tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post4786473781260477792..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Naturalist Meltdownjohn bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-83784177654494076232014-04-08T19:11:32.374-07:002014-04-08T19:11:32.374-07:00"have only physical causes then they can refl..."have only physical causes then they can reflect only physical states rather than rational conclusions"<br /><br />Physical states are by definition rational, for a physical state to exist, if by defintion must be rationalTony J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-51403494200771730382012-01-05T16:27:39.816-08:002012-01-05T16:27:39.816-08:00Logic should be the same for everyone. It shouldn&...Logic should be the same for everyone. It shouldn't be that logic is one thing for one worldview and something else for another. Nor does it have anything to do with different "potions" for different people. <br /><br />I haven't read Dr. Byl's book. I doubt very much that our local library would have it. It doesn't have very much in the way of good books. It was Dr. Byl's article in Reformed Perspective on a similar topic that drew me here.JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-10319131388317657992012-01-04T14:15:29.713-08:002012-01-04T14:15:29.713-08:00John V.,
I think you and I as Christians see this ...John V.,<br />I think you and I as Christians see this logical fallacy, but the naturalist does not. In this I agree with you. Have you read Dr. Byl's 'The Divine Challenge: On Matter, Mind, Math & Meaning'?Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-74346283870427668342012-01-04T14:08:27.352-08:002012-01-04T14:08:27.352-08:00Steve:
Yes, that's what he is saying. But the ...Steve:<br />Yes, that's what he is saying. But the result is that his conclusion is some "potion" put into his system which others, like you and I, have not received. It is a purely natural reaction in his brain, not a matter of right or wrong, of testability. <br /><br />Look at Carrier's last line: "If naturalism is true, everything mental is caused by the nonmental, whereas if supernaturalism is true, at least one thing is not." I'm suggesting that Carrier's argument (his ability to argue, because it is an argument and not a potion)is at least that "one thing" that is not nonmental. The nonmental cannot be avoided, so by his own argument there can be no such thing as a true naturalist.JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-20565537467875718472012-01-04T13:53:12.828-08:002012-01-04T13:53:12.828-08:00John V.,
In the end Carrier is left with a conclus...John V.,<br /><i>In the end Carrier is left with a conclusion which would be exactly the same if he said nothing.'</i><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br /><i>'o here is the second part of my question: where in the natural world do we find the origin of truth and rightness, and the ability to judge things according to them? Is it not the case that denying the supernatural requires the supernatural (i.e., unchangeable, eternal) values of what is right and true? In other words, is it not the case that you cannot disprove the supernatural without first assuming it?'</i><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />John V. said:<br />'<i>Well, let's just get to the bottom line: Doesn't Carrier really just prove that there is no such thing as a real naturalist?'</i><br /><br />No, I don't think so. The naturalist always has a come back. Carrier is not saying that naturalism is deficient, but that it is superior to supernaturalism in that the supernatural is not testable, no?Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-20654562259510380042012-01-04T13:27:12.432-08:002012-01-04T13:27:12.432-08:00Well, let's just get to the bottom line: Doesn...Well, let's just get to the bottom line: Doesn't Carrier really just prove that there is no such thing as a real naturalist?JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-12526117045607198082012-01-04T13:13:16.128-08:002012-01-04T13:13:16.128-08:00Steve:
Well, if I did that it would answer my own ...Steve:<br />Well, if I did that it would answer my own question. I want to know what Carrier means by testability. What kind of testing? Dialectical, to see if it is rational? Empirical, to see if it holds up under the microscope? Mathematical, to see if it holds up theoretically? In all these kinds, a man has to make a judgement, or be left with the observation that anything natural or the supernatural is only there when it is in the way. <br />But I can see that this is not good enough to give context to my question. So here's why I'm interested in this:<br />He says that testability is not proof, because there are many natural theories that are also not testable. I would agree. What Dr. Byl rightly points out is that in all these things a judgement is appealed to by default: if one thing can be proven to be right then it follows an opposing theory has been proven wrong. What I'm pointing out is that you cannot come to Carrier's conclusion without the supernatural. The idea of right and wrong is not empirical, dialectical, or mathematical. It is automatically superimposed upon all these disciplines; these disciplines are possible because there is a right and a wrong of things. And this is not testable without assuming it first. <br />My intent is to point out some fallacies in Carrier's thesis. If the test that showed a Young Earth supernaturalism to be false is really a non-mental process then how do we really know that it has been proven false? How does he make judgements of right and wrong, of truth and error, if these are only non-mental activities, if these are really nothing more than the result of a physical movement of neurons which one person might have but another might not? Why bother convincing anyone through reasoning, if its not reasoning as we know it in the first place? In the end Carrier is left with a conclusion which would be exactly the same if he said nothing. Without the supernatural it is all equal to nonsense, because it is all non-mental.<br />So here is the second part of my question: where in the natural world do we find the origin of truth and rightness, and the ability to judge things according to them? Is it not the case that denying the supernatural requires the supernatural (i.e., unchangeable, eternal) values of what is right and true? In other words, is it not the case that you cannot disprove the supernatural without first assuming it? <br />What he does do, though, is point out the accommodation that takes place in Christian circles to escape the hard things of faith. Believing what God says when everyone tells you differently, and make claims to proofs to that effect, is not easy but it is the essence of faith.JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-28541085174951871172012-01-04T07:06:50.923-08:002012-01-04T07:06:50.923-08:00John V,
Maybe you can clarify by giving an example...John V,<br />Maybe you can clarify by giving an example of your question. Give us what you believe to be a 'true' statement, and tell us whether you can 'test' it or not, or whether you must assign it to the supernatural.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-18055623753419357942012-01-03T07:00:46.581-08:002012-01-03T07:00:46.581-08:00May I ask a question, for discussion? It seems to ...May I ask a question, for discussion? It seems to me that there are two kinds of tests which are referred to in Carrier's article, namely a test of sustaining a hypothesis, and a test to prove a hypothesis. Sustaining a theory is not the same as proving a theory, it seems to me. <br /><br />Again, a theory might be obviated because that which is testable could result in the exclusion of the possibility of the theory, not because the theory itself is testable. So there would be a "testability" by default, not by actual testing of the theory. It is easy to equivocate on the idea of testability. <br /><br />Therefore, I have this question: What is meant by "testable"? <br /><br />I also have this question: Is the measure of testing testable by the same standard? In order to say something is "true" can "true" be tested or is it of supernatural origin?JohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-32411663418267500592011-12-21T12:35:35.014-08:002011-12-21T12:35:35.014-08:00As Scripture rightly concludes, the problem for th...As Scripture rightly concludes, the problem for the naturalist is not an intellectual one, but a moral one. It's not that he doesn't 'get' it, not that he can't 'see' it, not that there is a lack of information for God's existence, but rather loving the darkness rather than the light (lest his nefarious deeds be exposed and he be found out for the phony hypocrite he is), because of his morally culpable deeds hates the light and believes the lie in contradistinction to the testimony of his own conscience.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-40966684057199781762011-12-15T07:42:20.903-08:002011-12-15T07:42:20.903-08:00RubeRad,
A theory might lead us to make several, ...RubeRad,<br /><br />A theory might lead us to make several, varied predictions. If some of those predictions are observed and "justify" the theory then scientists will have a high degree of confidence that unobserved predictions will also "prove" the theory in the face of conflicting evidence. For instance, Newton and Neptune (or was it Uranus?). <br /><br />One could then argue that based on previous successful prediction of "Christianity" we should have a high degree of confidence in future predictions.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-1985901966618396482011-12-15T07:33:24.476-08:002011-12-15T07:33:24.476-08:00True, it's pretty silly to cry "untestabl...True, it's pretty silly to cry "untestable" and "falsfied" at the same time. Although if pressed, the more sophisticated would probably elucidate what claims are untestable, and what claims he believes has been falsified.<br /><br />Re: predictive power: absolutely, every knee will bow and every tongue confess -- but the way science works, you're not supposed to have faith until <i>after</i> the predicted phenomena justify the hypothesis, so this truth is more likely to hinder discussion with naturalists than to help.RubeRadhttp://ruberad.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-5903297323617571862011-12-14T19:06:09.075-08:002011-12-14T19:06:09.075-08:00Hi Ruberad
Thanks for your comments. My statement...Hi Ruberad<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. My statement <i>"thus testability is not a satisfactory criterion"</i> refers to its usefulness in distinguishing naturalism from supernaturalism. One cannot hold, as many naturalists do, that creationism, for example, is both untestable and yet falsified. Supernaturalism is inherently no less testable than naturalism.<br /><br />The most powerful empirical tests concern precise predictions about future events. Christianity predicts certain events--life after death, the return of Christ, judgment, etc--that will be directly experienced by all humans.John Bylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-4285585260700325652011-12-14T12:28:40.369-08:002011-12-14T12:28:40.369-08:00if naturalism were true, we would know nothing at ...<i>if naturalism were true, we would know nothing at all.</i><br /><br />I think an honest naturalist would admit this, but counter that you are using a definition of "know" that only makes sense within a supernatural worldview. Within a supernatural worldview in which there is no foundational "mental", perhaps a naturalist would be content with a sufficiently believable illusion of knowing.<br /><br /><i>the past might have been quite different from naturalist projections</i><br /><br />It would perhaps be useful to have a different word for projections that go backwards; "retrojection"?<br /><br /><i>Perhaps, for example, the universe was created in mature form only a few thousand years ago.</i><br /><br />Or indeed, a few thousand seconds ago...<br /><br /><i>Thus testability is not a satisfactory criterion.</i><br /><br />Is this to say that YEC claims are not testable? If so, somebody should tell <a href="http://www.icr.org/" rel="nofollow">ICR</a>?RubeRadhttp://ruberad.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com