This week's top stories ...

Will,

I'm interested in the defense of Psychoanalysis presented in the Intelligent Life article.

The argument is something like this: We conventionally concern ourselves with surface behaviour in matters of mental health because many of our theories of the underlying causes of such behaviour tie in to notions that seem removed from everyday experience. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy presents surface level evaluations and immediate goals that mesh with our conscious conception of ourselves and the world as a way around this.

However, in doing so, in a way that appears to achieve results in the short term, we're not actively addressing the underlying causes. Psychoanalysis as a way around this provides models that the patient can discuss and scrutinize with the therapist, and thereby address and clarify their own self-image in a way that doesn't require prior social competence.


All fine and good. The problem is in the practice. To what degree can a victim of mental health problems establish enough sense of self to question the psychoanalyst's suggestions?

The psychoanalyst is in a huge position of trust and responsibility in a sense that is rarely the case of the Behavioural Therapist. Ought someone with mental health concerns trust someone offering him a big-picture explanation of his issues? The answer is almost certainly "no, you should be questioning the accuracy of that picture and deciding for yourself", but when you've got self-confidence problems and/or social phobias, you're not necessarily in a position to make that judgement.

The psychoanalyst needs to deliberately undermine his own authority when dealing with such patients, in order for psychoanalysis to achieve what the Intelligent Life article sees it as doing. Do we trust that human beings when generally given positions of authority over others will willingly yield such power?

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, as I understand it, can be somewhat carried out even in the assumption that therapists are selfishly motivated. The responsibility for the actual therapy is discharged from the therapist to the patient, and the therapist role is more that of a supervisor than a policy-writer. Yes, this means you've got to put quite a bit of effort into the process to get the results you want, but that's its virtue - if it was just a matter of sitting back and letting the fix run, it would be vulnerable to abuse. Indeed, Freud fits disturbingly neatly into a particular cultural position in history where this seems to have happened.

I have a very good friend who is a cognitive therapist, compassionate but deceptively severe in appearance; let us call her Jane.

I was once introducing her to another friend at a conference we were all attending and I said "John, this is Jane - you know, until I met her I'd always thought CBT stood for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy!" She looked puzzled and said "But it does mean that..." Later, however... !!!

The article from the Centre for Intelligent Design was amusing at least;

"I think what is really unacceptable to the establishment about ID is that it departs from the philosophy of materialism which now dominates the pursuit of science. This philosophy says, essentially, that only physical or material processes can be considered as valid explanations. Any other explanation, such as an intelligent cause of the universe, must be ruled out before you begin to assess the evidence. ID, on the other hand, prefers to go where the evidence leads."

Totally off the mark. There is no evidence for an intelligent creator (despite the insistance of some) so it's not included. Alastair Noble is guilty instantly of what he's accusing scientists of.

ID comes to the table with a gross assumption that there is design in the universe and looks to examine the evidence to find proof of its assumption. Data and theories are adapted to fit the idea that design is there in the first place. cDesign proponentists are already including a variable into their thinking before anything has been looked at.

Science comes to the evidence and works a theory based upon what can be seen from the evidence. The concepts that come from the evidence are only based upon what can be inferred from what is there. Nothing "must be ruled out" beforehand, you work with what you have and the evidence doesn't suggest an intelligent design at all. Nothing supernatural is included as the supernatural displays a consistent lack of anything regarding tangible evidence and refuses to follow scientific methodology. Micheal Behe, the poster child of ID, admitted in the Dover case in the US that if the definitions of science were broadened to included the acceptance of the supernatural, astrology would be considered a valid science.

Alastair Noble also claims that ID isn't about 'god of the gaps', however a key argument in the ID toolbox is "Oh, I cannot possibly imagine how x process or y structure could have evolved, it's too complex, therefore goddit". If that's not 'god of the gaps' I don't know what is.

Apologies for the tl;dr, and the hijacking of (another) thread (Sorry Will!), but the article is extremely flawed and I want to point this out to anyone who perhaps reads it from Will's link and seriously considers its words.

ID isn't science, it's theology, and until it's adherants can come up with valid, falsifiable theories (instead of publishing pop-pseudoscience books), it should just admit that it's creationism dressed up in fancy words.

I agree Natman, ID is theology window dressed as science. It seems an awful lot of money and resources are thrown at something many people don't need. People are often happy enough to accept evolution with their spiritual side without feeling the science negates it. Would be nice if all that research money could be ploughed into tackling social inequality

Parrhasios,

I always thought it meant something else, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, who'd have thunk eh!!

Natman -

"Science comes to the evidence and works a theory based upon what can be seen from the evidence."

Excellent. Therefore you will have to agree that science is limited to constructing theories that keep well away from anything that cannot be directly observed. So why do scientists keep insinuating that the 'unintelligence' theory is the only 'scientific' one (since they rule out the intelligence theory)? The origin of life has not been observed. Therefore theories about origins have to remain entirely in the realm of speculation. Don't complain: I am simply applying your logic.

If you don't accept this, then please provide the empirical evidence that proves that life definitely self-assembled without the need for the directing hand of intelligence. I am not being awkward by asking this; I am simply being consistent with the scientific method, which you seem to insist is the only way to discover truth. So where is this empirical evidence??

Furthermore, since science is limited to observation, then please provide the proof that justifies the idea that a non-empirical reality which is undeniably real - consciousness - must be explained materialistically.

Finally, please provide the empirical proof that empiricism is the only method of discovering truth. I've asked for this until I am bored sick. Still waiting...

So to paraphrase your words: the unintelligence theory is not science, it's philosophy (and bad philosophy at that), and it is simply atheism dressed up in technobabble to deceive those who feel compelled to live in awe of the scientific establishment.

LSV

I take it you're happy that ID is creationism by another name?

Excellent. Therefore you will have to agree that science is limited to constructing theories that keep well away from anything that cannot be directly observed.

So that's atomic theory gone. And quantum theory. We can't even imagine what it would be like to observe an electron or a photon behaving as a wave and a particle. Geology, that's a gonna, but your arguments are redolent of young earthers', so you probably won't mind seeing the back of that. Before the invention of the electron microscope in the 1930s, by your definition there wasn't much science around at all. Today, many analytical methods rely on none direct observation. Spectroscopy, for one.

Sorry, you can't ring fence science to exclude the bits you don't like. Well, you can, if you like, but it's a lonely furrow you are ploughing, you and those wacky young earthers. But you don't get to decide what is science and what isn't no matter how much you stamp your feet and make your lips quiver.

LSV,

Gods have not been observed. Therefore theories about gods have to remain entirely in the realm of speculation. Don't complain: I am simply applying your logic.

"...please provide the empirical evidence that proves that life definitely self-assembled without the need for the directing hand of intelligence."

I'm sorry, what? You want me to show you evidence that something -didn't- happen? Well, I can try....

There, I did it. There's no evidence to suggest that there was any intelligence involved, current hypothesis adequetely give good cause for abiogenesis without outside intervention. If you've evidence to add to that, I'm sure the biochemist community will be happy to consider it. I await your published paper with expectation.

Your 'paraphrase' is nothing more than a semantical mess with no basis on my words. Abiogenesis and evolution are not atheistic, that's a typical twisting of fundamentalist black and whites. My view of a godless universe is not shared by many scientists who accept all the current theories and reconcile it with a belief in god.

Plus your use of the term 'unintelligent' is not even wrong.

Excellent. Therefore you will have to agree that science is limited to constructing theories that keep well away from anything that cannot be directly observed. So why do scientists keep insinuating that the 'unintelligence' theory is the only 'scientific' one (since they rule out the intelligence theory)?

No, they don't "rule out" the "intelligence theory". They say that any theory needs to be built from the evidence, and there is no evidence whatsoever in favour of an "intelligence" (and it is a mark of the dishonesty of the ID movement that they use euphemisms rather than calling their "intelligence" God) meddling with the processes of evolution we can observe and measure. Their supposed "evidence" - rather vaguely defined concepts of "irreducible" and "specified" complexity are, at best, potential falsifiers of evolutionary theory. Even if they stood up to scrutiny - which they don't - they would offer not one iota of support for the assertion that an "intelligent designer" of undefined but possibly supernatural powers has interfered with the naturalistic processes we can observe and measure, possibly using supernatural methods, to create some biological systems. Such an assertion cannot be tested using the tools of science: scientific explanations need to set constraints on possible outcomes. "GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner did it" sets no such constraints.

The origin of life has not been observed. Therefore theories about origins have to remain entirely in the realm of speculation.

What nonsense! Many things we take for granted have not been observed. Theories about "origins" (another vague term beloved by creationists because it allows them to evade hard questions) are based on evidence and argument, and our knowledge of chemistry, biology and physics, as are all scientific theories. They are not "entirely in the realm of speculation".

Don't complain: I am simply applying your logic.

This is a flat falsehood, I'm afraid.

If you don't accept this, then please provide the empirical evidence that proves that life definitely self-assembled without the need for the directing hand of intelligence

More scientific illiteracy. If you think that life originated by the intervention of "the directing hand of intelligence", you need provide an hypothesis based on evidence which can be tested using the tools of science. I can assert that there is a pink teapot in orbit around one of the extrasolar planets announced by NASA yesterday, but that doesn't mean that the onus is on everyone else to disprove my assertion. It's up to me to provide evidence to support it. "It looks complex so GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner must have done it by magic" is not evidence.

I am not being awkward by asking this;

No, you are at best demonstrating scientific illiteracy, at worst dishonesty.

I am simply being consistent with the scientific method, which you seem to insist is the only way to discover truth.

No, you are demonstrating at best an ignorance of science and the scientific method and at worst are deliberately misrepresenting the scientific method. Science makes no claims to being the only way to discover "truth". In fact, science rejects the concept of an ultimate truth: scientific explanations are held to be provisional, and subject to revision or rejected if that is what the evidence demands. The irony is that science has advanced our knowledge and understanding of the universe more in the past century than pre-scientific paradigms achieved in a hundred millenia.

Furthermore, since science is limited to observation, then please provide the proof that justifies the idea that a non-empirical reality which is undeniably real - consciousness - must be explained materialisticall

Materialism is the assumption which is not only fundamental to science, it's what makes science possible. It is a mark of the dishonesty of the ID crew that on the one hand they demand that their religious dogma should be accorded the status of a scientific theory, and on the other hand demand that we redefine science to accommodate the supernatural explanations their "theory" requires.


Finally, please provide the empirical proof that empiricism is the only method of discovering truth. I've asked for this until I am bored sick. Still waiting...

Science does not claim to be the "only method of discovering truth". In fact, as I explained previously, science does not claim to offer "truth". Science does not need to justify the assumption of naturalism: it's value is demonstrated by the purely pragmatic reason that science works. If you want to reject science, fine. That's your prerogative, though there is some irony in the fact that you use a device made possible by the findings of science to communicate that rejection. But if you demand that your religious dogma is valid science whilst simultaneously demanding that redefine science to accommodate your religious dogma, that's dishonest.

Richard Forrest -

Having just read your rather heated diatribe, the only logical conclusion I can draw from it is that, from a scientific point of view, we cannot know for sure how anything originated. Concerning the past, all we have are theories. So therefore, just as there is no relationship between religious ideas and science, so there is no relationship between atheism and science.

If we agree that science is limited in scope, and that its purpose is pragmatic, then, of course, I can understand your viewpoint. But this argument also applies to atheism and its dogmatic claim that only its view of reality is rational and that theistic views are irrational.

I have no idea why you seem to be suggesting that I am rejecting science. You seem to be yet another person who cannot distinguish between methodological and philosophical materialism. Science is practical, as you have pointed out. Therefore it tells us nothing about either theism or atheism. These ideologies should be studied from a philosophical and not a scientific point of view. The idea that someone who believes in an intelligent creator (a creator who has therefore established ordered and predictable laws within nature) has somehow 'rejected science', is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever to enter the human mind (and I hope that you are not suggesting that, although it's hard not to read that in your comments). It certainly makes a mockery of the history of science. And then to suggest that a Christian is being a hypocrite by using a computer (as if atheism is a necessary condition for the development of technology) is beyond laughable.

If science is limited in scope, then it is dishonest to appeal to it to support any truth claims about reality as a whole. I hope this realisation eventually gets through to certain regular contributors on this blog!

grokesx (@ 8) -

Please direct your comment to your mate Natman. He's the one who keeps going on about observation. I actually totally agree that certain realities can be inferred from what can be observed. That is, after all, the basis of my whole argument!!

As I say, please break this news to Natman. But be gentle, pleeeease.

(P.S.: It's good to know that 'strong empiricism' has finally been given the last rites, and that, therefore, the philosophy that relies on it is looking rather sickly!)

Having just read your rather heated diatribe, the only logical conclusion I can draw from it is that, from a scientific point of view, we cannot know for sure how anything originated. Concerning the past, all we have are theories.
As far as science is concerned, all we have about anything at all concerning the universe from its origin to end are theories, and all such theories are provisional. That does not, however, mean that all theories are equally valid, or that scientific theories are empty speculation. They are the product of the cumulative efforts of scientists, in some cases over several generations, and have been refined by hypothesis testing and the acquisition of evidence to the point at which they provide an extremely robust model of how some aspect of the universe works.

So therefore, just as there is no relationship between religious ideas and science, so there is no relationship between atheism and science.

Where on earth did this non sequitur come from? Your post made no reference to atheism. If we are to believe the creationists, this is not a religious issue, but an issue of science. Of course, the fact that they inevitably bring religious belief into any discussion of the subject shows that their claim is false.

But this argument also applies to atheism and its dogmatic claim that only its view of reality is rational and that theistic views are irrational.

I don't suppose many atheists would agree with this representation of their position, but as it is utterly irrelevant to the point at issue, I fail to see why you are introducing it. This is NOT a dispute between science and religion. It is, if we are to believe the claims of creationists, a scientific issue. There are plenty of scientists who are also religious believers who are just as opposed to creationism - which includes ID, of course - as any atheist.

I have no idea why you seem to be suggesting that I am rejecting science.
It's because you are trying to have supernatural explanations considered as science. That's the whole point of the ID movement, and the reason why scientists oppose it.

You seem to be yet another person who cannot distinguish between methodological and philosophical materialism.
What on earth have I written to make you think that? I am very clear on the distinction.

Science is practical, as you have pointed out. Therefore it tells us nothing about either theism or atheism.
And where have I claimed that it should? Of course it can't! That's why demanding that we treat the proposition that an unspecified (and deliberately so) "intelligent designer", of possibly supernatural powers has interferred with naturalistic processes to create certain biological systems as non-scientific.

These ideologies should be studied from a philosophical and not a scientific point of view.
Quite. So why are the ID crowd demanding that we should redefine science to allow their religious dogma to be considered as a scientific theory?

The idea that someone who believes in an intelligent creator (a creator who has therefore established ordered and predictable laws within nature) has somehow 'rejected science', is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever to enter the human mind (and I hope that you are not suggesting that, although it's hard not to read that in your comments).

I suggest that any intelligent reading of my post shows that, yet again, you are inventing a position for me which I have not expressed. However, if you are demanding that the assumption of naturalism which makes science possible so that your religious dogma can be taught as science in science classes, you are rejecting science. That's what the ID crowd are promoting, and that is why scientists reject it. Oh, and the fact that ID proponents were shown to be willing to lie under oath when their case was tested in the US courts (see the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling), showing that the movement is fundamentally dishonest is perhaps a better reason. That's one of the principal reasons why scientists who are religious believers are opposed to creationism: the deep and systematic dishonesty of the movement reflects badly on their faith.

If science is limited in scope, then it is dishonest to appeal to it to support any truth claims about reality as a whole.

And, once again, you are inventing a position I have never expressed. I have quite specifically explained that science does NOT claim to offer truth! If you want truth, ask someone with religious convictions. Of course, the problem you then have is that most of them will give a different version of the truth, and most of those versions will be contradictory.

Hellop people, I've been too busy lately to post regularly. From LSVs same tiresome old posts it seems I may not have missed much.

But I've got two religion-related stories for this weeks list.

First is how £2 million in foreign development aid was used to pay for the expenses of the popes visit.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110203/tuk-questions-over-funding-for-papal-vis-45dbed5.html

While development aid being used to pay for having the man in silly hat over is annoying, it gets much worse. The second story is downright horrific. A 14 year old Bangladeshi girl was accused of having an affair. Under Sharia law she was sentenced to 80 lashes by clerics and elders. She died in hospital in less than a week after her torment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12344959

Richard Forrest -

OK, fair enough. I think we agree that the scope of science is limited. Having spent my time arguing with people like Natman, and putting up with the smugness of a certain other contributor who likes to sound intelligent but says nothing much, I'm afraid I seem to have put you in the same category. I apologise for assuming you were saying something that you clearly were not.

PK - welcome back to the magic roundabout.

Bravo Richard, welcome to the wonderful world of LSV!

with the smugness of a certain other contributor who likes to sound intelligent but says nothing much

If that's me, have the honesty to name names, and you're right, I don't say much because I'm usually asking you to justify your arguments and pointing out that to demand proofs for arguments I haven't made doesn't look good. But hey ho, that empiricism, it's self refuting, you know.

(P.S.: It's good to know that 'strong empiricism' has finally been given the last rites, and that, therefore, the philosophy that relies on it is looking rather sickly!)

Or to look at it another way - are you acknowledging that most scientific people don't hold to strong empiricism? That's one of the things I've not been saying these last few months, along with saying that science doesn't assume philosophical naturalism and gets along quite nicely without it.

Please direct your comment to your mate Natman. He's the one who keeps going on about observation. I actually totally agree that certain realities can be inferred from what can be observed. That is, after all, the basis of my whole argument!!

Except when it isn't and you are telling us that:

Therefore you will have to agree that science is limited to constructing theories that keep well away from anything that cannot be directly observed.

Come on. You usually leave it a little while before you directly contradict yourself.

14 Peter Klaver

That story of the child being lashed to death is horrific. It has been reported that she was raped by her married cousin (aged 40) then accused of having an affair with him. It was 4 Islamic clerics who ordered the girl to be lashed. Well, they have God on their side!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

In other news Catholic Org praises "heroic priest" Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer as he steps down as president of Human Life International, a US anti abortion group.
He now admits to "violating the boundaries of chastity with an adult female who was under my spiritual care" during an exorcism.
Linda Blair refuses to comment.

OK, fair enough. I think we agree that the scope of science is limited.
So can we also agree that
1) "Theory" in the context of science does not mean empty speculation, but is rather an exhaustively tested series of hypotheses built from the evidence which provides a solid model of how a part of the universe functions
2) That if someone claims to have a scientific theory, the absolute minimum requirement is that it sets constraints on possible outcomes.
3) That there are no constraints on what an unspecified but possibly supernatural "intelligent designer" can do, which makes the assertion of the intervention of such an entity impossible to test using the tools of science.
4) That the assumption of naturalism is fundamental to science. If you want to be pedantic, science is based on (and defined by) methodological naturalism, which is a completely different concept from philosophical naturalism. Methological naturalism is the working assumption that we can investigate only phenomena which can be observed and measured, whereas philosophical naturalism is the philosophy that only things which can be observed and measured exist.
5) That evolutionary theory provides the only scientific explanation for much of the science of biology, and there is no other scientific theory to explain the evidence on which it is based.
6) That ID, because it fails to meet the minimum requirements for a scientific theory, is not science.
7) That the supposed evidence for ID, the existence of certain "irreducibly complex" systems, or of systems having "specified complexity" are at best falsifiers of evolution in small incremental steps.
8) That the falsification of one particular scientific theory does not mean that we should reject the assumption of naturalism which defines science in favour of the pre-scientific paradigm of supernatural intervention.

Richard Forrest (@ 21) -

So can we also agree that

1) "Theory" in the context of science does not mean empty speculation, but is rather an exhaustively tested series of hypotheses built from the evidence which provides a solid model of how a part of the universe functions

Fine - if that is what 'theory' really does mean. If that's the proper definition of 'theory', then so be it. But then don't start calling an idea - or set of ideas - a 'theory' that has not been 'exhaustively tested', especially a theory that contains ideas, which, by their very nature, cannot be exhaustively tested, since they are events locked in the past and outside the scope of the scientific method. And by 'exhaustively tested', I assume you also mean 'exhaustively cleansed of any unproven and unsubstantiated philosophical presuppositions', which, by their very nature, exclude certain other possibly legitimate explanations.

2) That if someone claims to have a scientific theory, the absolute minimum requirement is that it sets constraints on possible outcomes.

Constraints established on the basis of what presupposition(s)? I can't agree with that without more clarification.

3) That there are no constraints on what an unspecified but possibly supernatural "intelligent designer" can do, which makes the assertion of the intervention of such an entity impossible to test using the tools of science.

If this is simply an affirmation of 'methodological materialism', then, yes, I agree that this is necessary as a tool for 'doing science', as long as 'science' is understood to be a limited practical discipline, that has absolutely nothing to say about 'metaphysics' (i.e. the nature of reality as a whole). If we want to design a bridge, we need to use methodological materialism, because factoring in supernatural agencies in our calculations is patently absurd. That would be a 'category error'. But it would also be a 'category error' to claim that a metaphysics of 'ultimate mindlessness and purposelessness' is a necessary condition for being able to design a bridge! The 'mindlessness and purposelessness' philosophy is a metaphysical construct which has no relevance to practical science.

4) That the assumption of naturalism is fundamental to science. If you want to be pedantic, science is based on (and defined by) methodological naturalism, which is a completely different concept from philosophical naturalism. Methological naturalism is the working assumption that we can investigate only phenomena which can be observed and measured, whereas philosophical naturalism is the philosophy that only things which can be observed and measured exist.

I don't understand your use of the word 'pedantic' in this context. There is absolutely nothing pedantic at all about making a clear distinction between a method and a metaphysical hypothesis. In fact, the assumption of *the validity of reason* is also fundamental to science. Methodological materialism functions according to the objective validity of logic. But philosophical materialism provides no explanation as to why logic could conceivably be valid, since it would simply be the 'emergent property' of natural instinct (in other words, subjectivism). There is also the ethical dimension, which science cannot ignore, and it is not clear to me how ethical and moral ideas can be justified within the framework of philosophical materialism.

5) That evolutionary theory provides the only scientific explanation for much of the science of biology, and there is no other scientific theory to explain the evidence on which it is based.

We are supposed to be talking about the nature of 'science per se', whereas you have imported into the discussion a particular scientific explanation about the development of life. If science is based on intellectual rigour, and claims to be honest and objective, then it cannot rule out alternative hypotheses. You may claim that the theory you favour has been 'exhaustively tested', and that alternative theories have been comprehensively falsified. I remain to be convinced about that.

6) That ID, because it fails to meet the minimum requirements for a scientific theory, is not science.

And the minimum requirements for a scientific theory are? If 'science' is something arbitrarily established on the basis of certain philosophical presuppositions, then I suppose you could make this claim. But don't then pretend that this thing called 'science' has any kind of objective validity. From the point of view of logic, I cannot see how anyone can justify driving a wedge between the concepts of 'intelligence' and 'complexity'. There is absolutely no logical argument that informs us that "we should never be allowed to infer an intelligent cause for a complex effect"!! If you know of one, please reveal it.

Of course, it all depends what we mean by 'ID'. We could possibly be talking at cross purposes here. If ID concerns 'first cause' (i.e. the origin of life, for example), then we are in the realms of metaphysics, since this touches on our understanding of reality as a whole. But clearly 'ID' is irrelevant at the practical level - such as designing a bridge - as I have argued. (Although, as a Christian, I would say that God - the intelligent creator - has delegated intelligent design capabilities to man. So, from the human point of view, of course we cannot design a bridge without 'ID' - i.e. *human intelligence*, which, in my view, ultimately derives from an intelligent source - it has to, since an effect cannot rise above its cause. Now you may not agree with that viewpoint, but I challenge anyone to fault the logic of it!)

7) That the supposed evidence for ID, the existence of certain "irreducibly complex" systems, or of systems having "specified complexity" are at best falsifiers of evolution in small incremental steps.

Well, that is a matter of speculation. It could be a circular argument. Who knows? We're in the realm here of "if a naturalistic explanation can be formulated for any phenomenon, then it follows that that explanation must be regarded as the only valid one". I don't think it's unreasonable to factor in the concept of 'plausibility' when constructing these hypotheses. But even the idea of what is plausible depends on one's a priori premises. So we're back to philosophy, I'm afraid.

8) That the falsification of one particular scientific theory does not mean that we should reject the assumption of naturalism which defines science in favour of the pre-scientific paradigm of supernatural intervention.

I don't agree with your use of the term 'pre-scientific'. That's a highly loaded term, which conflates a philosophical movement (the Enlightenment) with the advance in our knowledge of the physical universe and the progress of technological innovation. Some of the pioneers of so-called modern science certainly believed in God: e.g. Faraday, Newton and Clerk Maxwell, so I reject the idea that theistic ideas are 'pre-scientific'. And why should they be, since, as we have apparently agreed, the scope of science is limited!

I've been generally ignoring this conversation, due to having heard it about x hundred times before, but LSV, RE: "... especially a theory that contains ideas, which, by their very nature, cannot be exhaustively tested, since they are events locked in the past and outside the scope of the scientific method."

Why are historical events any different to physical objects? We have observable traces of historical events, just as we do of any other branch of the material sciences. It strikes me you should be sticking to your guns on this and admitting that the definition of theory in question is simply unsatisfiable, whether by history or any other field of investigation.

here's one from the BBC news website 'Catholic Mass is "Sexist and Elitist" says Priests'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12366734

Assoc of Catholic Priests at loggerheads with Vatican over new text to be used that is sexist, elitist and obscure and other changes to text that influence interpretation........good that some are recognising this but like how long has it taken to state the obvious?????

But then don't start calling an idea - or set of ideas - a 'theory' that has not been 'exhaustively tested', especially a theory that contains ideas, which, by their very nature, cannot be exhaustively tested
I haven't.
Creationists have.
since they are events locked in the past and outside the scope of the scientific method
Why on earth are events which happened in the past "outside the scope of the scientific method? In fact, how on earth can we investigate events which didn't happen in the past? We look at the evidence, we assume that the universe behaves in a consistent and coherent manner, and that GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner doesn't intervene in an arbitrary way to do things like change the rate of radiometric decay of some isotopes without changing the heat that decay produces.
Creationists assume that GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner is doing this all the time.
And by 'exhaustively tested', I assume you also mean 'exhaustively cleansed of any unproven and unsubstantiated philosophical presuppositions', which, by their very nature, exclude certain other possibly legitimate explanations.
No, by "exhaustively tested" I mean exhaustively tested under the same assumption as any scientific investigation which is that the universe behaves in a consistent and coherent manner. It's called "science". If you want supernatural intervention to be considered a legitimate explanation that's your business, but don't pretend to yourself or anyone else that this is a scientific explanation.
Constraints established on the basis of what presupposition(s)? I can't agree with that without more clarification.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. There are very significant constraints on evolutionary theory. If a dog gave birth to a cat it would falsify evolutionary theory. If we carried out experiments on populations of replicating organisms and found that the genetic makeup of those populations does not change in response to environmental stress it would falsify evolutionary theory.
Creationist theories, on the other hand can "explain" everything. As dog giving birth to a cat? GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner did it! Pink unicorns appearing in the air over Leicester Square dancing a quadrille? GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner did it! A dog giving birth to a previously unknown colour of the electromagnetic spectrum? GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner did it!
The reason why the explanation of supernatural intervention was discarded in the development of modern science is not that all scientists became atheists, but because the explanation that GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner did it is an unfruitful.

If this is simply an affirmation of 'methodological materialism', then, yes, I agree that this is necessary as a tool for 'doing science', as long as 'science' is understood to be a limited practical discipline, that has absolutely nothing to say about 'metaphysics' (i.e. the nature of reality as a whole).

As a matter of idle curiosity, how do you propose that we carry out a scientific investigation without the assumption of naturalism? Science makes no claims to metaphysical insights. That's the business of philosophers and the religious. Science works very well without bothering itself with such untestable speculations. Why do we need to change it?

The 'mindlessness and purposelessness' philosophy is a metaphysical construct which has no relevance to practical science.

So what?
On the other hand, science works very well, and has advanced our knowledge and understanding of the universe vastly more in the past century than in the previous hundred millenia of mankinds existence when supernatural intervention was considered to be common.

I don't understand your use of the word 'pedantic' in this context.
It seems perfectly clear to me why I'm using the term: it's because creationists persistently and dishonestly conflate metaphysical with philosophical naturalism. From the point of view of how we engage in the practice of science, however, there is no difference in how a scientists goes about their research if they believe in a God who has put the natural laws of the universe in place, and those who believe that only phenomena which can be observed and measured exist, and there is no God.

There is also the ethical dimension, which science cannot ignore, and it is not clear to me how ethical and moral ideas can be justified within the framework of philosophical materialism.
We are not discussing philosophical materialism. We are discussing science.

If science is based on intellectual rigour, and claims to be honest and objective, then it cannot rule out alternative hypotheses.
It doesn't.
However, hypotheses need to be based on evidence and testable by the acquisition of further evidence.

You may claim that the theory you favour has been 'exhaustively tested', and that alternative theories have been comprehensively falsified. I remain to be convinced about that.
Well, every biologist on the planet not blinded by religious dogma is convinced. What do you know that the people who actually *study* the subject don't?

And the minimum requirements for a scientific theory are?
That it a based on evidence, sets constraints on possible outcomes, and can be tested by the acquisition of further evidence. I thought I'd explained that.

If 'science' is something arbitrarily established on the basis of certain philosophical presuppositions, then I suppose you could make this claim.
It hasn't. Science has developed into its modern form over the centuries because it produces reliable results. We use science not because of any a priori commitment to a philosophical stance, but for the purely pragmatic reason that it works. Modern science has advanced with extraordinary rapidity with the rejection of the idea of ultimate truth.
But don't then pretend that this thing called 'science' has any kind of objective validity
The validity of science is demonstrated by the fact that it works. It produces results.

From the point of view of logic, I cannot see how anyone can justify driving a wedge between the concepts of 'intelligence' and 'complexity'.
From a logical viewpoint, I can't see any reason to think that they are anything other than very, very different concepts. There is a whole field of mathematics devoted to the subject of complexity, and one of it's rather startling findings is that simple algorithms - which, of course, require no intelligent input - can produce extraordinarily complex outcomes. Weather patterns are very complex, but nobody thinks that there is some higher intelligence moving all those atoms and molecules around to create such complexity. I don't look at the ludicrous complexity of Microsoft Windows with it's endless patch on patch on patch fixes, and think "Wow! That shows intelligent design!"

There is absolutely no logical argument that informs us that "we should never be allowed to infer an intelligent cause for a complex effect"!! If you know of one, please reveal it.
Nobody has ever made such an argument. However, there is no reason to infer an "intelligent cause" unless there is evidence for such an "intelligent cause". Empty assertion is not evidence.


Of course, it all depends what we mean by 'ID'. We could possibly be talking at cross purposes here.
ID means "Intelligent Design", a pseudo-scientific concept devised by creationists in an attempt to sneak their religious dogma into science classes in breach of US law. It was devised by lawyer, and for religious, social and political rather than scientific purposes. The aims and objectives of the ID movement are set out clearly in the 'Wedge Document', which is freely available on the internet. The Discovery Institute was set up to promote the falsehood that ID is a scientific theory. They have quietly dropped the assertion that it is science after it was shown to be thinly disguised religious dogma in 'Kitzmiller v. Dover' trial, but the message doesn't seem to have got through to many ID supporters.

It does not mean that concept that there is a guiding intelligence to the universe. Many scientists believe in God, but that does make the way in which they go about their science any different from that of an atheist.
Your assertion that complexity is the hallmark of intelligence comes straight out of the ID handbook. It is an unsupported assertion.

Now you may not agree with that viewpoint, but I challenge anyone to fault the logic of it!)
I'm not arguing against that viewpoint! I'm pointing out that such a viewpoint is not a valid scientific argument. By all means believe in your euphemistically named "Intelligent Designer", but don't pretend to yourself or anyone else that such a belief is a valid scientific theory.

Well, that is a matter of speculation.
Nonsense! The ID argument is based on a passage in Darwin's 'Origin of Species' in which he explores the ways in which his theory of evolution by natural selection could be falsified. All ID proponents have ever offered as evidence for their "theory" are potential falsifiers of Darwin's formulation of evolutionary theory. This is a fact, not speculation.

We're in the realm here of "if a naturalistic explanation can be formulated for any phenomenon, then it follows that that explanation must be regarded as the only valid one".
Again, you are misrepresenting the argument. The argument is that because science can only consider naturalistic explanations, and explanation which is not naturalistic cannot be considered as valid science. Furthermore, the argument that because your explanation demands supernatural explanations, we should redefine science to accommodate supernatural explanations so that we can call your explanation valid science is downright dishonest.

I don't think it's unreasonable to factor in the concept of 'plausibility' when constructing these hypotheses.
Actually, the idea of 'plausibility' being valid is an extremely weak argument. I can think of few less plausible concepts than those which make up quantum theory, yet it provides the most accurate model of the behaviour of any system in any field of science. 'Plausible' is little more than an appeal to our prejudices.

Some of the pioneers of so-called modern science certainly believed in God: e.g. Faraday, Newton and Clerk Maxwell, so I reject the idea that theistic ideas are 'pre-scientific'.


Again, what on earth has this to do with the issue? Many modern scientists - including many evolutionary biologists - believe in God. That doesn't mean that they factor God into their equations, or invoke supernatural intervention as a factor. Maxwell didn't. Faraday didn't. They worked under the assumption of methodological naturalism - i.e. that the universe behaves in a consistent and coherent manner. Newton believed in a God who set the workings of the universe in place, and that the laws he was discovering were ultimate truths. He was shown to be wrong, especially by Einstein, because his idea of ultimate truth was discarded as unfruitful.

@Richard Forrest

Awesome posts. #25 beautifully sums up most of the themes in exchanges on science/religion/ID on here for the past year or more.

Richard Forrest -

Thanks for your response. Much of it is a misunderstanding (seasoned with the usual caricatures of theism) of what I wrote, and if I feel inclined to write another long post to elaborate on that, I will, but what's the point?

I think I can sum up the situation by saying that we seem to agree that science is limited. If this is the case, then science cannot be appealed to in order to attempt to refute the position of theists. If you have been following some of the threads on W&T (and I don't blame you for not bothering!) you will have seen that I tend to appeal to philosophical arguments in the atheism v. theism debate, since I realise that science is not the final arbiter of truth. Science itself is subject to the rules of logic and sound epistemology. As you have pointed out, moral issues are not part of science, but I hope you would agree that it is pretty difficult to apply the fruits of scientific discovery and experimentation without some kind of moral purpose.

The idea that I understand ID to mean that God actively manages storm clouds etc, is a straw man argument. The "little men in the machine" caricature is not what ID is - at least as far as I accept it. I have explained my position here.

I hope the atheists on this blog, who agree with your viewpoint, will now desist from appealing to 'science' to rubbish theism, since that is a category error. I'm not holding my breath, however.

LSV,

You hold an opinion, against the combined efforts of over 150 years of biological research, that's based on the bible, a book with no supporting evidence, of dubious authenticity and authorship that not only contains glaring internal inconsistencies but a jumble of beliefs that are diametrically opposed.

Your claims to fundamental philosophical points are merely a clever way of avoiding debate over technical scientific issues that you clearly have no knowledge about based on your earlier posts regarding complexity and evolution.

Intelligent design, or let's just call it creationism, for I seriously doubt you'd be happy with assigning design to extraterrestials, is a pile of monkey droppings with nothing going for it other than well funded backers with no interest in facts but a driving ideology.

Natman -

Oooh. Touched a sensitive spot, did I? I think you need to go and have a wee lie down, my friend, as you seem a bit stressed. "Pile of monkey droppings"? Ha ha! (I enjoyed that one!). Keep up the insults. And once you've calmed down, you may want to sign up for a course in the philosophy of science, since you clearly don't even understand what science is (and its obvious limitations).

As for expressing my 'opinion' - well, Natman, at least we have something in common: we both claim to be 'freethinkers'. I use my freedom to draw my own conclusions without being railroaded by an ideology dressed up as 'science'. I'm afraid I still don't 'get' how one has to believe that the whole of reality is ultimately mindless and without purpose and meaning in order to study nature. It's an audacious claim, and if there are any intellectual problems with the Bible, those issues pale into insignificance compared to the problem of having to square the intelligence, order and control necessary for successful scientific research with the crackpot philosophy of nihilism, and its ludicrous claim that one must only be allowed to infer a mindless cause for a complex effect!!

Natman -

Further to my last comment...

You say:
"Your claims to fundamental philosophical points are merely a clever way of avoiding debate over technical scientific issues that you clearly have no knowledge about based on your earlier posts regarding complexity and evolution."

OK, so therefore please provide the technical scientific evidence that disproves theism, and that justifies your derogatory comments about religion and, more specifically, Christianity. But since you regard philosophy as a smokescreen, then, according to your own thinking, you are not permitted to provide any scientific evidence that is influenced (in even the smallest degree) by any kind of philosophical presupposition.

If you have the nerve to answer this, then you must understand that I will be looking very closely at your comments, to see if you have complied with the requirement outlined above. If you fail to comply with this requirement, and I detect any kind of philosophical idea by which you interpret evidence, then I don't think it's unreasonable of me to accuse you of hypocrisy.

So come on, Mr 'Scientist', let's see this *pure* 'scientific evidence'...

Thanks for your response. Much of it is a misunderstanding (seasoned with the usual caricatures of theism)

I have not even mentioned theism in my posts! What do you think it tells us that you cannot defend your position without misrepresenting mine?
I think I have responded directly to the argument you made in your posts. If you think I have misunderstood your argument, perhaps you need to express it more clearly.

I think I can sum up the situation by saying that we seem to agree that science is limited. If this is the case, then science cannot be appealed to in order to attempt to refute the position of theists.

I'm not doing so now, I haven't done so in my previous posts and I won't do so in any future posts.

If you have been following some of the threads on W&T (and I don't blame you for not bothering!) you will have seen that I tend to appeal to philosophical arguments in the atheism v. theism debate,

I'm sorry, but that is a flat falsehood! You have specifically claimed that complexity is empirical - i.e. scientific - evidence for God. That is the argument I am opposing, as I have made it clear.


since I realise that science is not the final arbiter of truth. Science itself is subject to the rules of logic and sound epistemology.

I'm not arguing against that, and I have made my position on that crystal clear. Why bring it up again?

As you have pointed out, moral issues are not part of science, but I hope you would agree that it is pretty difficult to apply the fruits of scientific discovery and experimentation without some kind of moral purpose.

And what on earth has that to do with the subject under discussion?


The idea that I understand ID to mean that God actively manages storm clouds etc, is a straw man argument.

That is not what I was arguing. You asserted that complexity is empirical evidence for God.You have claimed that complexity cannot be separated from intelligence. The examples I gave show quite clearly and categorically that this is a false premise. That means your argument is built on a false premise, which means that your argument is unsound.

The "little men in the machine" caricature is not what ID is - at least as far as I accept it. I have explained my position here.

Yes, I've read it. In fact, I've read that argument, or variations of it, over and over again in many different creationist sources. It is fundamentally flawed because it draws a false analogy, namely that factories manufacturing goods behave in the same way as biological organisms reproducing. They don't. Factories don't replicate themselves. Manufactured objects don't replicate themselves. Biological organisms do replicate themselves, and because that replication is slighly imperfect, it creates the variation on which selection can act to drive the process of evolution. This is not an analogy, and not a fantasy, but a process we can an have observed in nature, and which provides the only scientific explanation for the diversity of life, it's biology, it's geographical distribution, and the fossil record.

I hope the atheists on this blog, who agree with your viewpoint, will now desist from appealing to 'science' to rubbish theism, since that is a category error.

I suggest that the opposite is the case. You are arguing that there is empirical evidence for the existence of God, are offering flawed arguments based on empirical assertions to support your argument, but are claiming that it is the onus of science to provide evidence for the non-existence of God rather than that the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claium,

It seems to me that the poster commiting category errors here is you.

The idea that I understand ID to mean that God actively manages storm clouds etc, is a straw man argument.
I didn't offer that in response to your ID argument. I offered it in your response that complexity requires intelligent input, which is the basis of your ID argument. Complexity does not require intelligent input, as the examples I give demonstrate. So your argument is based on a false premise, which makes it unsound.

RF: I'm not antiscience by any means but for me it doesn't have all the answers. You say science works - and it does up to a point. But if science is soooo good why is the health of humanity deteriorating? Why is mental ill health rising, diabetes rising, cancer 1 in 3, breast cancer now 1 in 8, exhaustion rising, addiction rising, violent crime rising.....if science is soooo good why does it not have the answers to these questions??

RF: I'm not antiscience by any means but for me it doesn't have all the answers.
I've never argued that it does, and neither would any other scientist. After all, if we had all the answers, what would be the point of science?
You say science works - and it does up to a point. But if science is soooo good why is the health of humanity deteriorating?
In the developed world where scientific medicine is available, we are healthier than we have ever been and are living active lives for much longer. I'm in my late fifties, which was considered old age in my grandparents time, but am still fit and healthy and can look forward to a few more decades of active life. Life expectancy is still rising.
In what way is this evidence for the health of humanity deteriorating?
Why is mental ill health rising,
It isn't. It's just that we are now much more aware of it.
diabetes rising,
Living longer, more food available and a less active life-style.
cancer 1 in 3,
We are living long enough to develop cancer. There is no indication that it's incidence is rising. We find cancers in Egyptian mummies 4000 years old.
breast cancer now 1 in 8,
It's a genetically determined disease, and because people are living longer there is more chance for it to develop. When life expectancy was 40 years, most people died before they had a chance to develop cancers of any sort. Of course, with scientific medicine the chances of surviving breast cancer are much better than they were a couple of decades ago, and getting better all the time.
exhaustion rising,
It is? Tell that to the children who worked a 16 hour day in factories.
addiction rising,
It is? If you think that, I suggest you have a rather poor knowledge of history. Alcohol addiction was a major social ill at the beginning of the 19th century. Addiction to various drugs, including opium and cocaine was common in the 19th century because they were freely available.
violent crime rising.....
Actually, violent crime is falling - at least, that's what the statistics show. Violent crime was far more common a couple of centuries ago than it is today.

More to the point, if you are to reject science as a way of addressing these problems, what is your solution and how do you propose to test its success?

Eunice,

When you say science doesn't have all the answers you are absolutely right, science is only the best means we have to continuously search and define (and redefine where necessary) our world. It in itself is not perfect just the best we have and it is made as rigorous as we can make it.

Now if you posit a perfect intelligence as our creator and the creator of all things then I think you have valid questions to ask of that intelligence as to why he allowed all these things to occur.

Eunice,

Nearly every ill you put forwards is simply a good use of statistics to represent your own viewpoint and a clear example of a lack of use of citations.

Of course, if you read the newspapers, particulary ones like the Daily Mail and The Sun, you'll come away with the impression that society is going to pot, it's how they sell. If, however, you talked to other people about their own experiences, not andecdotal stories of things that they've heard happening, you'll realise that this is the Golden Age of humanity; we've never had it so good and it's only getting better.

LSV,

"Oooh. Touched a sensitive spot, did I?"

The only sore spot you touch is your unended ability to take someone's posts, twist the meanings and then argue against points not even raised.

Even Richard, who seems new to this debate, has noticed it.

Natman -

"The only sore spot you touch is your unended ability to take someone's posts, twist the meanings and then argue against points not even raised."

Such as?

LSV,

Read some of previous posts from Richard. He state quite clearly a number of instances where you've taken his words, applied your own brand of logic upon them, then sprouted out an argument not based on anything he's said.

I'd sort through the other threads to find other examples, but frankly, I've better things to do.

PS.

How do you determine which supernatural claims are to be considered, and which are not? What's your basis for it?

Natman -

And to think that I even apologised to Richard (#15)!

A shameful comment, Natman. Even by your standards.

LSV,

I think we need to press reset on the entire debate. Richard seems to be bringing a sense of clarity to the discussion and is pretty much saying, in much better terms, what I've been attempting to put across.

I'll leave him to it as he's much more eloquent and fresh. Once he's fed up of your logical merry-go-rounds I might jump back in.

Natman -

Alright, Natman. Perhaps the discussion has got a bit out of hand.

Allow me to clarify something. I don't agree with a certain creationist method of reasoning. I saw a typical example of it today...

A few months ago, I picked up a particular creationist book, which I've only read part of (not helped by the fact that it is pretty badly written). I thought I would have another look at it today, and I was aghast to read the following argument, concerning the assumptions about the methodology of radiometric dating. In one of the author's lectures he used the illustration of a calibrated cylinder of water, which contained 300ml, and there was a tap dripping above it, filling it at a rate of 50ml per hour. He then asked the audience how long it had taken to fill up. Someone, of course, answered that it had taken six hours.

He then argued that that answer was wrong, in that it was based on certain unproven assumptions, such as that the cylinder was empty at the outset, that it was not leaking, and that the flow of water into it had been constant. He then argued that only an eyewitness would know whether these assumptions were correct.

Now I am not faulting the internal logic of his analogy (whether it's at all relevant to the issue of radiometric dating will have to be decided by better minds than mine), but then he makes the point that God was the eyewitness to what happened in the past and used that as an argument to trust in the statements of the Bible, in order to draw scientific conclusions.

Now, Natman, it might surprise you to know that I, a believer in God, reacted quite badly when I read this argument. Obviously I believe that God was indeed an eyewitness to events in the past, and I certainly don't wish to say anything against - or mock - my own deeply held beliefs. But I would agree that this is most definitely not a scientific argument and should never be used in this way to support a scientific theory! So I hope you will accept that not all "believers in an intelligent creator" subscribe to this kind of 'ultra-creationist' reasoning.

I look at the whole issue from a more philosophical point of view. Strictly speaking empirical scientific evidence can only take us so far when dealing with metaphysical issues - i.e. issues relating to the nature of reality as a whole. I tend to agree with this post in 'The New Agnostics' thread from last August - and this supports the view that the scope of science is limited, and that we have to settle for a certain agnosticism with regard to issues outside the remit of the scientific method. You will perhaps see those issues as irrelevant; I don't, for reasons I have given over many months.

Richard, Richard, Richard... ( #33)

Breast cancer - a genetically determined disease!! Hummph. Genes, schmenes. Don't you know (and I mean just know) that women get cancer because of all the unloving things they did in their previous lives?

Get real man.

LSV,

Then perhaps you should be writing your own creationist textbook.

It can't possibly be any worse than the stuff on offer right now.

Then perhaps you should be writing your own creationist textbook.

It can't possibly be any worse than the stuff on offer right now.

I've written my own creationist textbook.

plesiosaur.com/scribblings/

The problem is the first rule of dealing with creationists: No argument, no matter how bizarre, improbable or utterly ridiculous is so bad that some creationist somewhere takes it seriously.

This has actually been cited by a creationist as a serious account of the history of evolutionary theory.

RF/Dave/Natman
As I said I am not against science nor rejecting science, I am pro science - I just feel it could widen its horizons.
Mankind may be living longer - but many are not living but existing - kept going by a long list of medications and who are not exactly living full lives. I did not use citations as this is not an academic paper but a blog. There is evidence that whilst certain cancers are decreasing in incidence others are increasing.
By saying exhaustion is rising I am not saying that we cannot do a long days work - indeed the more vital we are the more we can work without getting tired/exhausted. But many cannot get through their day without some form of stimulant like caffeine. I am talking about people living vital energised lives without medication, stimulants, drugs of any kind, no alcohol, no caffeine or xs sugar even!

Genes are only part of the story but not the whole story. The choices we make in our day to day lives (in this lifetime Parrhasios!) have much more bearing on our health than most care to realise. Science is beginning to show this - linking stress with Alzheimers, heart conditions and many others. Through psychoneuroimmunology and epigenetics science is beginning to affirm that our thoughts, feelings/emotions etc all affect our health. There is plenty more to be uncovered yet but it is heading in that direction. Our way of living, our way of being in the world is perhaps the best medicine there is - once we know how to live in a way that is harmonious for the body - problem is - most people don't know how to do that! Our biography becomes our biology, the body reveals the truth of our choices - and the more science looks at factors within the human person rather than outside the human person then it will bear more fruit. Looking at the emotions for a start - again this is happening in science but is early days and much more to be uncovered.

Science will one day affirm that emotions are harming to the body, that it is our own choices that result in illness and disease and will give you the evidence that is not yet there - however, one can come to know this is true for oneself by how one lives ones life. There is more to this than I can say in this post.

Mankind may be living longer - but many are not living but existing - kept going by a long list of medications and who are not exactly living full lives

I suggest that this view comes from looking that the past through seriously rose-tinted spectacles. There was no golden age of the past when everyone lived healthy and fulfilled lives. For most of human history, life and been nasty, brutish and short and dominated by the struggle to meet the immediate needs of food, shelter and protection.

I look at the whole issue from a more philosophical point of view.

I'm sorry, but that has not been the basis of your argument. You have argued that complexity is empirical evidence for God because, according to you, complexity demands intelligence. This is not arguing a philosophical viewpoint, it is arguing a scientific viewpoint, and one which is easily invalidated by the fact that complex systems can be created by simple algorithms. It's also worth noting that the existence of "irreducibly complex" systems was predicted by Hermann Muller in 1918 on the basis of evolutionary theory. [see wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Joseph_Muller] This makes Behe's argument seem more than a little dishonest. His testimony at the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial was particularly revealing - it boils down to his assertion that if we ignore the explanations for the evolution of "irreducibly complex" systems provided by evolutionary biologists, we can't explain their evolution. Neat, but not honest.

I notice also that you have also argued on another thread against the validity of transitional fossils on the grounds that unless we have perfect evidence of every stage of a transition, any identification of a fossil as transitional is flawed. This is not a philosophical argument either. It is a misrepresentation of the nature of science.

Science does not demand perfect evidence. It does not make claims to offer truth. It tries to find the best explanations for phenomena we can observe and measure.

Of course, "irreducibly complex" systems might have been created by the intervention of a higher being, fossils with the appearance of being transitional might have been placed there by aliens setting out to deceive scientists for obscure purposes of their own, or the whole earth might have been manufactured by 'Planets-R-Us' inc. of Sirius Major, including the patina of age connoisseurs of planetology find so appealing. However, as none of those speculations are backed up with so much as a shred of evidence, and none can be tested by the acquisition of further evidence, there is no reason to treat them as science. Science deals with what can be observed and measured, not with what might exist if some metaphysical speculation is true.

If we discard empirical evidence as the basis for trying to gain a better understanding of the way the universe works, we have nothing to go on but the subjective impressions of our own senses. When I see a tree in front of me, it might be an illusion. Perhaps all those fossils in all those museums I study are mass illusions affecting the palaeontologists who work on them. But then, perhaps everything is an illusion, and the universe exists only in my own consciousness and is simply a product of my own mind. If we discard empirical evidence - i.e. phenomena we can observe and measure - there is no reason to think that any other scenario we can imagine is not true. You can't prove to me that you are not a figment of my imagination. I can't prove the the earth is not 6,000 years old, and created by a God with a quirky sense of humour with all the appearance of being very ancient.

Personally, I find such metaphysical speculations utterly useless. They don't lead to any understanding of how the universe works, and yield no useful outcomes. Furthermore, because they have no empirical basis there is no way in which their validity can be tested, and by which the relative merits of competing speculations can be evaluated.

RF -

So where is the strictly empirical proof that complexity is definitely NOT the result of intelligent intervention? (By 'strictly empirical proof' I mean a proof that does not appeal to a philosophical presupposition).

If by algorithm you are referring to Dawkins' weasel programme (or something similar), then thank you for affirming intelligence, since that programme can only function with a selective mechanism typical of purposeful intelligent intervention. Experiments that show that robots can adapt and Turing machine arguments don't count, since the former involves prior programming and function in a controlled environment and the latter also requires initial programming and calibration (and both require irreducibly complex hardware as an initial condition). Thus these experiments both affirm intelligence as a necessary condition for the success of the experiments. Adaptive mechanisms are simply machines, that happen to be more complex than the machines in the chocolate factory, which I referred to in another post - so hardly evidence for less - or no - intelligence!

All the empirical evidence tells us is that there are complex systems in nature. So what? To infer any method of origin of that complexity is impossible without appealing to philosophical presuppositions. If you don't accept that, then you don't understand empiricism.

(In fact, strictly speaking, empiricism doesn't even tell that there are complex systems in nature, since we still have to assume we know what we mean by 'complexity' before we can interpret our sense impressions. Sense impressions by themselves are completely mindless. Hence empirical science is dependent on a philosophical framework.)

RF: I am not referring to the past but the present - the current situation regarding people's health. The past is the past and we are always evolving - sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. We have given superiority to heartless intelligence over heart-full wisdom. Men that were called savages killed each other with spears and bow and arrows - how advanced is the man who creates a missile to kill thousands?? Is that not still savagery?? No heart connected man/woman could do such a thing.

Yes of course there have been great advancements in healthcare etc but overall we are still a humanity out of sorts with itself both collectively and at the level of the individual. Illness and disease are a huge source of suffering for many and it does not serve people to keep them blind to the fact that these things occur largely as a result of their own choices. It is disempowering to tell them it is because of something outside of themselves because it is not true and it leaves them as a victim. If they are aware how their own choices manifested illness or disease or addiction or obesity or whatever then they can be empowered to make different choices, healing choices if they so wish. The underlying root cause can be addressed and healed - the condition may or may not be cured in that process.

So where is the strictly empirical proof that complexity is definitely NOT the result of intelligent intervention?
Science doesn't offer proof, but mathematics does. We can demonstrate mathematically that simple algorithms can produce extraordinarily complex outcomes, so there is no need to invoke the intervention of intelligent agents for which there is no empirical evidence to explain how complex systems can arise.
We have a theory which explains the origin of biological complexity, and it has proved through a couple of centuries of research and testing to be extremely robust. You are proposing that complex systems in biology can only be produced by intelligent input, which flies in the face of a couple of centuries of scientific research. It's up to you to provide evidence to support your argument. As it is based on a premise which it is trivially easy to falsify, you need to do rather better than empty assertion.

If by algorithm you are referring to Dawkins' weasel programme
I'm not, and if you bothered to read my posts you'd know this. I was referring to the mathematical theories of complexity. This has nothing to do with Dawkins weasel programme although, and contrary to your assertion, it does not demonstrate the necessity for "purposeful intervention" to work. It demands a selective environment, defined by the target phrase the programme is seeking. Once the initial parameters are set up, it requires no further intervention. In any case, the programme was not designed to demonstrate the acquisition of complexity, but of the power of cumulative selection.

Adaptive mechanisms are simply machines, that happen to be more complex than the machines in the chocolate factory, which I referred to in another post - so hardly evidence for less - or no - intelligence!
And, once again, I can only wonder why you don't read my posts. Living organisms are not chocolate factories. They are not manufactured objects. Factories don't f....ornicate. Manufactured objects don't. Living organisms do. They reproduce themselves, and it is because they reproduce themselves, and because that replication is slightly imperfect that populations of organisms evolve.
If your argument relies on such trivially false analogies, it's not much of an argument.

To infer any method of origin of that complexity is impossible without appealing to philosophical presuppositions. If you don't accept that, then you don't understand empiricism.
I suggest that perhaps I understand empiricism rather better than you do. Perhaps you might learn something about it from reading my posts rather than ignoring them an responding to things you imagine I have written.

In fact, strictly speaking, empiricism doesn't even tell that there are complex systems in nature, since we still have to assume we know what we mean by 'complexity' before we can interpret our sense impressions.

Which, as I explained in my last post (and which you evidently didn't bother to read) leads us down the path to the epistemological nihilism that we can know nothing, a position which is as far as I am concerned is utterly useless.

Science works. It produces results. It makes possible the devices by which we are communicating (or at least, trying to). A philosopher may look at science, as many have, and identify the philosophical assumptions on which it is based, but the validity of science is not based on the validity of those philosophical assumptions, but on the purely pragmatic fact that science works. I can repair a car without bothering about the philosophical assumptions of automotive engineering. I can cook a meal without wondering about the philosophical assumptions of cooking and of food. I can engage in scientific research without worrying about the philosophical assumptions that may or may not involve. As is the case with many scientists, I regard such philosophical musings as irrelevant to how I practice science. They may very occasionally provide some useful insight into how to improve the rigour of investigation, but for the most part consist of untestable, empty speculations which have little practical value.

I am not referring to the past but the present - the current situation regarding people's health.
Excuse me? You made references to cancers increasing, violent crime increasing, "exhaustion" increasing. How on earth can such assertions be made without reference to the past?
It is disempowering to tell them it is because of something outside of themselves because it is not true and it leaves them as a victim. If they are aware how their own choices manifested illness or disease or addiction or obesity or whatever then they can be empowered to make different choices, healing choices if they so wish.

This is quite frankly not only drivel, but dangerous drivel. Becoming ill is not a matter of choice, and although our attitude can influence the outcome of illness to some extent, it is largely determined by processes over which we have no control. We can reduce our chances of some illnesses by diet and lifestyle, but that leaves a wide range which can strike us regardless of our attitude or lifestyle. I can exercise, have a good diet, keep my mind active, and still be struck down by heart disease because I am genetically predisposed to heart disease.
A lot of harm has been done by people peddling the falsehood that disease can be overcome by 'positive thinking', or that all diseases are the result of choices they have control over.

RF: This is a much bigger subject than it may appear - in terms of how our choices affect our health. You are free to dismiss it if u so choose - but it is not drivel even if it is that to you. I did not say people choose to get ill - but they make choices that are harming to the body due to lack of awareness re what is good and not so good for the body and all the factors that influence it. To say it is determined by processes over which we have no control is simply not true - it appears that way because we are ignorant of how to live in a way that is harmonious to the body.

All emotions are harming to the body and they are behind most of the ill lifestyle choices that people make - so diet, lifestyle, 'stress', emotions, our whole way of being in the world all affect our health. As I mentioned this is being affirmed scientifically through psychoneuroimmunology and epigenetics - the latter demonstrating how environmental changes can alter genetic expression (that can be reversed with lifestyle changes also) - altho much more work is required. I am not advocating 'positive thinking' as you call it and I agree it is a falsehood. I am advocating a way of living, a way of being in the world that affects or influences all our choices such that they are aligned with our true nature of love and thus harmonious for the body - a very different kettle of fish to 'positive thinking'.

As for your heart disease - scientific reports have shown that prob over 90% is due to lifestyle factors and choices. Your view of illness and disease is typical of the biomedical paradigm that disempowers patients and encourages them to think they are a victim of circumstances beyond their control. This is simply not true.
Modern medicine has broadened it to include psychosocial factors and others go further to include biopsychosocialspiritual factors. The holistic model recognises that all dimensions of the human person are important and that factors within the patient are more important than factors without. You can choose to ignore this of course and ridicule it as much as u like but science is heading more and more in the direction of the holistic paradigm in terms of explaining illness and disease. Also if u realise that we all make choices day in and day out that are not aligned to our true nature and that all those choices affect our biochem and biophysiology it is not that difficult to understand how we bring about illness and disease - indeed it even becomes common sense!

To say it is determined by processes over which we have no control is simply not true - it appears that way because we are ignorant of how to live in a way that is harmonious to the body.
If you carry the gene which causes breast cancer, you have no control ov er whether or not you get breast cancer. It doesn't matter if you live "in a way that is harmonious to the body" (whatever that means), it doesn't matter if you think positive thoughts to ward off breast cancer, it's a matter of the genes you got when you were conceived. Of course we can try to reduce our chances of some diseases by being sensible about our diet, by taking exercise, by not drinking to excess, by avoiding all forms of tobacco and so on, but some of us will still die young of heart disease, or cancer or any of the other diseases which kill us off prematurely. The simple fact is that sometimes we are victims of circumstances beyond our control, and we can't change that any more than we can change the colour of our eyes or our height.

All emotions are harming to the body and they are behind most of the ill lifestyle choices that people make - so diet, lifestyle, 'stress', emotions, our whole way of being in the world all affect our health.
They are? All emotions? If I'm happy, does that "harm the body"? If I cry, does that "harm the body"? How do you know this?

And how do you know this? Where is the evidence to support this assertion? Do you have access to a control group of people who have never had any emotions and found that they live forever?

Why should we believe the authors of books promoting such ideas rather than the scientists who study the causes of illness and tell us something different?

RF: genes are only part of the story. And through epigenetics it is becoming clearer how the environment affects genetic expression - and the cellular environment is affected by our lifestyle choices, thoughts, emotions etc as prev mentioned and scientific evidence is accumulating for this through PNI etc. I have already said it is not about positive thoughts - perhaps u missed that. There is more to our way of being and living in the world than you have mentioned - much more. Harmonious to the body - is to live in a way that is in harmony with workings of the body and creates a body that is in harmony - not just to have good function (like an athlete) but true harmony - a very different thing.

Sure people will still get sick, have illness and disease etc but there is much more to it and we are not IMO victims of circumstance. I understand it can appear that way but there is much more interconnectedness in life's events than people care to realise. Everything we do affects everything else, what we put out comes back to us in some form or other. This is again a much bigger topic than can be addressed on here. However, for me, the understandings I have are empowering to the human person whereas your understandings are disempowering.

Our true nature is to be joyful and to be love - and that state of being is harmonious for the body. When we deviate from that it has consequences - so yes - saddness, anger, frustration, bitterness, resentment, hostility etc etc are all harming to the body. The more aware one is of one's body and one's true nature it is possible to feel the harm of these emotions in one's self and in others. Over a long time they result in illness and disease. Science is beginning to show these links also - eg hostility and heart disease.

It's not about living forever- that is not the aim. Our true nature to my understanding is love/joy - it is about living from that true nature, expressing from that true nature in all that we do and say, developing a true way of being, where no matter what is going on in the outside world, we remain centred in that true nature ( without perfection of course) and without denying what is there to be felt - eg if sad then feel it but don't get lost in it. The more we are able to live this for ourselves then it may inspire others to do likewise if they so choose. I know people who endeavour to live in this way, to develop a way of being based on knowing their true nature and who do not indulge in emotional reactions that are harming to the individual and those around them.

Many people have transformed themselves and their lives through these understandings and for the individual no more proof is required as such - it is in the living of it that the proof is self-evident. Of course I know science would not accept that - but that day will come - these understandings are ahead of what science currently knows and are based on understanding what is going on energetically. Many in the science world prob incl ur self would poo poo it - but that's ok. Science will get there and will show these things to be true one day - many many people already know they are true through their own lived experience.

ps science is not saying something different - it is coming along the same lines - just not caught up yet! :-)

Harmonious to the body - is to live in a way that is in harmony with workings of the body and creates a body that is in harmony - not just to have good function (like an athlete) but true harmony - a very different thing.
...and something so vague and indefinable that it can't be quantified in any meaningful way.
Sure people will still get sick, have illness and disease etc but there is much more to it and we are not IMO victims of circumstance.
Well, in the opinion of medical researchers we are in many cases the victims of circumstances, such as being in the wrong place at the wrong time and picking up a viral infection, or having genes which predispose us to certain cancers, or having two copies of the gene which causes sickle cell anaemia, or any one of many different causes for disease of which we have no control.
Why should anyone believe you rather than the scientists who research the origin of disease?

Our true nature to my understanding is love/joy - it is about living from that true nature, expressing from that true nature in all that we do and say, developing a true way of being, where no matter what is going on in the outside world, we remain centred in that true nature ( without perfection of course) and without denying what is there to be felt - eg if sad then feel it but don't get lost in it.

How nice for you.
What do you say to the people who thought that they were living from their "true nature", but who still found that they contracted some illness? That they had obviously failed to live from their "true nature", and are therefore personally responsible for being ill? What do you think it does to someone to be told that it's their own fault that they are suffering from cancer?

Or what do you say to someone who believes that by "living to their true nature", they can overcome illness without taking advice from doctors, and by doing so make their condition far worse, or even fatal?

ps science is not saying something different - it is coming along the same lines - just not caught up yet! :-)

Actually, science says nothing whatsoever about such things as "true nature". It tells us that although our choices about lifestyle can predispose us to some illnesses, there are many over which we have no control whatsoever.

Richard - well said that man! Like all of your contributions thus far: pertinent, succinct, informed, and rigorously addressing the issues.

If Eunice were anywhere near right she is contributing significantly to any health deficit I might be building up.

Eunice, you have no idea of the anger I feel when I read what Richard quite rightly calls your drivel. It is nonsense made all the worse by its vague and baseless claims to science, the classic mark of the charlatan. It is pernicious in its deceit and its offering of false hope.

I speak as someone who values feelings, who understands the importance of integrating the different means by which we gain a perspective on life, but your insertion of subjective insights into claims of objective reality would be laughable were it not, generally, so dangerous and, specifically, something I find personally colossally offensive and insulting to the memory of someone whose life I valued more than my own.

RF - you don't have to believe me, you are free of course to make up your own mind on these matters. I am sharing what I know and if it doesn't speak to you - then leave it. Re infections/ genes etc I am just saying that to my understanding there is a much bigger picture at play than is currently realised. If you are happy with the scientific explanations you have then fine.

It's not about blaming people for the illness and disease they have and its not about eradicating illness and disease. It is about helping to understand why they have what they have and how to heal from it (not necessarily cure altho that may happen) - it is about empowering people not disempowering them. I know you don't agree with me and that's fine - but let's just say hypothetically I am right for the sake of argument - would it really be helpful to people to keep them blind to these understandings and the consequences of their choices?? Does it really help them heal to say - there is nothing you can do about this - it just happens? Or does it help them to say well actually there are things you can do to help yourself? I know people who have had cancer and who have embraced these understandings fully/totally/completely - and there is more to it than I have said here. And who are very thankful to have come across these understandings as they have helped them heal (not necessarily cure) and transformed their lives.

I fully support medicine and would recommend that people have full standard medical treatment and do not try to overcome illness as you put it by themselves. That is not being responsible. These understandings are part of the healing journey and work with medicine and not against it. They look at the underlying reasons why people got what they got - medicine deals with the end result and treats it accordingly with surgery/drugs etc. Medicine is very good at treating symptoms - is it not so good at saying how/why those symptoms arose in that particular patient and healing that.

I agree science does not talk about true nature cos it is ignorant of it. It is however showing how thoughts/emotions impact on the body and can result in physical illness and disease. I am quite sure that this will continue to be affirmed - may take many many many years - but it will head more and more in the direction I am talking about.

Parrhasios: It is not my intention to be offensive nor to cause you anger - indeed that is not good for you! I value feelings very much but would distinguish them from emotions. It is my intention to help people to heal from all sorts of conditions that may be affecting them physically or psychoemotionally. I am talking generally here on a blog about illness and disease and obviously if you have lost someone very dear to you from such a condition it can bring up all sorts of feelings and emotions for all sorts of reasons. Behind alot of anger there is usually alot of sadness - again for all sorts of reasons and the anger is a protective mechanism to not feel the hurt, the pain, the sadness that we carry. The understandings I have are based on love, healing, compassion and understanding to help people who find themselves lost and trying to make sense of illness and disease, cancer and death who are questioning why? why as this happened to me? why has a God of infinite love allowed this to happen to me?? why has God taken this person from me?? why ?? why ?? why?? - the cry of humanity. There is no blaming, no fault finding - just loving understanding. Obviously you understand what I have written in a different way - but that is not where I am coming from. These understandings are not dangerous -far from it - they are healing when fully understood and there are many people who would testify as such.

ps the foundational understanding I should mention is that each person is love - and that that love is not harmed or destroyed by any disease or condition or physical/mental affliction or even death - that love is eternal and absolutely nothing can harm it. When people who have an illness or disease connect with this part of themselves - they know it is true - they know the body is a vehicle for the spirit/soul and that the latter, the soul is who they really are. It is this connection with the soul, with the love that they are, that does the healing of the root emotional causes whilst medicine works to heal/cure the physical part predominantly. A soul connected individual knows the body is necessary this part of the journey and looks after it accordingly but that it is not important in the overall scheme/big picture. A sort of paradox - it is important and it is not important. Hence - there is no fear of death for it is known to be stage in the journey and definitely not the end of the end so to speak.

@Eunice

I've defended you and your deepities here in the past, but there are times when you need to just shut up. This is one of them.

Grokesx - thanks for the advice. People are entitled to their opinions on what I write of course - but if it is misunderstood or misrepresented then I owe it to them and to me to endeavour to clarify /explain further so as there is hopefully less misunderstanding. If I have failed in that or been clumsy about it - I apologise. I am not trying to score points or win arguments but to share what for me are very healing, loving and compassionate understandings re the human condition and journey of life and are in no way intended to be offensive but the opposite.

Without getting into every point you make, some of this is just silly.

RF - you don't have to believe me, you are free of course to make up your own mind on these matters.
Actually, I'm not. I'm a scientist. I go where the evidence leads, not towards some vague and unquantifiable fantasy about "true nature" which science might "catch up with" at some time.


Medicine is very good at treating symptoms - is it not so good at saying how/why those symptoms arose in that particular patient and healing that.

Actually, medicine is very good at saying why those symptoms arose in that particular patient, and getting better all the time as we gain more knowledge of genetics and the variations in body chemistry affected by genes. More to the point, because it can determine why those symptoms arise, it can treat their causes.

It's certainly vastly better at saying why symptoms arise than vague and untestable drivel about "living our true nature".

I agree science does not talk about true nature cos it is ignorant of it.

No, science doesn't talk about "true nature" because it is an undefinable, woolly fantasy which cannot be quantified in any way. What science tells us about ourselves is that we are biologically speaking palaeolithic hunter-gatherers, and that some of the ills which afflict us are a consequence of our modern and very different life-style. What it also tells us however it that our nature is not fixed in some mythical past when everything was perfect, but something which is constantly changing as we evolve to suit our new, and in virtually every aspect better environment.

Thanks for your comments Richard.
The science is leading in the direction I am talking about - but there is still plenty of work to be done to affirm it scientifically I agree and that may take a long time - I still predict it will show more and mroe that we are responsible for the state of our health more than is currently realised. However, for those who live what I am talking about further proof is not required - it becomes self-evident.

I appreciate that you find what I am talking about as drivel and nonsense and that's fine - I know it is not and I do not need you to accept it or approve it or affirm it or even scientifically prove it - altho as I say that day will come one day. Science is important to me also and I very much support it and can appreciate why you say what you say as I would have said the same myself a numer of years ago and in fact did so. I was totally disdainful of such 'drivel' as you call it - it's just that I now know it's not drivel! I cannot at this stage provide experiments that confirm what I am saying other than the lived experiences of human beings who have applied these understandings.

Yes medicine is very good and I wholeheartedly support that also. I am just stretching the boundaries - cross fertilising with understandings from other disciplines/philosophical inputs that are borne out by living life accordingly. These are not new insights cos they are as old as the hills themselves altho can appear to be new - and of course when any 'new' concepts/ideas are introduced they are often at first rejected and ridiculed before eventually being accepted and sure we knew that all along!

I never said the past was perfect and I agree we do evolve and we evolve depending on the choices we make. I have a different understanding of the human person and see him/her as much more than hunter/gatherer - much more indeed. I also understand that all the choices we make in every moment of every day (thought, word and deed) influence our health and well being much more than is currently realised.

The science is leading in the direction I am talking about

How the hell can you know that? Do you have special information about things the scientists who study the subject haven't yet found out?
Wishful thinking combined with an apparent ignorance of both science and history is not evidence.

I cannot at this stage provide experiments that confirm what I am saying other than the lived experiences of human beings who have applied these understandings.

So all you have to offer is subjective impressions and anecdotes about something you call "true nature" which cannot be measured and whose effects cannot be tested.

That isn't science. It's the antithesis of science. It's no different from the pseudoscience of faith healers, miracle workers, "positive thinking" gurus, and every quack and snake-oil salesman throughout history.

The validity of ideas is not established on the basis of the strength of personal conviction. They are established by formulating them in a way which allows them to be tested, and leaves open the possibility that they are rejected if that is what the evidence demands.

I never said the past was perfect

So why did you refer to a past in which, apparently, everything was better than it is now? You referred to the health of humanity deteriorating (flatly false), mental ill health rising (dubious), cancer increasing (because we live longer), exhaustion rising (flatly false - unless you think that a child working a 16 hour day in a factory was not exhausted all the time), less violent crime (flatly false), and all that stuff? Setting aside that fact that you are largely wrong in your claims, what exactly are you referring to?

and I agree we do evolve and we evolve depending on the choices we make.

No, we don't. Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve, and they evolve in response to selective pressures acting on genetic variation, not personal choices. That;s basic evolutionary theory.

RF - I have already given you examples of science showing how thoughts/emotions influence our health - check out psychoneuroimmunology for a start.

I am not talking about faith healing or positive thinking as prev mentioned. I was openly saying that I did not have the sort of evidence you would require - I was not claiming that personal experience was science - I know it is not. However, personal experience is important given that everything we do /think/say etc is coloured by our subjectivity/historicity. There is much more to it than I can go into here - it is a vast subject and that alone should allow for some humility to say we do not yet in science or medicine have all the answers so let us be open to alternative ways of understanding the human person to see if we can find new approaches to assist with healing - given the huge amount of suffering that is in the world. Science can still come up with the tests, the experiments etc but it is not the only means of knowing about the world and people.

I did not say everything was better in the past. I used a few examples to highlight that as far as human health and wellbeing is concerned there is still much to learn and improve upon. Some were WHO stats and some from other sources - of course we all know stats can be massaged to give you any answer! Re - exhaustion - why do people need so much caffeine, sugar, drugs etc to keep them going if they are not exhausted?? Why are people TATT (tired all the time??) Anyway point is - health of humanity is not actually that great - anyone who works in healthcare can tell you that - and so I'm saying lets look at why this is given all the modern technology, science and progress - why is the health of humanity still not great in many areas - are we missing something? are we asking the wrong questions? are we looking in the wrong places for the answers? are there alternative understandings that may help shed some light on this??

Populations are made up of individuals - if the individuals do not evolve the population will not evolve. To think that a population can evolve without the individuals evolving is ridiculous. Of course we evolve, we change - all of the time and yes our choices very much do influence that. Epigenetics is showing how the environment can influence genetic expression - and is beginning to demonstrate how lifestyle choices can affect genetic expression. So perhaps basic evolutionary theory is just that - too basic!

Bottom line Richard is I see alot of humanity suffering for all sorts of reasons - illness and disease, addiction etc and my quest/ search has been to uncover answers to some of these issues. This started out for myself initially due to my own life course but having uncovered some answers which for me have been life transforming I am open to sharing them with others should they be interested and wish to know more. However, if it doesn't resonate with people/you that's fine - everyone is free to follow their own life course.

that alone should allow for some humility to say we do not yet in science or medicine have all the answers
I suggest that if anyone is in need of humility here is it you, with your claim that you know something that the scientists who actually study the subject don't, and at some time in the future they will catch up with your superior knowledge!

I did not say everything was better in the past. I used a few examples to highlight that as far as human health and wellbeing is concerned there is still much to learn and improve upon.

...and most of you examples are flatly wrong. Human health is improving. We may suffer more cancers, but that is because we are living far longer than our ancestors. Violent crime is decreasing. It is nowhere near the levels it was in Victorian times. "Exhaustion", by any rational meaning of the term, is decreasing: we work shorter hours, do much less hard physical labour, are better nourished and in better health. Rates of cancer survival are improving all the time as we develop more effective treatments.

Why are people TATT (tired all the time??)
If you want to learn about people who are tired all the time, read accounts of domestic service in Edwardian times, or agricultural labourers at pretty well any time in history, or factory workers before working hours and conditions were controlled, or slaves working on sugar plantations, or the plight of virtually every sector of society except those at the very top of the pile throughout history. Just because we give something a nice-sounding acronym doesn't mean that it is new.

Your conviction may be that things are deteriorating, but the evidence does not support your conviction.

health of humanity is not actually that great

So why are we living longer, and remaining active for longer than at any time in our past?

are we asking the wrong questions?

The facts that we are living longer, remaining active for longer and that survival rates for most major diseases are improving all the time suggests that we are asking the right questions.

Other than your personal conviction, what makes you think that we are not asking the right questions?

Populations are made up of individuals - if the individuals do not evolve the population will not evolve. To think that a population can evolve without the individuals evolving is ridiculous

Oh, for crying out loud! Read a basic textbook on evolutionary biology. You claim to have regard for science, yet throw around statements like this which demonstrate only a profound ignorance of the subject. Individuals do not evolve. Evolution (in biology which is what we are referring to) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. It most definitely and categorically does NOT occur in individuals.

Epigenetics is showing how the environment can influence genetic expression
Oh, and by the way: That is NOT epigenetics. Of course environment can influence genetic expression. It's the interaction between genetics and environment which controls our ontogenetic development. Epigenetics is the study of hereditable changes in the phenotype which are not linked to the DNA of the cell.
Read a book on evolutionary biology.

RF; Living longer is not what I'm talking about - many people who live longer do so medicated up to the eyeballs or in a nursing home and are existing rather than living. I am talking about people living with true health and vitality, able to work long hours without getting exhausted.

Even if you are right re the stats etc (not saying u r Btw) my point still stands - there is plenty of room for improvement, there are millions of people suffering in the world through illness and disease of all kinds - and as long as there are then we should be open to all avenues/insights re how to help them. Not just say - this is the only way or that everything is ok as it is - it's not.

Richard - have you evolved or changed in your lifetime? I know I certainly have and continue to do so - we are evolving all the time. Admittedly some seem to remain with the attitudes and temper tantrums of a child!
You can deny it all you like, you can say 10, 000 books say something else - but fact is we are all evolving all of the time whether you like it or not. People do not stay static - change is constant. All of these changes affect our health and our biology incl genetic expression.

Re: epigenetics - maybe you should tell the people who are writing papers on the subject - where they say there are reversible changes in the phenotype without alteration in the genotype and can be influenced by the environment not just hereditable.

Obviously my posts are annoying you as you feel I am so far removed from true science and what is really going on and that you need to put me right on these matters. That's ok. We have different ways of understanding the world and people and I don't need you to agree with me. I know the human person is much more than a hunter-gatherer or an evolved ape as someone else once said on here. I accept that for you what I am saying is ridiculous you may even call it preposterous, rubbish, drivel, or some other derogatory label that comes to your mind. I know it is not.

Living longer is not what I'm talking about - many people who live longer do so medicated up to the eyeballs or in a nursing home and are existing rather than living

...and many people who would have been dead for decades in the past are living full and healthy lives into their 80s. My mother is off on a trek to Svalbard in the summer at age 20 years older than my grandmother was when she died.

Richard - have you evolved or changed in your lifetime?

Not in the sense that biologist use the term I'm not. Neither are you. Individuals don't evolve. Populations of organisms do.

I know I certainly have and continue to do so - we are evolving all the time.

Not in the biological sense. Read a basic textbook on biology.

You can deny it all you like, you can say 10, 000 books say something else - but fact is we are all evolving all of the time whether you like it or not.

Wow! So having accused scientists of arrogance, you are now telling us that the biologists who coined the term evolution to refer to inherited changes in the genetic make-up of populations over successive generations have got it all wrong, and you know better.

where they say there are reversible changes in the phenotype without alteration in the genotype and can be influenced by the environment not just hereditable

Try reading just the wikipedia entry on epigenetics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Here's how it starts.
"In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence"

So
1) They are not reversible
2) They are inheritable

You are confusing epigenetics with changes to the phenotype caused by the interaction of genes with the environment. That's called "Gene–environment interaction". Here's an article on the subject:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene%E2%80%93environment_interaction

So your description of the term is just wrong. I suggest that I have read rather more books and papers on the subject than you have.

Obviously my posts are annoying you as you feel I am so far removed from true science and what is really going on and that you need to put me right on these matters.

What on earth has "true science" to do with it? The simple fact is that you are offering arguments based on false premises, that you are claiming personal conviction as validation of your undefinable and untestable assertions, misusing scientific terms, and claiming that you know better than the scientists who are actually doing the research what their outcome will be. That's not science at all.

For someone who claims to respect science, that's pretty bizarre behaviour.

RF: pity you didn't read the rest of Wikipedia on epigenetics where it says


**Most epigenetic changes only occur within the course of one individual organism's lifetime, but, if a mutation in the DNA has been caused in sperm or egg cell that results in fertilization, then some epigenetic changes are inherited from one generation to the next**

ie. affected by environmental factors not just heritable - nice diagram also shows how can be affected by diet/aging etc

Also says:

**Epigenetics also has the factor of reversibility, a characteristic that other cancer treatments do not offer **

so reversibility is a feature of epigenetics and is being shown scientifically.

Thanks for the links incl the one on gene-environment interaction - the last sentence of which reads

**There is increasing study of environmental influences affecting genetic factors directly but nonheritably; see the Epigenetics article for a detailed discussion.**

think that was exactly what I was saying!

I'm not in a competition with you to read the most books and papers - although if u had just finished the wiki articles you would have come across the above comments and realised I was correct and not wrong as you say. Unless of course you are now going to say Wiki is wrong too?? Along with the papers that say the same thing - are they wrong too? Afterall I did not make it up myself but was repeating what I have read in papers.

SO yes I do respect science and I am not mis-using terms or using false premises. I have understandings that come from different disciplines and which understand the human person as more than a biological machine. I am willing to look beyond what is known and verified thus far and consider other possibilites and other ways of knowing and understanding. I am not pinned in the one box. Just because I do not have scientific evidence at this stage (but there is supporting evidence as I mentioned) does not mean the understandings are not true or are not valid. They may not be to you or to others and that's fine.

It is by living the understandings that a person can know if they are true for themselves or not because it influences their whole way of life and being in the world. It's not a pill that is popped or a band-aid approach - it calls for a change in how we understand ourselves and how we live in the world. Our choices do matter more than people realise and we have more power over our own health and wellbeing than people realise also.

SO yes I do respect science

Nonsense! You have been telling us that scientists don't understand the meanings of terms they themselves have coined and that your definition of the term trumps theirs.

You have claimed that you know the outcome of scientific research better than the scientists who actually study the subject.

That isn't respect. It's utter arrogance.

and I am not mis-using terms

You are. You are confusing epigenetics with gene-environment interaction, which is by definition, not epigenetics. You are also misusing the term "evolution". Insisting that regardless of how the textbooks define the term, your definition is the one which is correct is yet another example of your arrogance.

or using false premises.

Yes you are.
1) Human health is deteriorating.
False Premise: Human health, by any rational measure of the term, is improving, not deteriorating.
2) Violent crime is increasing
False Premise: Levels of violent crime are decreasing, not increasing.
3) Cancers are increasing
Dubious Premise: Although the incidence of cancers is increasing, that is because we are living longer, not through any general deterioration in health. It's worth noting that the findings of science have led to a greatly increased survival rate for many cancers.
4) "Exhaustion" is increasing:
False Premise: "Exhaustion", by any rational measure of the term, is decreasing rather than increasing: we are working shorter hours, in less physically demanding and more intellectually stimulating work, and are better nourished than our ancestors.
5) Modern medicine can't explain the causes of diseases.
False Premise: Modern medicine is very good at finding the causes for diseases - that's why cures based on scientific research have been so successful in treating them.

Can you offer evidence whatsoever to support your premises? Or do we have to accept unquestioningly your assurance that you know more about those subjects than the experts who study them?

RF - you don't have to accept a single word I say and I'm sure you won't going by your responses !!

You are misrepresenting me - I have not claimed that scientists do not understand the terms they use and that my definition trumps theirs.....I am using information/definitions/explanations provided by scientists!!

I have not claimed that I know the outcome of research better than those that study it - I have said I predict that science will continue to show that our choices, lifestyle and other, have a greater impact on our health than is currently realised. It is a prediction and like all predictions it can be wrong.

I have shown you where in the Wiki article that what I said about epigenetics is in fact correct and what other scientists are saying about epigenetics - and despite this you insist that I am still wrong and confusing it with gene-env interaction! So in the face of evidence you deny the facts - hardly consistent with being a scientist - thought they prided themselves on following the evidence and admitting when they were wrong if facts say otherwise?
I have not once offered you a definition of 'evolution' nor did I even use the term 'evolution' if I recall correctly. I have said we evolve and I stand by that - we evolve on many different levels. My understanding of what it is and what it means to evolve is probably different to yours - esp given that you think we don't evolve!

A recent study has shown that strokes are rising in younger people linked with rise in obesity and diabetes (which are linked as well obviously) based in the USA
For every 10,000 hospitalizations in 1994-95 compared with 2006-07, strokes rose:
_51 percent, from 9.8 to 14.8, among males 15 to 34 years old
_17 percent, from 3.6 to 4.2, in females 15 to 34
_47 percent, from 36 to 52.9, in males 35 to 44
_36 percent, from 21.9 to 30, in females 35 to 44

I agree cancer survival is improving. I also agree cancer incidence is increasing and that living longer is part of the reason for this but not all are accountable for by age alone eg report showed a real increase in incidence oesophageal/oesophagogastric junction cancers.

Exhaustion - I am talking about people needing caffeine, sugar, drugs, alcohol - most have one or more of these in their life and are symptomatic of exhaustion - of needing stimulants of some sort.

Health for me is not the absence of disease - but living with true vitality, not needing any false stimulants etc. It's not about statistics - it's about people. 47000 women get breast cancer in the UK alone - behind every one of those is a family so triple or quadruple that - that's alot of people in one country affected by one condition. As long as there are numbers like that then I will be open to new understandings/developments that may help to reduce that.

I didn't say modern medicine can't explain the cause of disease - I said it was very good at treating symptoms/cancers etc but not so good at healing the underlying cause - I am not talking about cure. It is possible to cure and not heal and it is possible to be healed and not cured. Healing and curing are very different. And yes medicine goes so far but there is further to go.....don't think anyone would disagree with that!

I have not claimed that scientists do not understand the terms they use and that my definition trumps theirs

Flatly false. You wrote this:

You can deny it all you like, you can say 10, 000 books say something else - but fact is we are all evolving all of the time whether you like it or not.

You are seeking to impose your definition of the term "evolution", and saying that the scientists who coined the term are misusing it.

I have not once offered you a definition of 'evolution' nor did I even use the term 'evolution' if I recall correctly.

Then you have memory problems. You claimed that individuals evolve. The term "evolution", in the sense it is used by the people who coined applies to populations of organisms, not individuals. Any basic biology textbook will tell you that, but apparently you think your understanding of the term trumps that of the scientists who coined it.

A recent study has shown that strokes are rising in younger people linked with rise in obesity and diabetes
So?
We are living healthy, active lives for longer than any of our ancestors. By any rational standard, I suggest that this means that human health is improving. In part it is because of the benefits of modern medicine, in part because we are better nourished and have better sanitation. There is a downside to this, as there is to all things, which is that the ready availability of cheap food can lead to obesity and the associated health risks. However, that does not change the overall picture, which is of better health for longer than our ancestors.

Exhaustion - I am talking about people needing caffeine, sugar, drugs, alcohol - most have one or more of these in their life and are symptomatic of exhaustion - of needing stimulants of some sort.

...and, as I have pointed out, this does not address the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that it is increasing. People have always used stimulants when they are available. In the past people were far more dependent on alcohol as a stimulant - beer consumption in Victorian London was several pints per person per day. Gin consumption was a major social ill.
Do you honestly think that a child who worked in a factory for 16 hours a day was not constantly exhausted? Or a farm labourer who spent 12 hours a day harvesting potatoes? Especially when they were undernourished and living in cramped conditions (the picturesque cottages which feed our fantasies of bucolic paradise were usually occupied by a dozen people or more, sleeping 6 to a bed and were damp, without sanitation and riddled with lice, fleas and other parasitic infestations,).

As long as there are numbers like that then I will be open to new understandings/developments that may help to reduce that.

Do tell us: how does something you can't quantify - "living our true nature" - which has no basis in evidence help us find out anything? How do arguments based on false premises help us find out anything? How does telling scientists that you know better the outcome of their research than they do themselves help us find out anything? How does an ignorance of history help us find out anything?

I didn't say modern medicine can't explain the cause of disease - I said it was very good at treating symptoms/cancers etc but not so good at healing the underlying cause

Again, you seem to be suffering from memory problems. You wrote Medicine is very good at treating symptoms - is it not so good at saying how/why those symptoms arose in that particular patient and healing that.

So what did you mean?

RF : yes I used the term evolving and evolve but not 'evolution' and I did not define any of those terms or say they were better than current scientific ones. Different and better are not the same. I said I suspect that my understanding of what it means to evolve is prob different to yours. For me it is a fact of my life that I have evolved and will continue to do so - you can disagree with that if you like, science can disagree with it too - but for me it is true and I know many other people who would agree with that - that they are evolving all the time. To not evolve is to stay static, constant, unchanging - I don't know anyone like that.

My understanding of the human person is based on knowledge/ understandings from a broad range of disciplines combined with my personal experiences. It is possible for everyone to know and feel their true nature and to live from that place - some guidance may be required along the way as we have lost touch with it in most cases and it requires practice, discipline, consistency, commitment to do it - because we have wandered so far from it. So it is not as wooly as you think and the proof of the pudding as they say is in the eating. It is by living the teachings that one comes to know for oneself whether they are true or not and there is much more to it than can be conveyed in a few simple posts.

As I have said - healing and curing are very different and again I have understandings that combine disciplines - so healing for me is much more than eradication of symptoms.

My understandings do not appeal to everyone for all sorts of reasons and if they don't appeal to you then by all means leave them be....I do not need your agreement nor your approval. There are plenty of people who like me have found them to be transformational - you can say that is subjective, anecdote, personal experience etc but ultimately we all make choices based on personal experiences (and more) and if my life is now vastly different and improved compared to how it use to be then I will continue to follow that which feels true for me and which bears fruit in my life and which I know has done likewise for many others. As they say - don't knock it til you've tried it! :-)