphrasing here.)
This sounds a lot like Godel's incompleteness theorems which is a concept I have had trouble grasping but I blame that on a lack of a solid mathematical foundation. The way I understand it, It was all about the limits of math in the same way that I think you are using the principle of verificationism to show the limits of logic. I think there will always be circular reasoning in using a technique for understanding reality on it-self.
My opinion on Christianity is that it has outlived its purpose. Humans have evolved through it but it's time is ending the further science advances because I believe science can do a better job than any of the functions of the bible.
Reply to Wayfarer If you disagree with me, try to persuade me to your point of view. What is the point of philosophy if you don't debate people you disagree with? Does what I said make you think I'm too far gone or something? I really don't understand why you would just shut down like that
Comments (47)
What if in God's name we want to play God? >:)
Hawking wants to know the mind of God and if he could reprogram his brain, as appears likely to do with it being possible to artificially change our memories, he could literally become his own God by programming his own mind to believe he actually is God.
True enough, they are not. But science is driven by more than the curiosity of inquisitive scientists. It is also driven by funders who have a variety of interests, but which generally boil down to making money, it is driven by governments (which have a variety of interests), by citizens' concerns which run in various directions, advocacy groups, and so on. And I don't think that most of the research is bad. Nobody thinks we are playing God when we look for cancer treatments and new antibiotics, or study the structure of the brain. (Not that none of it has unintended consequences.)
Where God-acting comes in most critically is genetic research on animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, fungi, et al (including our esteemed selves) that may reverberate far beyond the vision of the researchers involved. There is no reason to grant a level of trust to geneticists or other specialists that we don't grant to anyone else.
GMO crops designed to kill some pest directly, or indirectly by tolerating herbicides/pesticides, may not be any threat at all to whichever animal (including us) that consumes the GMO produce. But GMO crops may result (have, actually, resulted) in changes in production that affect food production ecology adversely. Mono cropping and very, very large fields has eliminated a great deal of bee foraging food (blossoming plants) which adversely affects bees. A reduced population of bees (not only the familiar honey bee, but various wild pollinators) has a negative consequence for insect-pollinated crops. No pollinators, no apples, plums, pears, berries, cherries, oranges, grapefruit, peaches, melons, squash, and so on -- a good share of our diet.
There are other consequences of mono cropping, like a world-wide vulnerability to some disease agent that might drop corn or bean yields through the floor. Like water pollution from intensive fertilization, and so on and on.
Two greek words: hubris and nemesis. Hubris, the excessive pride, Nemesis, the punishment.
Nobody? I think you'll find that a long way from the truth!
Quoting Bitter Crank
I fear that as the first recorded example of genetic engineering occurs in the Old Testament this is rather shutting the gate long after the horse has bolted. As for mono-cropping the idea that this is somehow linked to advances in genetic engineering is surely unsupportable. It's been happening for as long as there has been agriculture, it's most obvious 'disaster' being the desertification of most of Northern Africa!
How? There doesn't need to be an actual God for human beings to act as though they were such a being. Atheists can still be guilty of hubris!
Perhaps "playing nature"is a better way of putting it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
What is wrong with hubris?
Nobody thinks we are playing God when we look for cancer treatments and new antibiotics
— Bitter Crank
Quoting Barry Etheridge
Figuratively, nobody. Even fundamentalist evangelicals (like strict Baptists sects) readily avail themselves of medical treatment, though they are likely praying quite fervently. Christian Scientists try very hard not to use medicine, but there are only 85,000 of them world wide.
Where God-acting comes in most critically is genetic research on animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, fungi, et al (including our esteemed selves) that may reverberate far beyond the vision of the researchers involved.
— Bitter Crank
Quoting Barry Etheridge
They were putting fish genes in strawberries to manage damage from frost in the OT? They were engineering Roundup resistance in corn plants in the OT? Right.
No, I don't think mono cropping of the sort I am referencing here has been going on for the last 10,000 years, give or take a few. The Mono cropping of which I speak has these features;
A more natural example illustrates this: Commercial banana plants are all clones. They have to be, because the bananas don't produce seeds. The bananas grown up until the 1960s went extinct as the result of a fungal disease which wiped out the plants (and still wipes them out). The Cavendish Banana which is successor world standard, is also under threat from a new fungal disease.
Bananas won't disappear -- there are many other varieties. But most varieties tend to not taste as good, ripen as predictably, ship as well, or have other features that makes them less desirable, like being more difficult to grow. (Most of them have seeds.)
The solution isn't very complicated: Plant variant strains of crops, or different crops altogether, on adjacent fields. (That farmers don't do this is largely economic, and not a result of genetic engineering.) But the narrow range of strains is still a very real threat.
Another feature of "green revolution" plant breeding is that the plants usually require substantial fertilization. That feature raises the cost of growing the crop, increases the amount of agricultural pollution, and so on.
Hubris is excessive over-reaching--not just mere pride, but really grandiose ambition. Hubris (serious over-reaching) is a moral flaw because the proud, long reach is into territory where harms to others are not evident or consequences are not visible.
In Greek drama, the hero's hubris -- vaulting ambition -- was punished by Nemesis, a divinity. You've heard "pride comes before a fall"? It was Nemesis who made sure there was a fall.
Do we as a society have any sort of guidelines to prevent that from happening?
IN running for the presidency, Trump is reaching way beyond his grasp. Trump is of course not the first candidate to reach farther than his or her grasp.
According to the likes of Venter, h. sapiens are the only beings in the Universe that are really capable of intentional action.
So in that sense, man has displaced God - hence Venter's comment.
I meant this part. I would agree that intelligence is likely a product of matter and energy though. I've always felt Descartes had it backwards and that it should be "I am therefore I think".
I don't agree. I don't think there's anything in the sciences that justifies that view - it is not even known what intelligence is. Customarily, it is said the be 'the product of evolution', and in one sense it is, but to say that this is all it is, is called 'biological reductionism'.
Reductionism and indeed scientific method is extremely useful in its domain of application, but really it's the philosophy of scientists and engineers; break processes up into steps, systems into chunks, understand the principles by which they're combined. It is fantastic for a huge range of things but when it is applied to questions beyond its scope is when it morphs into scientism.
There was a book published on this very subject by a respected philosopher, Thomas Nagel, a tenured professor, called Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. He makes clear, he's not pushing a religious barrow, he claims to be an atheist, but one who says that materialism simply doesn't add up from a purely rational perspective. It was a very controversial book because it questioned the accepted dogma - the Guardian named it 'the most despised book of 2012'.
I'll check the book out. What makes you think that the understanding of the mind is beyond the scope of science though?
What makes you say that?
But scientific materialism is another matter - it's the belief that the only valid knowledge is scientific knowledge, that the scientific account of the world is the only real one, and so on.
It has nothing to do with Western secular culture. Secularism is about the separation of church and state, a principle that is supported as passionately by religious people (excluding some of those belonging to whatever the locally dominant religion is) as by the non-religious. I guarantee you that Christians in Syria, Muslims in India and Hindus in Bangladesh would love for the culture in which they live to be much more secular than it is.
Your bete noire is reductive materialism, a worldview which I also vigorously reject. But you keep on linking it to other really good things about Western culture, such as secularism, scepticism and an appreciation of science, which is irritating, as it has nothing to do with those things.
you can work that out.
I really do understand it - secularism is the principle that one is free to follow any religion or none, but this particular conversation started off with the remark about whether Craig Venter is 'playing God' and his quip that he's not 'playing'. Anyway, I regard Venter (et al's) 'aggressive naturalism' as a kind of faux religion, so my remark stands.
""But religion is not the only victim of this worldview. If we fully accept scientific materialism, we would also have to discard art, literature, music, and many other fields of human endeavor that are essential aspects of our modern world. More importantly, we need to ask what is the status of scientific materialism itself under this worldview. As John Haught observes [Haught2008, pg. 45]""
Why would we have to discard art, literature, music etc by operating under the perspective of materialism?
"When scientists ridicule religious faith, it is worth observing that scientists also take faith with them into the research laboratory. As British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead has noted, modern science, as it developed in the West, was based on a faith in the existence of rational, discoverable laws"
It's not faith if it produces verifiable results.
Quoting Wayfarer
Your opinion, not the propagandist one of that article. I don't see any rational reason to believe anything other than what I can prove beyond reasonable doubt. Accepting that proof isn't everything is slowing down the progression of mankind. However I am very open to new ideas. If I seem hostile in presentation it is because I'm quitting smoking and haven't smoked a cigarette in a week. You disagree with me and that leaves me with room to learn. I would appreciate it if you could explain why you disagree with me.
It is having faith in the principle of induction - the belief that the future will be like the past. As Hume pointed out, there is no way to logically ground belief in that principle - one has to take it on faith.... or (we expect, based on our faith in that principle) starve.
Personally, I'm happy to take that leap of faith, as Hume himself was.
I read in one of your other threads you were brought up in a dogmatic Christian household, I can understand why you have those views. But there are many objections to materialism aside from the obvious.
Here are some quotes from scientific materialists:
Francis Crick
Richard Dawkins
Daniel Dennett
Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, but I think these make the point. The underlying belief of that kind of hardline materialism is that life really is like a complex chemical reaction, and what we understand to be minds and other people, really are like, in Daniel Dennett's words, 'moist robots'. There was a huge amount of literature and drama around these themes in the 20th century.
A lot of these people say they're humanists, but 'secular humanism' has its roots in the Italian Renaissance. it was critical of religion and the church - got into trouble for it - but in no way was it materialist in the above sense. It tried to bring back the classical Greek philosophers and their metaphysical principles. That was the basis of 'secular humanism' in the renaissance. It was nothing like what materialism says.
None of the above are bad people - Crick was a major scientist - but it's not by virtue of their philosophy, in my view. It's because they grew up in a humanistic culture, that valued freedom of thought, freedom of expression, critical thinking, and scientific discovery. And all of that is a consequence of the development of the Christian West. I think what you would see as a consequence of putting their ideas into action, is a culture that is a lot less free, because it grants the human being no intrinsic reality.
As if minds aren't being corrupted already by the free availability of online pornography and all of the nefarious activities that people get up to on the internet. you can loose your home without leaving it, gambling on the internet.
There was a powerful philosophical movement called Logical Positivism which was started by a brilliant phllosopher, A J Ayer, when he was still in his twenties. He published a book called Language Truth and Logic, which argued for 'the principle of verificationism'. Very hard to summarise it, or the arguments around it, I spent a whole semester on it. But suffice to say that in the end, it had to be admitted that Ayer's principle of verificationism couldn't be justified on it's own terms. Why not? Because the statement that 'every proposition has to be verifiable with respect to some state of affairs', could not itself be verified by those means. (I'm paraphrasing here.)
It may be a consequence of the development of the Christian West, but does Christianity contain any value to the future of society? I don't think taking away a source of "intrinsic reality" would be a bad thing. It would force people to think for themselves instead of accepting a false notion of there being a correct view of reality. It would lead to a more authentic society in my opinion.
Quoting Wayfarer
I don't see pornography and gambling as being damaging to the human intellect in the same way that religion is.
Quoting Wayfarer
This sounds a lot like Godel's incompleteness theorems which is a concept I have had trouble grasping but I blame that on a lack of a solid mathematical foundation. The way I understand it, It was all about the limits of math in the same way that I think you are using the principle of verificationism to show the limits of logic. I think there will always be circular reasoning in using a technique for understanding reality on it-self.
My opinion on Christianity is that it has outlived its purpose. Humans have evolved through it but it's time is ending the further science advances because I believe science can do a better job than any of the functions of the bible.
I have nothing further to say to you.