Comments on: Shermer, Volokh, Evolution, & God

By: ZaPopper

ZaPopper — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:02:00 +0000

Hi – I’m new to blogging so bear with me if I transgress blog protocol.
The topic rests on two concepts that cannot be reconciled:
Faith and Proof
An omniscient/omnipotent thing (presumably perfect in every sense according to theological philosophers) will not change a perfect creation because doing so would make the creation “not perfect”. If such a thing creates it’s own environment, it’s reasonable to assume it would choose to make it perfect as well. It would be able to foresee the consequences of imperfection, and that would be anathama to perfection. There’s no need to get into the concept of compassion for the thing created to demonstrate the following point. Evolution guided by God implies imperfection in the creation, and the inability to make everything perfect on the first try, or through subsequent efforts. (I enjoyed the treatment of this topic by Ken Miller in Finding Darwin’s God).
With regard to proof, one must decide to take one of two starting positions. Inductive/verificationist, or deductive/falsificationist. The inductive view allows one to argue that the postulate is true as long as there is no evidence of non-existence. It can be proven that there is no needle in one haystack, but it cannot be proven that there are no needles in a haystacks, unless one has the time and the means to search every haystack there is (or ever has been, or ever will be). The deductive approach allows one to postulate that needles are not found in haystacks. This remains a viable hypothesis (potentially useful) as long as a needle is never found in a haystack. But it’s necessary to accept the possibility that one will be found. The first is absolutist, and can provide the rationale for faith in an omniscient/omnipresent guiding hand in the process of change. The second is conditional, accepting of doubt.
People are welcome to believe whatever they want, whether verifiable or falsifiable. I prefer to go with Popper regarding the criterion of demarcation between science and metaphysics, that is, science and knowledge can only advance on the basis of falsifiable theories, and everything else is metaphysics, and while metaphysics can be useful in philosophy, metaphysical problems do not have answers, and metaphysics cannot be applied to matters of fact. Ipso facto, proof and faith cannot be combined.

By: John T. Kennedy

John T. Kennedy — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:46:00 +0000

Laplace was more succinct:

“I had no need of that hypothesis.”

By: brad

brad — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:53:00 +0000

will, interesting. note, though, that faith-based beliefs DO have a cognitive role. they mesh with all sorts of other beliefs, about the afterlife, grace, atonement, etc. those beliefs may not be based on evidence either, but i don’t see why the belief in god can’t be defined in terms of its relations to them nonetheless. and i still don’t know what to make of georges’ stuff on this.

By: Gabriel Mihalache

Gabriel Mihalache — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 05:05:00 +0000

There’s an entire field, abiogenesis, which studies the appearance of DNA-based life. It mostly does so with the help of evolutionary thinking (in terms of selection).

Also, evolution is not committed to DNA. It talk of natural selection and sexual selection in the context of inheritance and mutations. These notions can be, and have been, successfully applied to various fields of study, some of them non-biological.

And, on a final note… I hate to be Kantian, but if we “suffer” from that kind of “epistemological modesty” as to postulate a noumenal-phenomenal distinction, one cannot deny the possibility that our profoundly-phenomenal Quinean theories can tell us anything about the allegedly-noumenal role of God in stuff. I think this allows us to interpret the thinking of believers: they know the noumenal and may I be damned for claiming otherwise.

On a personal note… Quine sounds very interesting. I read “the two dogmas”, but can someone please suggest which of his books is best as an introduction?

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:49:00 +0000

Brad, Thanks. Agreed about the replicators and the emergence of life. I could have said it better. And, true, most people aren’t Quineans. Though I agree with Georges and think many folks don’t believe in many of the things that they think they believe in. Because many faith-based “beliefs” aren’t explanatory, they have no function in they mental economy. They’re just cogs that mesh with nothing. Which is the same as saying that they aren’t really beliefs at all; they don’t play the role that defines belief. But those PHIL 100 kids, and almost everyone under the sky, sure believe they believe in God. There’s no stopping it!

By: brad

brad — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:14:00 +0000

hi will, i pretty much agree. just two quibbles. you say: “The best explanatory theory of the emergence of life and the development of biological variety is the theory of evolution by natural selection.” not quite. natural selection needs some stuff that can replicate itself (like DNA) in order to work. it doesn’t explain how replicators came into existence in the first place. unlike evolution, the theories on the emergence of life are far from well-confirmed. as far as i know, we’re pretty clueless about this–it could’ve been lighting striking the soup, a meteor, some protein-like stuff bubbling up from under the earth’s surface, etc. my other quibble: “commitment to God’s existence just is the belief in the claim that Godmaking properties figure in to the best overall theory of the world.” well, that’s true if you think that to be is to be the value of a variable, but i take it most believers aren’t quineans. for them god isn’t an explanatory posit of any kind, and thus not part of their best theory of the world. don’t most believers believe on faith and not for explanatory reasons? i mean, cmon, you’ve taught phil 100 right?!! thanks for the shermer link. -brad

By: brad

brad — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

By: Gabriel Mihalache

Gabriel Mihalache — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

There’s an entire field, abiogenesis, which studies the appearance of DNA-based life. It mostly does so with the help of evolutionary thinking (in terms of selection).

On a personal note… Quine sounds very interesting. I read “the two dogmas”, but can someone please suggest which of his books is best as an introduction?

By: brad

brad — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000