tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post2515504483847357944..comments2022-12-08T02:30:00.729-08:00Comments on Beginning Theistic Science: Causal Explanations of Evolution Cannot be purely naturalIan Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-18950077521171793612012-02-23T08:30:48.675-08:002012-02-23T08:30:48.675-08:00Okay, I see what you're saying. I've a muc...Okay, I see what you're saying. I've a <i>much</i> clearer idea now of what you're doing, and how to view it. And it'll rightly serve as a filter in the event of future comments. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-90747889442638337472012-02-22T10:37:56.163-08:002012-02-22T10:37:56.163-08:00It would be good indeed to find out the we did not...It would be good indeed to find out the we did not have E after all, but something different like F, which could not be explained from a naturalistic standpoint.<br /><br />I think that there are many such things, starting with the existence of minds, that come into this category. One purpose of my theistic investigations is to find and explain more such things, and explain the details of their operation. I think that there will be much evidence to find, but many things will only been ever <i>seen as evidence</i> when there is a fully-fledged theoretical alternative to naturalism.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-56441056209381227922012-02-22T09:36:02.957-08:002012-02-22T09:36:02.957-08:00Philosophical debates over the meaning of 'phy...Philosophical debates over the meaning of 'physical' and 'natural' have to do, at least in part, with one side attempting to expand the scope of definitions so the other side can no longer claim that something is excluded. Personally, I don't think Pluto ever cared that it was called a planet, or that it now cares that it no longer is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-4873869223139876002012-02-22T09:21:46.126-08:002012-02-22T09:21:46.126-08:00It was said that if D=E, and D+G=E, then G (effect...It was said that if D=E, and D+G=E, then G (effectively) = 0. For G to not be (effectively) 0, D+G would have to be something other than E. Call it F. The difference between F and E (F-E), then, would have to be attributed to G. The reason why it was said, <i>it would seem that</i> "it must be shown that [the] occurrence cannot be accounted for by any known natural law or process, etc" is because if it can be accounted for in that manner, then the naturalistic mind-set, the scientism-ists (if you will), haven't the slightest reason to fidget. "That is accounted for by what we already know of nature. And, as we keep saying ad nauseum, there is neither need nor reason to invoke anything <i>super</i>natural." If budging the naturalistic mind-set, however, isn't one of the reasons for developing a comprehensive theory of Theism, then the point raised is premature at best, irrelevant at worst.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-76411880293782004522012-02-21T14:56:32.212-08:002012-02-21T14:56:32.212-08:00Sue, there is an preliminary discussion of this in...Sue, there is an preliminary discussion of this in my previous post at <a href="http://blog.beginningtheisticscience.com/2012/01/law-and-divine-intervention.html" rel="nofollow">Law and Divine Intervention</a>. In that post, I discuss whether or not the immanence of God (or spiritual or mental things) need to have any causal effects in nature, as distinct from letting nature run its course after it has been set up.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-14562052510867639072012-02-21T14:17:55.838-08:002012-02-21T14:17:55.838-08:00There has been very much debate in the philosophic...There has been very much debate in the philosophical literature about the meaning of 'physical' and 'natural'. For a summary of the issues, you can see <a href="http://www.newdualism.org/papers/D.Synnestvedt/naturalism.htm" rel="nofollow"> <br />Arguments Concerning Naturalism</a>. More papers are listed at <a href="http://consc.net/mindpapers/4.1a" rel="nofollow">Formulating Physicalism</a>.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-34029533574382620322012-02-21T14:03:20.895-08:002012-02-21T14:03:20.895-08:00AC1937:
I don't think I agree with you that &q...AC1937:<br />I don't think I agree with you that "it must be shown that an occurence cannot be accounted for by any known natural law or process." It would be clearly useful if we could do this, and even better show that <i>in principle</i> some events could not be accounted for by natural causes. It would help meet objections based on Occam's razor (that simpler explanations are better). <br /><br />However, it the simplicity of the <i>whole</i> explanation which is important, not just the simplicity of any given explanation of some particular natural event. Theories also become good by virtue of their <i>comprehensiveness</i>, and not just on the simplicity for explaining eg how salt dissolves. This means that we never look for 'strict proof', but only a judgement based on the overall picture of the theory in relation to the evidence. Maybe later we find 'prime examples' that give 'good demonstrations' of why the new theory is better, but they will never be proofs in the mathematical sense of being 'undeniable'.<br /><br />That means that I would <i>deny</i> that 'Anything observable in nature is claimed via a kind of eminent domain to be a part of nature.' Even if it partly predictable.* That would make God to be part of nature. I don't mind that personally, but that atheists should still be allowed a word to describe their position in which 'nature' does not including anything mental, spiritual, or divine.<br /><br />* More loving people are more reliable & predictable. Does that make them further from God?Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-20029310065763993502012-02-21T12:28:23.154-08:002012-02-21T12:28:23.154-08:00The reason I'd like to know about this, Ian, i...The reason I'd like to know about this, Ian, is that it always seems like you see something wonderful going on (where God has something flowing into humanity or reality) that no one else does. I've read your book and I know it has to do with reality actualizing out of many possiblities. But I still feel like I miss what the immanence is doing exactly. I think as a Catholic, I see the immanence as setting things up all along, and you see it as changing things along the way. ?Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122828543615175957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-8217903056894299152012-02-21T11:37:54.171-08:002012-02-21T11:37:54.171-08:00If this is the case, and I'm not saying it isn...If this is the case, and I'm not saying it isn't, it would seem that it must be shown that an occurence cannot be accounted for by any known natural law or process. And not just that, but also that it cannot <i>in principle</i> be accounted for by any natural law or process, either known or yet to be known. There have been many things known to occur for which no natural explanation has been available. In these cases, however, the naturalistic mind-set simply says, "We have not yet found a natural explanation for it. But the absence of a natural explanation, i.e., the absence of a known natural cause, is not proof that that isn't any, only a clear indication that it has yet to be determined." So it seems to me that the deck is stacked against being able to successfully prove God's active role in evolution in such a way that that role is undeniable. Anything observable in nature is claimed via a kind of emminent domain to be a part of nature. So if God's discernable, active role turns out to be observable in nature, the naturalistic mind-set will simply coin a term or phrase and chalk it up to nature. All the more so if that discernable active role should have some predictability about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-31755256669771150632012-02-21T08:52:15.748-08:002012-02-21T08:52:15.748-08:00That is true: it could be that the immanent action...That is true: it could be that the immanent action of God is sustaining the world in such a way that Darwinian evolution is true.<br /><br />However, it would have to be a rather <i>detached</i> immanence from God, in the sense of not being involved with the outcome, and not influencing it any way. It could still be called theism, I suppose, but <i>effectively</i> (that is, as far as <i>effects</i> are concerning) it would be indistinguishable from deism. It is liking noting that Darwin -> evolution as we see it, and that Darwin+God -> evolution as we see it, so that (effectively) God = 0.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-3581219072476722642012-02-21T04:25:10.929-08:002012-02-21T04:25:10.929-08:00I don't really see why it has to be deism (Dar...I don't really see why it has to be deism (Darwin + God). Couldn't it just be the way we perceive what is actually immanent action by God?Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122828543615175957noreply@blogger.com