Ghazzali

Karma: −115

Ghazzali 17 May 2012 20:16 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
Biology textbooks reflect the belief that “The world is purely physical/material in nature” by not even entertaining the possibility that there could be a super natural cause for anything. Any natural activity is assumed to have a physical/material cause. This is philosophy, so it may not be physically written out that way in the biology textbooks, but everything in the textbooks points to this major world assumption.

Same with the issue of free will. Any act by a species is seen in a way that needs to be explained in chemical/biological/mechanical manner. There is no room for this mysterious/other-worldly notion called free will.

Same with the idea that there is no real purpose or meaning to the universe.

As for this statement:

If for example a person does not accept that all of existence is physical in nature, then he is more likely to question the ‘evidence’ of evolution.

It is not necessarily true because of specific theological beliefs only. Lets say a person has absolutely no theological beliefs from any religion, but he does not automatically assume that all of existences is physical/mechanical. That person, because of this world view by itself, now all of a sudden has a higher chance of rejecting evolution than someone who only believes in a physical/mechanical world view.

The real debate is on the level of philosophy, not science. That is because ones science is driven by his philosophical interpretations....whether he realizes it or not.

Ghazzali 17 May 2012 20:05 UTC
−7 points
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
Your extreme example of evidence in a creator is a valid point, but only to a certain limit. Maybe the grand creator does not want to make things that obvious? Maybe he puts just enough evidence in the universe for people of sincerity for the truth to be lead to the conclusion of design, and not an inch more? The point is we dont know, and the fact that God is not coming down from heaven and telling us he exists is NOT rational evidence that he does not exist and is not the designer of the universe.

As to those Christians who believe in evolution, they have simply developed a personal theology and see science to that end. They are no different from the other religion views, or no religious view.

The real battle is not in science, it is in these ‘world-views’ that cause us to see science in a particular way. I’m not saying we cannot debate what is the truth, only saying that the debate is a little deeper than saying ‘sciences says this’ or ‘science says that’. The debate is more abstract and rational than it is empirical.

Ghazzali 17 May 2012 19:55 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
My point is that you can argue rationally about whether there is design in the universe, but you cannot argue whether the design is good or bad. The later is incoherent. Maybe the Grand Designer does want to make things confusing? Maybe he has put evidence of design in the universe, but not absolute evidence for whatever reason He wants? You can make the point that the design is good or bad, but that point has no real consequence to the question about whether there is design in the first place. Thats my point.

Another interesting point;

Do you agree that design does indeed exist anywhere in the universe? Lets say in the form of human design? If you do believe that humans actually do design, and it seems like you do because you are judging the design in nature based on human experience of design, then you have to come up with an explanation of how purely mechanical/physical beings produced this design to begin with?

Ghazzali 17 May 2012 19:44 UTC
−4 points
in reply to: Bugmaster’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
Not quite what I am saying.

I do believe in the truth of empirically reproducible results. However, other than stating facts I do not see how these results force me to believe in anything. It is my belief system or personal philosophy that makes me conclude a interpretation of those facts.

For example:

Evolution is seen by many people through the lens of materialism/atheism. That means that while studying evolution these people ASSUME the world has no creator and and is purely physical and closed system, free from anything super-natural....and so on.

In that way, any discovery in biology is treated in this interpretation and millions of dollars of research money is used to search for evidence in that way.

Something as so fundamental to us as consciousness and free will is ignored as illusion because it doesnt fit into these peoples world view of a purely mechanical universe. Where did they get this idea that the universe is purely mechanical and material?? NOT from science, it is from their personal philosophy or belief system. Everything in science is interpreted towards that end.

Those who believe in intelligent design also have their assumptions, and will look at evolution in that way. They will tend to be looking for evidence of a super natural involvement in biology, and dedicate their research dollars in that direction.

For you to accept the intelligent design bias and not see your bias is amazing.

Science is neutral, it is your belief system that interpretes these ‘facts’. The real argument is in the varying philosophies, not in the actual data of science.

Ghazzali 17 May 2012 19:30 UTC
−5 points
in reply to: RobertLumley’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
Mathematically you have the same problem whether you believe in God or you don’t. If you say that there is no God you must still account for these two questions:
1. How did the universe begin from nothing, and why?
2. If the universe did not begin from nothing, what did it begin from and why is it not considered part of the universe so that we say it is the creator of the universe but not an extension of it?
And if you say 2. you still have to go back to one.

The same mysteries are there whether you believe in God or not. It is your world-view, your faith that leads you to conclude in God, not science. For a Muslim, for example, it is his belief in the words of Prophet Muhammad that he is really communicating with God, and so on. For the atheist/materialist it is his world-view that he rejects any kind of notion that a human being has these powers. And so on...

Science itself is neutral on these issues, it must be seen and interpreted by philosophies and beliefs.

Ghazzali 17 May 2012 19:20 UTC
−7 points
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
To claim that the world is not designed because, based on your knowledge of design, it is not a good design is a very weak argument. If the world was designed by a supreme being, your knowledge and His knowledge would be like comparing the intelligence of a rock to a human being. It simply does not compare. All the supposed weaknesses you claim in the design of the cosmos comes from your extremely limited knowledge of reality and cannot compare to the wisdom behind the design of the Creator. Now, this is all the case only if you concede there is a grand designer. If you do not hold that view, then of course this argument does not hold. But as long as you do hold the view, even as a devil’s advocate, you must concede that judging the ‘quality’ and nature of the design as being below standards is rather incoherent. In other words, there may be reasons to those imperfect designs that you are pointing towards that you do not understand. You are not the supreme designer of the universe.

On top of that, it amazes me that a person who knows science will actually think in this way to begin with. That the complexity of a cell, let alone the entire brain, let alone the entire body, would not put you in awe over their design is beyond me. To focus in on those sporadic examples of design that we do not understand and to leave everything else that seems so complicated and fine tuned for life is the ultimate example of how a philosophy is driving your view of science and the world around you.

Ghazzali 2 May 2012 15:44 UTC
−7 points
in reply to: RobertLumley’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
You have to at least recognize that you are looking at science using a world-view (philosophy). In this case you see the amazing complexity of life as a product of chance/random events and not because of some genius unseen designer. The beautiful world you are describing could be interpreted as being the product of either, and the science itself would not change. You have chosen to see it through a particular lens. Both lenses are fundamentally not scientific in nature, they are belief structures.

Ghazzali 2 May 2012 14:27 UTC
−8 points
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
Lets say that the evidence seems to point towards design in the universe. Should we ignore that because we think a chance-world view would bring us more scientific achievement? If we do such a thing, would there be a good chance that what we call scientific achievement today would turn out to be delusion in the future because it is based on a forced world-view?

Ghazzali 1 May 2012 15:07 UTC
−9 points
in reply to: Hul-Gil’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
I think that is where we differ, it is in the macro-micro evolutionary distinction. That mathematical model does not hold any water if you distinguish between species.

Also, I would say that the word ‘random’ is in essence a philosophical term, not scientific. It is a term of interpretation.

Ghazzali 1 May 2012 14:27 UTC
−11 points
in reply to: Hul-Gil’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
I don’t think you can assume that all critics of evolution believe all animals lived alongside one another. I doubt they are all evangelical Christians.

You are correct that a hit on a chance-favoring theory could be a support for another chance-favoring theory, but that is only if there are other chance-favoring theories competing with eacother in at least some way. When you have a theory as monolithic in nature as evolution, it is for all intents and purposes THE chance-favoring theory. Things could change in the future though, and maybe another chance-favoring theory could at least get some foothold. However, as long as we are in our current situation any support of evolution is a hit on design theories in general and vice-versa.

Some beliefs that are usually incorporated to support evolution are:

-The world is purely physical/material in nature

-There is no such thing as real agency (free will)
- There is no real purpose/meaning in the universe
These are philosophical/belief points that directly or indirectly help a persons belief in evolution. If for example a person does not accept that all of existence is physical in nature, then he is more likely to question the ‘evidence’ of evolution. If he further believes in free-will (real free will) then he is even more likely to question evolution. And if he believes there is a purpose to the universe....and so on.

Ghazzali 1 May 2012 13:20 UTC
−8 points
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
I would absolutely include the standard model in physics as a problem as well. When the contemporary scientific explanation of the cosmos can only account for 3% of the universe (about 97% is dark energy or dark matter) then I would say there is a problem. Maybe even more of a problem than evolution.

We seem to be sticking to our current understanding of physics, once again, because of a world-view. That view being that our universe needs to be mathematically harmonious all the way through, at all levels. This is the bias that is also behind string theory and any attempt to unify physics.

Evolution is much the same way. The worldview that there is no purpose/meaning/agency/design (choose your word, but its the same concept) in the universe is pushing scientists to continually ignore or explain away anomally.

Ghazzali 28 Apr 2012 1:49 UTC
−4 points
in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
Lets focus on the chance vs. design conversation here first.

For all 3 of those examples you gave you would have to pick a conclusion of chance or design. Can you explain how any of those 3 could be conceived of as both chance and design at the same time? The only third option is to simply say I dont know.

Ghazzali 28 Apr 2012 1:38 UTC
−7 points
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
There can be any number of anomolies that can be discussed, lets just name the Cambrian Explosion as one of the main ones, albeit a very general one. Where would you put the problem of the Cambrian Explosion? A, B, or C? But more importantly, why?

Not sure what you mean by ‘if something happens as a predictable, inevitable consequence of the rules regarding how things behave, it makes little sense to call it a consequence of chance’. All you would have to do is keep going back to the source of the rocks behavior in order to see if it was by chance or design. Are those rules you are talking about designed or by chance? And so on....If you agree that those rules that govern the falling of the rock, and the rock’s existence itself, (and yes, any rules that governed how it came to existence) came about by chance then you hold one side of the dialectic; that is you have a world-view that believes existence is produced through chance. You can’t say I dont believe in that because I believe existence has come about through natural laws, and so on, because in the end you would have come to some kind of conclusion as to whether those laws are by chance or designed.

You cannot escape these two conclusion, you must pick one or the other. If you pick the chance worldview, you are heavilly reliant on evolution to validate your worldview.

Ghazzali 27 Apr 2012 16:05 UTC
−9 points
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
There is a problem of threshold in this debate. There have been anomolies found in the fossil record that don’t seem to make sense, but they are not deemed extreme enough by the scientific community to warrant any damage to evolution. The hypotheticals you have suggested are very extreme, do they have to be that extreme to warrant a hit on evolution or can less extreme finds also warrant questioning? I would like to see the scientific community come up with more specific parameters as to what would be considered: A. minor damage to the theory, B. major hit on the theory, and C. evidence that would make the theory most likely untenable. We do this for almost every other science, except evolution.

My suspicion comes down to the fact that evolution is the natural conclusion of a world view that is part of a necessary dialectic. Either existence happened by chance, or by design. There seems to be no third or fourth way. We are limited to these two conclusions and nothing else. Therefore any hit on a theory that advocates one, is a support for the other. I think this pushes scientists (even sub-consciously) to view evolution almost as a belief system rather than a science.

Ghazzali 27 Apr 2012 16:03 UTC
−8 points
in reply to: faul_sname’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
There is a problem of threshold in this debate. There have been anomolies found in the fossil record that don’t seem to make sense, but they are not deemed extreme enough by the scientific community to warrant any damage to evolution. The hypotheticals you have suggested are very extreme, do they have to be that extreme to warrant a hit on evolution or can less extreme finds also warrant questioning? I would like to see the scientific community come up with more specific parameters as to what would be considered: A. minor damage to the theory, B. major hit on the theory, and C. evidence that would make the theory most likely untenable. We do this for almost every other science, except evolution.

My suspicion comes down to the fact that evolution is the natural conclusion of a world view that is part of a necessary dialectic. Either existence happened by chance, or by design. There seems to be no third or fourth way. We are limited to these two conclusions and nothing else. Therefore any hit on a theory that advocates one, is a support for the other. I think this pushes scientists (even sub-consciously) to view evolution almost as a belief system rather than a science.

Ghazzali 27 Apr 2012 14:47 UTC
−8 points
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: The Wonder of Evolution
That depends on how you define ‘system’. Is ‘system’ the entire biological existence of earth? In that case, yes evolution would be a mathematical certainty eventually. But is system a specific species? In that case evolution would only occurr within those species. Defining all biological existence on earth as part of a system that would fit that mathematicl certainty would definitely be a scientific claim and could be falsifiable.

Also, time is another factor. Your explanation logically does not necessitate that evolution has already happened, only that it will eventually happen.

Ghazzali 26 Apr 2012 18:57 UTC
7 points
on: The Wonder of Evolution
If all science must be in theory falsifiable, and evolution is good science, can you give me some parameters or predictions that if they were found to be true would hurt the theory of evolution?

What would scientists need to find in the future that would seriously do damage to the theory?

Ghazzali 23 Jan 2012 16:02 UTC
−4 points
in reply to: Plasmon’s comment on: Human consciousness as a tractable scientific problem
Our brain is physical, no doubt, but as you can imagine I am making a claim that mind (consciousness, spirit, whatever you want to call it) is not the same as brain. There is a connection between the two, but my argument using rational judgment is that consciousness does not seem to be physical because there is no way to understand it rationally. Your point against me is what I use against you. You say I am mistaken because I cannot even define what is consciousness, I say that is precisely the point! The only way you can reply is to hold out for the view that consciousness may not even exist, so it may not be a problem in the first place. And that is a whole other issue, for if consciousness is only an illusion that breaks down the entire human experience of reality.

Furthermore, there are other reasons why the idea of a purely physical human being without any mysterious non-physical reality is extremely problematic:
1. It would mean no free will. To deny free will is to deny rationality to begin with. How can a conclusion made by reason in turn negate reason?
2. It would deny any real morality. Fundamdentally a human being would be the same as a piece of wood, except more complex.
It is the western insistence that reason be a univeral tool (and therefore reality be universally physical) that has led them to completely deny dualism. But if you recognize that reason itself is pointing towards its own limits, dualism is not that bad of a conclusion.

Ghazzali 20 Jan 2012 15:18 UTC
−4 points
in reply to: Plasmon’s comment on: Human consciousness as a tractable scientific problem
I will make a point about the progress of science in this subject and then use that to step towards a more general argument for the innate mystery of consciousness with regards to reason.

Ever since the time of the enlightenment there has been a real movement in the west to view the world as purely mechanical/physical so that a conclusion of reason as a universal tool could be accepted. That meant the elimination from society of not just God but also the soul and other things.

Ironically it was a particular invention of science and reason that made rationalists realize the problem of eliminiating all non-mechanical/physical realities from a human being: the computer. With the development of the computer it became painfully obvious that human beings were fundamentally different from any designed piece of technology. Although they could theoratically design and program a coputer for all kinds of amazing functions, there is no rational model as to how to make that machine ‘conscious’. It was through computers that mankind realized in the most clear and blunt way the mystery of consciousness.

So to reassert my point....from the development of computers throughout this past century into the advancment of it to this century, the more we progress the more we understand that consciousness does not seem to be a matter of just complexity and sophistication.

Secondly, our faculty of reason itself does not even work in the same way a computer works. A computer’s mechanical structure “signals” a conclusion. The machine moves in a certain way, albeith at the tiniest levels, to signal that something is right or wrong. For us, it is understanding that makes us realize a right or wrong, it is a feeling. Even at the most fundamental level of using reason itself the mystery of consciousness is engaged and operating in a way we do not understand.

Ghazzali 19 Jan 2012 21:48 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Plasmon’s comment on: Human consciousness as a tractable scientific problem
Sorry for the allegorical language if it offended you.

There is a difference between not finding a solution for a problem, and not even understanding what a solution may look like even in the abstract form.

It is also not a good sign when the problem gets to be more of a mystery the more science we discover.

The concern here is that we have an irrational view that rationalism is a universal tool. The fact that we have unsolved scientific and intellectual problems is not a proof of that. The fact that there seem to be problems that in their very nature seem to be unsolvable by reason is.