Monday, June 03, 2019

Things fall Through The Cracks

Photobucket



True empirical evidence in a philosophical sense means exact first hand observation. In science it doesn't really mean that, it implies a more truncated process. Consider this, we drop two balls of different size from a tower. Do they fall the same rate or the bigger one falls faster? They are supposed to fall at the same rate, of course. To say we have empirical proof, in the literal sense of the term we would have to observe every single time two balls are dropped for as long as the tower exists. We would have to sit for thousands of years and observe millions of drops and then we couldn't say it was truly in an empirical sense because we might have missed one. That's impractical for science to do this so we cheat with inductive reasoning. We make assumptions of probability. We say we observed this 40,000 times, and it worked the same way every single time. That's a tight correlation, so we will assume there is regularity in the universe that causes it to work this way every time. We make a statistical correlation. Like the surgeon general saying that smoking causes cancer. The tobacco companies were really right, they read their Hume, and there was no observation of cause and effect, because we never observe cause and effect. The correlation, however, was so tight we assume cause and effect. Empirical scientific observation covers the unobserved instances with probability based upon tight correlation that allows things to fall through the cracks. For example, on average most men are stronger than most women. There are women, however, who can lift a lot more weight than I can, women who make me look weak, and they are probably not hard to find. We make assumptions and then construct standardized tests to measure our assumptions. If one of those assumptions is that intelligence means the ability to work math, there can be intelligent people who for one reason or another have trouble with math. Someone might be better at philosophy or history than a mathematician and not be good in math. The standardized test will say the mathematician is smart and the historian isn’t. Things are always going to fall through the cracks.
            The ultimate example is Hume's billiard balls. Hume says we do not see the cause of the ball being made to move, we only really see one ball stop and the other start. But this happens every time we watch, so we assume that the tight correlation gives us causality. The naturalistic metaphysician assumes that all of nature works this way. A tight correlation is as good as a cause. So when we observe only naturalistic causes we can assume there is nothing beyond naturalism. The problem is many phenomena can fall between the cracks. One might go one's whole life never seeing a miraculous event, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't observe such things. All the atheist can say is "I have never seen this" but I can say "I have." Yet the atheist lives in a construct that is made up of his assumptions about naturalistic cause and effect, and it excludes anything that challenges this assumption. So this constructed view of the world that is made out of assumption and probabilities misses a lot of experience that people do have that contradicts the paradigm of naturalism. The thing is, to make that construct they must use logic. After all what they are doing in making the correlation is merely inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning has to play off of deductive reasoning to even make sense. Ultimately then, "empiricism" as construed by naturalist (inductive probabilistic assumptions building constructs to form a world view) is inadequate because it is merely a construct and rules out a prori much that contradicts.

Other realms
Consciousness—dualism in a new package
Lourdes miracles


            The Question of other realms is a good test for the limits of science. Up to this point in human history science had no way to tell if there were other realms or not. For most of the life of modern science the idea of other realms, conjuring in the popular mind images of heaven, hell, Dante’s Inferno, and Superman’s Phantom zone were a laughing stock. With the advent of the twentieth century, relativity, Quantum theory and a lot of other physics, other realms have not only become fashionable they are basically mandatory. Atheists treat the idea of a multi-verse as though it’s a proven fact when in reality there’s no empirical evidence for it at all. There are now physicists making noises about maybe having the first hint of proof, maybe we are in a position begin real systematic study of the question, but as it stands now there is no actual proof that all scientists are willing to accept as fact at the moment. The question of other realms is all tangled up in the popular mind be it atheist or believer with the fear that God will be proved and the hope that God will disproved. This removes most atheists from the sphere of the objective status the prize so highly. There are disinterested scientists working on the question who seek pure knowledge (if they aren’t human). David Detsch, an Oxford Physicist, claims to have proved mathematically that the multiverse is “the only explanation for the nature of reality.”[i] National Geographic has reported:

"Dark flow" is no fluke, suggests a new study that strengthens the case for unknown, unseen "structures" lurking on the outskirts of creation. In 2008 scientists reported the discovery of hundreds of galaxy clusters streaming in the same direction at more than 2.2 million miles (3.6 million kilometers) an hour. This mysterious motion can't be explained by current models for distribution of mass in the universe. So the researchers made the controversial suggestion that the clusters are being tugged on by the gravity of matter outside the known universe.Now the same team has found that the dark flow extends even deeper into the universe than previously reported: out to at least 2.5 billion light-years from Earth.After using two additional years' worth of data and tracking twice the number of galaxy clusters, "we clearly see the flow, we clearly see it pointing in the same direction," said study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.[ii]

We are all being sucked toward some opening or other leading to this multiverse, the collection of parallel worlds. Of course with such an amazing claim such scanty evidence it’s easy to over look the fact that we have no empirical evidence at all to validate it. The observation galaxy cultures heading off in the same directing is empirical in a scientific sense (although not the philosophical sense) the problem is it just doesn’t tell us what’s doing it. It’s all fine and good to say “it doesn’t’ conform to any known model” but what’s the real cash value as proof of multiverse? It could just as easily be a an astronomical feature that doesn’t conform to a known mode but isn’t a multiverse. Its one thing to say “no known model” another to say ‘we are really working hard at coming up with another model that it could be instead.’ It’s probably not a giant handkerchief or a turtle that’s about we can say about it. 
            While we should not doubt that the search for mulitverse is undertaken from the standpoint of the human drive for pure knowledge, there is a very obvious cash pay off in terms of atheist apologetics and it’s pretty clear this is in the minds of many who do the “pure” scientific research. Discover magazine does a spread on what is at the moment Hawking’s new book, it talks about “M theory” and it relates to physics, adding this:

STEPHEN HAWKING'S new book The Grand Design sparked a furore over whether physics can be used to disprove the existence of God. But few have noted that the idea at the core of the book, M-theory, is the subject of an ongoing scientific debate – specifically over the very aspect of the theory that might scrap the need for a divine creator. That the laws of nature in our universe are finely tuned for life seems miraculous, leading some to invoke divine involvement. But if there is a multiverse out there – a multitude of universes, each with its own laws of physics – then the conditions we observe may not be unique.[iii]

The article in which this appears is entitled “M-Theory, Doubts Linker over Godless Multipverse.”[iv] This doesn’t mean they don’t have pure scientific motives, but everyone who studies the issue, from the top physicists to the science beat reporters to the average aficionado who buys the magazine, they all understand the relationship to the issue of God’s existence. That doesn’t mean the scientists are cooking up the theory to thwart religious believers, but they do know they on whose toes they are stepping. Why are they talking about God to begin with? It’s totally out of their domain.
            Not all physicists are convinced either. Peter Woit is a mathematical physicist at Columbia University, he’s not a joiner. Woit has authored a booked entitled Not Even Wrong (a phrase by Wolfgang Pauli that became an  inside joke among physicists meaning so bad it’s not even wrong) in which he argues that there is no proof of string theory. What does string theory have to do with this? M-theory and string theory are both important to the hunt for a unified theory that will tie everything together and explain everything. Hawking identifies M-theory with the grand unified theory, according to Woit it is the super symmetrical theory of gravity.[v]String theory, according to Woit is:

a very complex set of ideas that lots of people, a very large amount of people have worked on and have done a lot of different things with. Probably what it's best known for and what got people all excited about it in the physicist community is the conjecture that, at the most fundamental level, you can understand matter and the universe in terms not of point particles, which is the way our best theory is, currently, you can understand things, but in terms of, if you like, vibrating in loops of some elementary objects here, your elementary object instead of being a point-like thing is something you should think of more as a one dimensional loop, or a string which is kind of moving around.[vi]


These are not exactly the same things but they are very related. Woit writes his book about the inadequate proof for string theory, but in his article about Hawking’s soon to be released book he shows the inadequacy of M-theory. Grand unfied theory is not some attempt to disprove God, it’s a much more purely scientific quest for knowledge. It centers on the basic need science has to explain everything. Woit talks about the beautify of the standard model and how successful its been but it doesn’t explain everything. There are many open questions it does not answer, such as why do different kinds of particles have different masses.[vii] This is a purely scientific question but as the origin of religions got tangaled up with attempts to explain the natural world, so pure attempts at doing modern science are always tanagled up with the need to answer the question of God; or to deny the question of God as the case may be.[viii]  As for the proof of string theory:

Question: Will string theory ever be verifiable or unverifiable?
Peter Woit: Yeah, well as I said, String Theory is actually a very complicated story. If you start out with this hypothesis that maybe your ephemeral objects are not points, but are these strings, there's a lot of different things you can try and do that you have a whole different class of theories you can play with. So, I think a lot of - if you look at what most people, who are still going String Theory are doing, they're actually not directly trying to develop this unified theory anymore. They're off doing other things with String Theory. People these days are trying to apply it to problems in nuclear physics; they're applying it to problems in Solid State Physics, understanding super conductors. So, the people who are still interested in it are often kind of - even if they may or may not explicitly admit that they've given up on the unified theory idea, but they're often doing other things. So, there's a very active pursuit of String theory with other applications that don't have anything to do with unification.
It's also turned out to be very interesting in mathematics. There's a very, one of the things that I'm most interested in is the intersection between mathematics and physics and the way the two fields affect each other and ideas from physics lead to very interesting things about mathematics, ideas in mathematics get used in …physics. And String Theory has been very, very fruitful in terms of raising questions which have led to very interesting mathematics. So, there's a very active field of research kind of in between math and physics in String Theory. But it just doesn't seem to be relevant to this question of unification.[ix]

            As for the proof of M theory, the new Hawking book is a very interesting case of public relations over science. Woit comments on the book n his blog “Not Even Wrong.” He quotes Hawking in a full reversal of this question forr grand unified theory. The publishers focused upon the shcok of “brilliant major scientist gives up on God” but the publicity guys forgot to point out that he’s actually giving up on is his replacement for God. Woit quotes Hawking thirty years ago when he said “we are quite close to a final unified theory.”[x] He quotes him in the new book where he says “we seem to be at a critical point in the history of science

We seem to be at a critical point in the history of science, in which we must alter our conception of goals and of what makes a physical theory acceptable. It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle. The parameters are free to take on many values and the laws to take on any form that leads to a self-consistent mathematical theory, and they do take on different values and different forms in different universes.[xi]

In other words, he’s giving up on grand unified theory because it can’t square with logic or the laws of physics. On the other hand we can set parameters in any number of ways (he means ignore logic and physical law) the math can be self consistent. That is to say it works on paper but we can’t really prove it. Above I showed that he left gravity as the way out through the back door, gravity replaces his organizing principle of grand unified theory which he previously called “the mind of God.”[xii] One wonders which “god” did he really give up on, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in whom he did not believe in the first place, or the grand unified theory God? Woit Quotes him as saying in the Grand Design that it may not be possible to decipher the nature of M-theory: “People are still trying to decipher the nature of M-theory, but that may not be possible. It could be that the physicist’s traditional expectation of a single theory of nature is untenable, and there exists no single formulation. It might be that to describe the universe, we have to employ different theories in different situations.”[xiii] Woit points out that M-theory doesn’t meet the basic criteria Hawking sets forth for a successful theory:
A good model:
1. Is elegant
2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations
4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.
The fact that “M-theory” satisfies none of these criteria is not remarked upon.[xiv]

            What is falling between the cracks here, apart from proof for the theory? The whole scientific community seems not to even be waiting for the eggs to hatch, they have not yet been laid, they are just thought about. Suppose they do prove the theory of everything, suppose they do prove a mutliverse exists, does this actually disprove God? The only God it could disprove would be the big guy in the sky; It would only be differing examples of being and thus the fact that more more examples of being have been found would hardly disprove the ground of all being. Moreover it would not even disprove the guy in the sky, as there would still have to be some sort of explanation for a first cause for the mulitverse. Where did gravity come from? Where did the laws of physics that makes the multiverse come form? Why do these disembodied laws seem to work? No doubt they would have to repair to a infinite causal regression. This is something real science has not done in relation to the question of world. They have provided the ability to understand the concept, but they don’t actually say “this is a  scientific fact.” Why would they say that for the mutliverse? What about the ability of plantes in the multiverse to bear life? Wouldn’t we have to actually go there to see if they do? Unless we have empirical proof that many parallel planets actually do bear life the existence of a mulitiverse of barren gracious planet is not disproof of the fine tuning argument. Of course let us not forget all of this assumes we argue for a guy in the sky anyway. People are assuming that a mulitverse would have the same laws of phsyics and thus would produce life as our universe has, but that is not an assumption Hawking makes. As already quoted above: “The parameters are free to take on many values and the laws to take on any form that leads to a self-consistent mathematical theory, and they do take on different values and different forms in different universes..” (see FN 27 above). In other words, all the other universes could have different laws of physics and all of those laws of physics could produce a bunch of empty rocks or bags of gas as planets and no life. But all of these possibilities slip between the cracks. The way induction works we make statistical averages, since the only concrete data we have to go by is us, we just average in the factor of live instead of ruling it out, and we assume a godless universe teaming with life.
            Another idea lost between the cracks is an answer to Deutch (above) who says that the Mv is offers the only explanation for the nature of reality. The problem is that is only because they are not willing to a possibility that reality si beyond our ability to understand. They can’t really accept that even if it’s true because it would mean there’s an absolute limit on their mission as scientists. As scientists their basic assumption is they have to keep going until they know it all, at least in terms of the physical world. For other matters they rule that out a prori because it’s not part of the mission. So when he says the Mv theory is the only one that explains reality, the unspoken obvious caveat is, “without becoming a mystic or philosopher.” At this pinot naturalism becomes circular reasoning. Mysticism and philosophy are ruled out because they require one to go beyond naturalism. The assumption is made that only science can prove absolutely in concrete terms what it postulates. The problem is it’s already ruled out other view points, not on concrete terms but because they aren’t’ in its domain. Well, the fact is the theory of everything is not proved, so it can’t be that we are ruling out mysticism on the basis of scientific proof against it! Another possibility that’s ruled out is that even with a naturalistic universe it may not be possible to have a theory of everything. That is also ruled out on ideological grounds, this point will be driven home all the more since Hawking has admitted it.

            Miracles are a good example of things falling between the cracks. Miracles are a very difficult thing to discuss. There are many modern academics who will run in dread at the mention of the term, but that serves to prove my point all the better. Miracles, while they are extremely difficult to prove, are not banned from reality from modern thinking because they have been proved false, the methods used to keep them out, both by creating such amazing prejudice that no one will listen, and by circular reasoning which fallaciously makes them out to be false a priori, these methods are merely the enforcement of a truth regime not indicative of scientific discover. Time and space does not permit a discussion that would truly do this complex subject justice, I shall hit upon some of the scarce highlights. The object here is only to prove, not that miracles happen, but that if miracles did happen their exclusion would be based entirely upon falling through the cracks in the web of naturalism. Or to put it another way, the point is to prove that the exclusion of miracles is not a scientific fact but an ideological protocol. Atheists and skeptics often assume that this kind of talk is motivated by creationist assumptions, and they construe it as an attack upon science. I am not a creationist! This is not an attack upon science; it’s an attack upon the ideology that accompanies science, the doppelganger of science to speak. Atheists assume science is an arm of atheism. Scientists assume they are neutral and no concerned, as scientists, with sectarian matters. Many scientists have their opinions about religious belief and thus they might be gung ho on the ideology that accompanies science as anyone. Science is a human endeavor it cannot be divorced from human motivations in practice. In terms of pure science itself it’s a great and wonderful thing. I would be the last person who wants to put the kybosh on scientific thinking. Nor do I construe scientific thinking as privileging the Bible. As a theologian I privilege the Bible, not as a scientific thinker. I don not call myself a “scientist.” The closest I come to scientific thinking is as a historian of science, in which I was trained at Ph.D. level. There is a distinction between a scientist and historian of science. While I refrain from calling myself that out respect for those who are truly trained academically in the actual pursuit of scientific learning, not out of any disregard for science, I am not exactly unaware of scientific thinking.
            Miracles would be impossible to disprove scientifically. To say that miracles are disproved one would have to disprove all reports; there could always be a report somewhere that hasn’t been disproved. In order to get around these problem naturalists just make an abstract extrapolation based upon induction. We fail to observe miracles in any occasion that we know of and thus we can extrapolate to all of reality. On the other hand, this is the formula for things falling through cracks. It means that some miracle could happen and because it didn’t make it into the reports that science has considered then it’s assumed not to be true. This is even significant than an instance of some drug working or smoking not causing cancer in a few cases, because such things will always be ruled out as anomalies. A true miracle has to involve God (to be a true miracle) and thus if it could be proved to be a true miracle would prove that God is real. Thus that one miracle could happen and fall though the cracks would be very significant. As it so happens there is a great deal of evidence for miracles. The problem is the crack falling process is made even worse because the naturalists take the lack of proved miracles as proof that they don’t happen. It then asserts that further evidence must be false because “there is no evidence.” So even when good evidence exists and is proved it’s ignored. The thing that makes it easy to ignore is that there is and always will be an epistemological gap (this goes back to what I said at the first of the chapter) that science can’t penetrate. Unfortunately, faith can’t penetrate it either. We will always have this gap; it’s the chiasm over which one must make a leap of faith. We can’t observe an event and know by looking if God did it or not. A woman has a broken leg. We x-ray it and see clearly it is broken. We pray for her leg and x-ray it five minutes latter and it’s not broken anymore. The believer will say “the prayer was answered.” The skeptic will say “It was an ‘atypical healing process’ but there’s no proof God did it.” They both have their points. In such a situation the failure to prove God’s involvement is not disproof of a miracle. On the other hand, in a situation like the one described there’s a huge probability argument the believer can make to back up the assumption of a miracle. That assumption would immediately ignored by the skeptic on the grounds of all the other examples where the proof has been ignored. There is no way to overcome the epistemic gap, except by a leap of faith. The gap could be made more easily traversable by a really good platform from which to leap, that’s where arguments come in. Science can’t really ever say “this is not a miracle” because that is beyond its domain. What it can say is “this outstrips our ability to determine the naturalistic reasons for it.” The only thing the believer can say is the very same thing. So there is always going to be a epistemic gap that must be bridged by a leap of faith.
            The absolute best evidence for miracles is the Catholic miracles committee attached to the miracles of Lourdes. The miracles committee operates with the strictest rules in the world for miracle hunters.


The paradox of human miracle assessment is that the only way to discern whether a phenomenon is supernatural is by having trained rationalists testify that it outstrips their training. Since most wonders admitted by the modern church are medical cures, it consults with doctors. Di Ruberto has access to a pool of 60 - "We've got all the medical branches covered," says his colleague, Dr. Ennio Ensoli - and assigns each purported miracle to two specialists on the vanquished ailment.

They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block. Pain, explains Ensoli, means little: "Someone might say he feels bad, but how do you measure that?" Leukemia remissions are not considered until they have lasted a decade. A cure attributable to human effort, however prayed for, is insufficient. "Sometimes we have cases that you could call exceptional, but that's not enough." says Ensoli. "Exceptional doesn't mean inexplicable." "Inexplicable," or inspiegabile, is the happy label that Di Ruberto, the doctors and several other clerics in the 
Vatican's "medical conference" give to a case if it survives their scrutiny. It then passes to a panel of theologians, who must determine whether the inexplicable resulted from prayer. If so, the miracle is usually approved by a caucus of Cardinals and the Pope.

Some find the process all too rigorous. Says Father Paolino Rossi, whose job, in effect, is lobbying for would-be saints from his own Capuchin order: "It's pretty disappointing when you work for years and years and then see the miracle get rejected." But others suggest it could be stricter still.

There is another major miracle-validating body in the Catholic world: the International Medical Committee for the shrine at 
Lourdes. Since miracles at Lourdes are all ascribed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary, it is not caught up in the saint-making process, which some believe the Pope has running overtime. Roger Pilon, the head of Lourdes' committee, notes that he and his colleagues have not approved a miracle since 1989, while the Vatican recommended 12 in 1994 alone. "Are we too severe?" he wonders out loud. "Are they really using the same criteria?"[xv]


I will not go into any detail about the development of rules which is very complex and a rich history in itself. After 1977 the following list became opporational:


1) The diagnostics and authenticity of the disease has been preliminarily and perfectly assessed;

2) The prognosis provides for an impending or short-term fatal outcome;

3) The recovery is sudden, without convalesce, and absolutely complete and final;

4) The prescribed treatment cannot be deemed to have resulted in a recovery or in any case could have been propitiatory for the purposes of recovery itself. These criteria are still in use nowadays, in view of their highly logical, accurate and pertinent nature.[xvi]

This is in addition to very rigorous rules Author: Cardinal Prospero Lambertini,
future Pope Benedict XIV, 1734. The committee requires the finest modern diagnostics and they much receive the records from the patients
 doctor. They control for remission, for this reason do not accept leukemia cures unless the person has been cured for ten years (because remission often go back). The committee is made up of medical experts, they use skeptics on the committee as well. The town doesn’t own or control the committee and has no role in the process. The theological issues and input of church hierarchy only go to work on cases passed to them by the medicos.
            These arrangements are so rigorous that out of thousands of miracle claims only about 65 have been accepted as official miracles. They also have 2,500 “remarkable” claims[xvii] that are inexplicable but don’t make the cut due to technical problems in documenting or something of that nature.[xviii] There’s good reason to think a miracle might have occurred somewhere in all of this. There is reason to understand it as a miracle, an event unexplained connected to the divine and guided by the divine for purpose of getting human attention. The only factor that isn’t nailed down with medical documentation and adds to any potential change in the satiation is prayer. The length of time between the healing and the prayer is so short the two can clearly be connected. That leaves a lot of room for gaps in cases where the process is not submitted to the Lourdes committee. In other words who really can say that God would not take a long time to answer a prayer for healing? That rules all those cases and make the epistemic gap even greater, but it is entirely possible miracles could be overlooked all the time.


Since the apparitions at Lourdes in 1858, a procedure has gradually developed for verifying the cures and healings which occur there. Today, Lourdes is recognized as the Church's foremost center for investigating healings. There, medical personnel from all the world are invited to investigate the evidence for reported healings. Included among the medical examiners are those who allow and those who exclude the possibility of miraculous healings. The procedure also attempts to respects the dignity of the person who has been cured. John Paul II reminded the medical personnel of Lourdes that the verification of miraculous cures is Lourdes' "special responsibility and mission" (Nov. 17, 1988).[xix]


This is nothing for a skeptic to deny. Skeptics can always deny. There is no trick to denial, one can deny anything. The point is any or all of these cases could well be miracles. Here are examples of some of the cases:[xx]

Colonel Paul Pellegrin
3 October 1950
age 52; Toulon, France Post-operative fistula following a liver abscess in 1948. By the time of his pilgrimage in 1950, the condition had degenerated to an open wound that required multiple dressing changes each day, and showed no sign of healing. On emerging from his second bath in the waters, the wound had completely closed, and the condition never bothered him again. Recognized by the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France on 8 December 1953.

Brother Schwager Léo
30 April 1952
age 28; Fribourg, Switzerland multiple sclerosis for five years; recognized by the diocese of Fribourg, Switzerland on 18 December 1960

Alice Couteault, born Alice Gourdon
15 May 1952
age 34; Bouille-Loretz, France multiple sclerosis for three years; recognized by the diocese of Poitiers, France on 16 July 1956

Marie Bigot
8 October 1953 and 10 October 1954
age 31 and 32; La Richardais, France arachnoiditis of posterior fossa (blindness, deafness, hemiplegia); recognized by the diocese of Rennes, France 15 August 1956

Ginette Nouvel, born Ginette Fabre
21 September 1954
age 26; Carmaux, France Budd-Chiari disease (supra-hepatic venous thrombosis); recognized by the diocese of Albi on 31 May 1963

Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli
5 June 1958
age 27; Patti, Italy tuberculous osteo-arthritis with fistulae at multiple sites in the right lower limb; recognized by the diocese of Messine, Italy on 26 May 1965

Juliette Tamburini
17 July 1959
age 22; Marseilles, France femoral osteoperiostitis with fistulae, epistaxis, for ten years; recognized by the diocese of Marseille, France on 11 May 1965

Vittorio Micheli
1 June 1963
age 23; Scurelle, Italy Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumor so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralyzed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain, and could walk. By February 1964 the tumor was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. Recognized by the diocese of Trento, Italy on 26 May 1976.

Serge Perrin
1 May 1970
age 41; Lion D'Angers, France Recurrent right hemiplegia, with ocular lesions, due to bilateral carotid artery disorders. Symptoms, which included headache, impaired speech and vision, and partial right-side paralysis began without warning in February 1964. During the next six years he became wheelchair-confined, and nearly blind. While on pilgrimage to Lourdes in April 1970, his symptoms became worse, and he was near death on 30 April. Wheeled to the Basilica for the Ceremony the next morning, he felt a sudden warmth from head to toe, his vision returned, and he was able to walk unaided. First person cured during the Ceremony of the Anointing of the Sick. Recognized by the diocese of Angers, France on 17 June 1978.

Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa
24 December 1976
age 12; Paterno, Italy Ewing's Sarcoma of right knee; recgonized by the diocese of Catania, Italy on 28 June 1989

Jean-Pierre Bély
9 October 1987
age 51; French multiple sclerosis; recognized by the diocese of Angoulême on 9 February 1999  


            There are any number of reasons why these would fall through the cracks. One of them main reasons is because they are Catholic. They are not the work of official medical academic entities, although they certainly make use of medical experts and scientific data. The official channels of the academy are important. There good logical reasons why we couldn’t trust information if it had no connection with outside sources. On the other hand, skeptics will merely demand that it has to be a lie if it has any connection with a religious institution and then it’s down between the cracks. There may be logical reasons to be couscous but the point is if something falls between the cracks of the world view, the truth regime the ideology in question whatever that may be, science is not in the business of excavating the cracks and it would take remarkable effort to even admit there can be cracks. What the existence of cracks the potential for any sort of epistemic question or ontological reality to fall between them proves is that science is limited, science is human observation, and science is not all knowing. These limitations of science and the propensity to fall between the cracks is a good indication that questions like the question of God are not scientific questions. Saying God is not a scientific question does not mean that God is not a valid belief or that there’s no reason to believe in God. What not being a scientific question means is that we have to use other methods to seek God. Perhaps we should try the method that God seems to have indicated he should try, the human “heart,” meaning the deepest recess of our consciousness, the part of ourselves that is capable of wonder, of desire, of making commitments.



[i] Susan Barber, “A Physicist Explores The Mulitpverse: Quantum Computer Predict Parallel Worlds,”  Electrinic Magazine: The Spirit of Ma’at. Vol 2 number 2. URL: http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/sep2/multivrs.htm visited 9/13/10.
[ii] John Roach, National Geographic Daily News, online for National Geogrphaic News, (March 22), 2010, URL: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/, visited 9/13/10.
[iii] Kate McAlpine, “M-Theory: Ddoubts Linger Over Godless Universe,” New Scientist, (14 September) 2010 Magine isse 2778 URL: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727780.301-mtheory-doubts-linger-over-godless-multiverse.html visited 9/13/2010.
[iv] Ibid
[v] Stephen Hawking and Peter Woit, bouth statements on Woit’s blog, “Not Even Wrong” 9/7/2010 URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ visited 9/13/2010.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Peter Woit, Interview, “Is Sting Theory Stringing us Along?” Big Think Electronic magazine. (Jan 18) 2010. URL: http://bigthink.com/ideas/18234 visited 9/18/2010
[viii] J.L. Hinman, the Trace of God, op cit, chapter 3, “Aguments.” The origin of religion is the sense of the numinous, the human sense that there is some form of holiness or unified nature ot reality, something beyond our understanding that makes reality special. The Atheist assertion that religion was invented to explain nature is really based upon their need to explain nature, once religion became part of human consciousness human naturally looked to it for all answers, but that doesn’t mean that was it’s origin. I draw an analogy between that origin of religion and it’s relation to primitive science, and modern science and It’s tangential nature of questions of God.
[ix] Woit Interview, Ibid.
[x] Woit paraphrasing Hawking, Ibid.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of TimeNew York: Random House, 1991, 185. “if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.”
[xiii] Ibid
[xiv] Ibid.
[xv] David Van Biema, and Greg Burke, “Modern Miracles Have Strict Rules,” Time Magazine on line. April 10, 1995. URL: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982807,00.html
[xvi] Franco Balzaretti Vice Presidente Nazionale - Associazione Medici Cattolici Italiani (AMCI)
Membre du Comité Médical International de Lourdes (CMIL) Online Chatolic Newsletter Leadership Medica 2000. http://www.leadershipmedica.com/scientifico/sciedic02/scientificaing/10balzae/10balzaing.htmvisited 
9/16/2010
[xvii] Marian Library Newsletter, No 38, (new series) 1999, the original quotation is form Nov, 17,1988. URL: http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/respub/summer99.html visited 9/17/2010.
[xviii] Balzaretti, Ibid
[xix] Marian Library Newsletter, Ibid.
[xx] Patron Saints Index Lourdes cures. Website URL: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stb06001.htm visited 9/17/2010. More detailed information available @ Our Lady of Lourdes, another website, URL: http://www.theworkofgod.org/Aparitns/Lourdes/Lourdes1.htm visited 9/17/2010

48 comments:

The Pixie said...

Joe: True empirical evidence in a philosophical sense means exact first hand observation. In science it doesn't really mean that, it implies a more truncated process. Consider this, we drop two balls of different size from a tower. Do they fall the same rate or the bigger one falls faster?

In modern science, most evidence is indirect. Particles are observed by a detector, chemical structures are elucidated by spectrometers. Thus, by a strict definition, it is not empirical evidence (and in effect it is looking at the billiard balls, and determining the cue from that).

As for the claims of science being empirically true, who claims that exactly? Science aims to model reality. It accepts that model may be an approximation. Newton's laws of motion are a good approximation, so it is still taught in schools. Relativity is a better approximation. Neither are perfect, neither are empirically true.

Joe: Atheists treat the idea of a multi-verse as though it’s a proven fact when in reality there’s no empirical evidence for it at all.

Some atheists might. I for one do not.

Joe: Of course with such an amazing claim such scanty evidence it’s easy to over look the fact that we have no empirical evidence at all to validate it.

In the strict sense of what we can sense directly, of course not. But it is an observed fact that galaxies are tending to move towards a certain zone. Dark flow is real. Dark flow is the billiard ball. What is uncertain is what causes it.

Joe: ... That doesn’t mean the scientists are cooking up the theory to thwart religious believers, but they do know they on whose toes they are stepping. Why are they talking about God to begin with? It’s totally out of their domain.

Whose domain is it? Are only priests allowed to make comments about God? As far as I can see, cosmologies are the only people who are looking at evidence to determine the origin of the universe. I think that gives them more right to speak on the subject than anyone else.

It is curious that your post is titled "Things fall Through The Cracks"; it is creating fixed domains and demanding people keep neatly within them that creates those cracks.

Joe: Grand unfied theory is not some attempt to disprove God, it’s a much more purely scientific quest for knowledge.

Grand unified theory is the idea that at very high energy (as was the case at the Big Bang) the electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces were all one force. It is based in part of the positive charge in the universe being exactly equal to the negative. Experimentally, it has been shown that the electromagnetic and weak nuclear do combine at high energy, so just awaits the strong nuclear at even higher. It is unproven, but seems pretty likely.

I think you are talking about the "theory of everything", which, it is hoped, will unify relativity and quantum field theory (but again, represents the situation immediately after the Big Bang). String theory/M-theory is one approach to finding the solution.

Joe: What is falling between the cracks here, apart from proof for the theory? The whole scientific community seems not to even be waiting for the eggs to hatch, they have not yet been laid, they are just thought about.

Actually the general view is that we need more data from CERN and the like, as well as from astrophysics, before it can be determined.

The Pixie said...

Joe: Miracles would be impossible to disprove scientifically. To say that miracles are disproved one would have to disprove all reports; there could always be a report somewhere that hasn’t been disproved.

So just like alien UFOs.

Joe: The absolute best evidence for miracles is the Catholic miracles committee attached to the miracles of Lourdes. The miracles committee operates with the strictest rules in the world for miracle hunters.

Now there is a great example of where Bayesian analysis would be useful. It should be possible to get data for Leukaemia remissions both at Lourdes and globally. In fact, this is so obvious I am sure the miracles committee will have done the work already, right?

They have not?

Why might that be?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The Pixie said...
Joe: True empirical evidence in a philosophical sense means exact first hand observation. In science it doesn't really mean that, it implies a more truncated process. Consider this, we drop two balls of different size from a tower. Do they fall the same rate or the bigger one falls faster?

PX:In modern science, most evidence is indirect. Particles are observed by a detector, chemical structures are elucidated by spectrometers. Thus, by a strict definition, it is not empirical evidence (and in effect it is looking at the billiard balls, and determining the cue from that).

That is not a substantial disagreement with what I said.


As for the claims of science being empirically true, who claims that exactly? Science aims to model reality. It accepts that model may be an approximation. Newton's laws of motion are a good approximation, so it is still taught in schools. Relativity is a better approximation. Neither are perfect, neither are empirically true.

that is not the way atheists represent it I;e that very thing and many times been told I'm attacking science.


Joe: Atheists treat the idea of a multi-verse as though it’s a proven fact when in reality there’s no empirical evidence for it at all.

PXSome atheists might. I for one do not.

I've never seen a refutation of fine tuning that doesn't include multiverse



Joe: Of course with such an amazing claim such scanty evidence it’s easy to over look the fact that we have no empirical evidence at all to validate it.

PX:In the strict sense of what we can sense directly, of course not. But it is an observed fact that galaxies are tending to move towards a certain zone. Dark flow is real. Dark flow is the billiard ball. What is uncertain is what causes it.

You are arguing fro analog. Indirect observation us used fur x,y and z and we assume they are true,so if we use it for P we can assert that it proved it,



Joe: ... That doesn’t mean the scientists are cooking up the theory to thwart religious believers, but they do know they on whose toes they are stepping. Why are they talking about God to begin with? It’s totally out of their domain.

PX:Whose domain is it? Are only priests allowed to make comments about God?

Anyone can comment on God noting in since gives one credentials to make pronouncements about God. Theologians rather than priests are the religious analog to physicists,

PX: As far as I can see, cosmologies are the only people who are looking at evidence to determine the origin of the universe. I think that gives them more right to speak on the subject than anyone else.

That's BS. cosmologists don't have any data that allows them to arbitrate about God. they are not the only one;s to use data All those philosophers who argue the cosmological or fine tuning argent use lots of data of the same kind

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

PXIt is curious that your post is titled "Things fall Through The Cracks"; it is creating fixed domains and demanding people keep neatly within them that creates those cracks.

Not really . That's the spin you put on it you have it all so tightly segmented, science vs everything else, You assume there are no believers among scientists.


Joe: Grand unfied theory is not some attempt to disprove God, it’s a much more purely scientific quest for knowledge.

PX:Grand unified theory is the idea that at very high energy (as was the case at the Big Bang) the electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces were all one force. It is based in part of the positive charge in the universe being exactly equal to the negative. Experimentally, it has been shown that the electromagnetic and weak nuclear do combine at high energy, so just awaits the strong nuclear at even higher. It is unproven, but seems pretty likely.



I think you are talking about the "theory of everything", which, it is hoped, will unify relativity and quantum field theory (but again, represents the situation immediately after the Big Bang). String theory/M-theory is one approach to finding the solution.

no I said what I meant but we can include that in my statement too


PX: : What is falling between the cracks here, apart from proof for the theory? The whole scientific community seems not to even be waiting for the eggs to hatch, they have not yet been laid, they are just thought about.

Actually the general view is that we need more data from CERN and the like, as well as from astrophysics, before it can be determined.

that does not challenge my argument,


12:35 AM Delete

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

he Pixie said...
Joe: Miracles would be impossible to disprove scientifically. To say that miracles are disproved one would have to disprove all reports; there could always be a report somewhere that hasn’t been disproved.

So just like alien UFOs.

but without the colored lights, unless you count Christmas


Joe: The absolute best evidence for miracles is the Catholic miracles committee attached to the miracles of Lourdes. The miracles committee operates with the strictest rules in the world for miracle hunters.

Now there is a great example of where Bayesian analysis would be useful. It should be possible to get data for Leukaemia remissions both at Lourdes and globally. In fact, this is so obvious I am sure the miracles committee will have done the work already, right?

they've already done that,that;s why Lourdes doesn;t take leukemia cases,

They have not?

Why might that be?

what I said

Anonymous said...

Joe: I've never seen a refutation of fine tuning that doesn't include multiverse

So? The multiverse only needs to be plausible to refute fine tuning.

Joe: You are arguing fro analog. Indirect observation us used fur x,y and z and we assume they are true,so if we use it for P we can assert that it proved it,

I used an analogy. The dark flow seems to be an actual thing; something awaiting an explanation.

Joe: Anyone can comment on God noting in since gives one credentials to make pronouncements about God. Theologians rather than priests are the religious analog to physicists,

But where do they get their evidence from? Something written over two thousand years ago by person unknown? I will trust physicists using real evidence over that.

Joe: That's BS. cosmologists don't have any data that allows them to arbitrate about God. they are not the only one;s to use data All those philosophers who argue the cosmological or fine tuning argent use lots of data of the same kind

They have just as much as theologians and possibly more.

Joe: Not really . That's the spin you put on it you have it all so tightly segmented, science vs everything else, You assume there are no believers among scientists.

And yet YOU are the one objecting when scientists step outside their prescibed segment.

Joe: but without the colored lights, unless you count Christmas

See if you can think of any other difference.

Joe: they've already done that,that;s why Lourdes doesn;t take leukemia cases,

What do you mean? Did they find a correlation then? Why do they not take leukaemia cases?

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: I've never seen a refutation of fine tuning that doesn't include multiverse

PX: So? The multiverse only needs to be plausible to refute fine tuning.

Not at all. It has to include a hit rate for life bearing universes.Merely being plausible doesn't hep, It has to be overwhelmingly probable

Joe: You are arguing from analog. Indirect observation us used fur x,y and z and we assume they are true,so if we use it for P we can assert that it proved it,

Px:I used an analogy. The dark flow seems to be an actual thing; something awaiting an explanation.

analogy is not proof it only illustrates an idea it doesn't prove them. Arguing from analogy (using it to prove something) is a fallacy


Joe: Anyone can comment on God nothing in sience gives one credentials to make pronouncements about God. Theologians rather than priests are the religious analog to physicists,

Px:But where do they get their evidence from? Something written over two thousand years ago by person unknown? I will trust physicists using real evidence over that.

what makes yo think theologians can only quote ancient documents? evidence is where you find it. science is not some automatic disproof of religion. We can have scientific proof of religion. there can be logical proof, there can be proofs based upon historical fact, proofs based upon philosophical idea, all of which are at the disposal of theology.


Joe: That's BS. cosmologists don't have any data that allows them to arbitrate about God. they are not the only one;s to use data All those philosophers who argue the cosmological or fine tuning argument use lots of data of the same kind

Joe: They have just as much as theologians and possibly more.

Not as scientists, Just as theologian can't make pronouncements about science. A theologian can't say evolution is not true because it contradicts the Bible neither can a scientist say God does;t exist because i have a theory about origins

Joe: Not really . That's the spin you put on it you have it all so tightly segmented, science vs everything else, You assume there are no believers among scientists.

Px: And yet YOU are the one objecting when scientists step outside their prescribed segment.

that is not commensurate. saying science can't rule out God is not a fallacy, neither is it stepping on science's toes.But saying religion can't true becasue it's not scientific s a fallacy

Joe: but without the colored lights, unless you count Christmas

PX:See if you can think of any other difference.

science is more factually based but it can only get at facts in a narrow realm Religion can reach further but it can't prove as certainly its claims. So there;s a trade off either way,


Joe: they've already done that,that;s why Lourdes doesn;t take leukemia cases,

What do you mean? Did they find a correlation then? Why do they not take leukemia cases?

on cancers that have a high remission rate they declare a miracle because it could just remission

The Pixie said...

Joe: Not at all. It has to include a hit rate for life bearing universes.Merely being plausible doesn't hep, It has to be overwhelmingly probable

Why?

Fine-tuning is a problem. An intelligent agent created the universe is one plausible solution, the multiverse is another. I do not think we have any way to judge the probability of either. And there may be other solutions we have not considered.

Joe: analogy is not proof it only illustrates an idea it doesn't prove them. Arguing from analogy (using it to prove something) is a fallacy

Sure, so ignore the analogy.

Dark flow is an observation, not an analogy. The billiard ball was the analogy, and I never mentioned that in my last comment.

It is an observed fact that galaxies are being pulled towards a region of space. That fact has been labelled "dark flow".

Joe: what makes yo think theologians can only quote ancient documents?

That is not what I said. I said those documents are their only evidence. All their claims ultimately go back to those documents.

Joe: evidence is where you find it. science is not some automatic disproof of religion. We can have scientific proof of religion. there can be logical proof, there can be proofs based upon historical fact, proofs based upon philosophical idea, all of which are at the disposal of theology.

Okay, so give a single example of a theologian using a scientific proof of any religious claim.

Theologians use history to make historical claims. I appreciate the distinct is not that clear, but it is there. That Jesus existed is a historical claim. That Jesus is God is a theological claim.

Joe: Not as scientists, Just as theologian can't make pronouncements about science. A theologian can't say evolution is not true because it contradicts the Bible neither can a scientist say God does;t exist because i have a theory about origins

Why? If the scientific evidence points to a naturalistic explanation for the universe, the scientific inference is that the universe was not created by God. Your attempts to build walls insulating religion from science are going to fail.

Theologians cannot make pronouncements about science because they are not familiar with the evidence and likely cannot cope with the maths when it comes to this sort of cosmology.

Scientists can make pronouncements about origins because they are familiar with the evidence. Well, not the musings of an unknown iron age priest three thousand years ago perhaps, but why should we suppose he was an authority on high energy particles at the Big Bang?

Joe: that is not commensurate. saying science can't rule out God is not a fallacy, neither is it stepping on science's toes.But saying religion can't true becasue it's not scientific s a fallacy

Science is tentative, so cannot rule out God, but it can - and is - make God unnecessary and highly unlikely.

Who is saying religion can't be true because it's not scientific?

Sure, people say religion can't be true because the evidence indicates it is not true.

Sure, people say we should consider religious claims to be suspect because they are not scientific.

But saying religion can't be true because it's not scientific is nonsense.

Pix: See if you can think of any other difference.

Joe: science is more factually based but it can only get at facts in a narrow realm Religion can reach further but it can't prove as certainly its claims. So there;s a trade off either way,

The difference between religion and belief in UFOs!

Joe: on cancers that have a high remission rate they declare a miracle because it could just remission

That does not preclude a Bayesian analysis - in fact, it pretty much demands one!

If there really are miracles, we should see a far higher rate of remission from visitors to Lourdes. The fact that no one has published this data strongly suggests the data does not support miracles; the rate of remission is not correlated with visiting Lourdes.

7th Stooge said...

Arguing from analogy (using it to prove something) is a fallacy

Arguing from analogy isn't a fallacy per se. It depends on the content of the analogy.

7th Stooge said...

Theologians cannot make pronouncements about science because they are not familiar with the evidence and likely cannot cope with the maths when it comes to this sort of cosmology.

Unless they happen to be both, like John Polkinghorne :) BTW, shouldn't the same restriction tapply to scientists making philosophical and/or theological pronouncements of which they know next to nothing, like Hawking announcing that "Philosophy is dead"? (itself a philosophical conclusion)

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

good point 7

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: Not at all. It has to include a hit rate for life bearing universes.Merely being plausible doesn't hep, It has to be overwhelmingly probable

Why?

God is plausible but you don't use that to believe. Hit rate for life bearing because that;s the point of fine tuning,

PX Fine-tuning is a problem. An intelligent agent created the universe is one plausible solution, the multiverse is another. I do not think we have any way to judge the probability of either. And there may be other solutions we have not considered.

Multi verse just repeats the problem each universe must be fine tuned,

Joe: analogy is not proof it only illustrates an idea it doesn't prove them. Arguing from analogy (using it to prove something) is a fallacy

Sure, so ignore the analogy.

right so no proof for you

pxDark flow is an observation, not an analogy. The billiard ball was the analogy, and I never mentioned that in my last comment.


Dark flow does not disprove fine tuning


It is an observed fact that galaxies are being pulled towards a region of space. That fact has been labelled "dark flow".


right ts part of fine tuning no doubt


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: what makes yo think theologians can only quote ancient documents?

That is not what I said. I said those documents are their only evidence. All their claims ultimately go back to those documents.

No I said evidence us where you find it, OS modern theologians can learn physics like physicist Polkinghorn learned theology then they can do both,


Joe: evidence is where you find it. science is not some automatic disproof of religion. We can have scientific proof of religion. there can be logical proof, there can be proofs based upon historical fact, proofs based upon philosophical idea, all of which are at the disposal of theology.

px Okay, so give a single example of a theologian using a scientific proof of any religious claim.

Polkinghorn. Scientist Pauli Davies argues for God using science,



PXTheologians use history to make historical claims. I appreciate the distinct is not that clear, but it is there. That Jesus existed is a historical claim. That Jesus is God is a theological claim.

Yes and science has no way to disprove it,

Joe: Not as scientists, Just as theologian can't make pronouncements about science. A theologian can't say evolution is not true because it contradicts the Bible neither can a scientist say God does;t exist because i have a theory about origins

Why? If the scientific evidence points to a naturalistic explanation for the universe, the scientific inference is that the universe was not created by God. Your attempts to build walls insulating religion from science are going to fail.

there is a difference in speaking in terms of your own educated opinion and trying to evoke the authority of a discipline on some issue that it can't settle,

Theologians cannot make pronouncements about science because they are not familiar with the evidence and likely cannot cope with the maths when it comes to this sort of cosmology.

Unless they train in it, you don;t need to math to argue about fine tuning others have done that for us,

Scientists can make pronouncements about origins because they are familiar with the evidence. Well, not the musings of an unknown iron age priest three thousand years ago perhaps, but why should we suppose he was an authority on high energy particles at the Big Bang?

no amount of science disproves God. big bang doesn't disprove God. God can make a big bang,



Joe: that is not commensurate. saying science can't rule out God is not a fallacy, neither is it stepping on science's toes.But saying religion can't true because it's not scientific s a fallacy

Science is tentative, so cannot rule out God, but it can - and is - make God unnecessary and highly unlikely.


No it can;t, You can never get under the initial origin,

Who is saying religion can't be true because it's not scientific?

o atheists for example Skepie




Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Sure, people say religion can't be true because the evidence indicates it is not true.

Sure, people say we should consider religious claims to be suspect because they are not scientific.

But saying religion can't be true because it's not scientific is nonsense.

Pix: See if you can think of any other difference.

Joe: science is more factually based but it can only get at facts in a narrow realm Religion can reach further but it can't prove as certainly its claims. So there;s a trade off either way,

The difference between religion and belief in UFOs!

Joe: on cancers that have a high remission rate they declare a miracle because it could just remission

That does not preclude a Bayesian analysis - in fact, it pretty much demands one!

I am not opposed to all Bayesian analysis but I am opposed to sitting probability for God.

If there really are miracles, we should see a far higher rate of remission from visitors to Lourdes. The fact that no one has published this data strongly suggests the data does not support miracles; the rate of remission is not correlated with visiting Lourdes.

you are confusing heal thing with passing the tests the church set;s for Lourdes thosuands are healed, but they don;t pass the stringent tests,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

7th Stooge said...
Arguing from analogy (using it to prove something) is a fallacy

Arguing from analogy isn't a fallacy per se. It depends on the content of the analogy.

No it's always wrong just like if I were to, ....wait a minute...if I finish that sentence I prove your point.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

the analogical nature cant prove a positive fact, by it;s analogical nature alone. But an analogy can demonstrate an idea and be persuasive.

The Pixie said...

7th: Unless they happen to be both, like John Polkinghorne :) BTW, shouldn't the same restriction tapply to scientists making philosophical and/or theological pronouncements of which they know next to nothing, like Hawking announcing that "Philosophy is dead"? (itself a philosophical conclusion)

I find it odd you are both advocating limiting a person's freedom to speak. I wonder if this blog should be shut down because the author lacks the appropriate qualifications? Joe clearly fails to understand the multiverse; this post should be deleted immediately! Is that a positive way forward?

The pronouncements of anyone should be weighed against the evidence for and against. If Hawking had good reason to say "Philosophy is dead", then we should pay attention (which is not the same as agreeing necessarily). If he had no good reasons, we should ignore it.

The Pixie said...

Question to both of you as you are both posting on this: What do you think I am arguing by analogy?

The Pixie said...

Joe: God is plausible but you don't use that to believe. Hit rate for life bearing because that;s the point of fine tuning,

I do not believe in God or the multiverse. I do consider both plausible, and so both are possible.

Joe: Multi verse just repeats the problem each universe must be fine tuned,

See, this is why you should be banned from making pronouncements about the multiverse!

Each universe in the multiverse has a random set of fundamentals. Given an infinite number of universes, some (albeit a very small fraction) will hit upon the exact combination required for life. We will necessarily be in such a universe.

Seriously, if you do not get that, you have entirely missed the point of the multiverse with respect to fine-tuning.

Joe: Dark flow does not disprove fine tuning

Of course not! The Dark flow and fine-tuning are observations. The multiverse is a solution that explains both.

Joe: No I said evidence us where you find it, OS modern theologians can learn physics like physicist Polkinghorn learned theology then they can do both,

Polkinghorne studied theology because he became a Christian. That is fine, but what is the motivation for a non-Christian physicist to study Christian theology? Why should they think Christian theology is woorth spending time on, rather than Hindu theology?

How much has Polkinghorne studied Hindu theology?

Joe: No I said evidence us where you find it, OS modern theologians can learn physics like physicist Polkinghorn learned theology then they can do both,

What evidence will I find in modern theology?

Joe: ... We can have scientific proof of religion. ...

Pix: Okay, so give a single example of a theologian using a scientific proof of any religious claim.

Joe: Polkinghorn. Scientist Pauli Davies argues for God using science,

So what is the scientific proof of the religious claim that God exists?

See, I do not think there is one. I very much think that if Polkinghorne had a scientific proof that God exists then I would have heard of it. You would be all over it. Christians at CARM would be all over it. Science would be all over it. Scientific proof of God is worthy of a Nobel prize.

The reality is that even Polkinghorne's Wiki page fails to mention he has a scientific proof of God.

Because it does not exist!

The Pixie said...

Joe: there is a difference in speaking in terms of your own educated opinion and trying to evoke the authority of a discipline on some issue that it can't settle,

Right, so we agree theologians should shut up about theology.

Joe: Unless they train in it, you don;t need to math to argue about fine tuning others have done that for us,

But it would help if you understood the alternatives. You clearly do not understand how the multiverse addresses fine-tuning.

Joe: no amount of science disproves God. big bang doesn't disprove God. God can make a big bang,

How does that relate in any way to what I said?

Joe: No it can;t, You can never get under the initial origin,

So?

Pix: The difference between religion and belief in UFOs!

Joe: ...

It is tricky, isn't it? At the end of the day there is really no more reason to think Christianity is true than to think we routinely get visited by aliens in UFOs. Both claims are believed by a lot of people, both can be explained in other ways, both reject science as a way to investigate them - and in both cases I think that is because science indicates they are not true.

Joe: I am not opposed to all Bayesian analysis but I am opposed to sitting probability for God.

Why?

My guess: Because you think the probability of recovery from Lourdes is essentially the same as it is in the general population. If you actually look at the data, you might find your supposed evidence is nothing of the sort.

Joe: you are confusing heal thing with passing the tests the church set;s for Lourdes thosuands are healed, but they don;t pass the stringent tests,

Lots of people get well after being ill without visiting Lourdes.

If you want anyone with a clue to believe your claims about Lourdes, you need to get the data that shows people who visit Lourdes have a significantly higher probability of full recovery.

I think it is telling that no one has ever done (as far as I know).

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The Pixie said...
7th: Unless they happen to be both, like John Polkinghorne :) BTW, shouldn't the same restriction tapply to scientists making philosophical and/or theological pronouncements of which they know next to nothing, like Hawking announcing that "Philosophy is dead"? (itself a philosophical conclusion)

sure it's a philosophical conclusion that makes them stupid.

I find it odd you are both advocating limiting a person's freedom to speak. I wonder if this blog should be shut down because the author lacks the appropriate qualifications? Joe clearly fails to understand the multiverse; this post should be deleted immediately! Is that a positive way forward?

I find it odd that you can't distinguish between speaking as a eternally educated person who should be taken serious or as a total expert who knows all and must not be questioned, we re not talking about censorship but the fear of expertise.

The pronouncements of anyone should be weighed against the evidence for and against. If Hawking had good reason to say "Philosophy is dead", then we should pay attention (which is not the same as agreeing necessarily). If he had no good reasons, we should ignore it.

yes I agree but every time I tiered to do that Skepie would go "You do not know anything about science."

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The Pixie said...
Question to both of you as you are both posting on this: What do you think I am arguing by analogy?
PX:In the strict sense of what we can sense directly, of course not. But it is an observed fact that galaxies are tending to move towards a certain zone. Dark flow is real. Dark flow is the billiard ball. What is uncertain is what causes it.
example: you said "


there had been no argument about dark flow you were saying I am right about this therefore i am right about this other unrelated thing,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

he Pixie said...
Joe: God is plausible but you don't use that to believe. Hit rate for life bearing because that;s the point of fine tuning,

PX:I do not believe in God or the multiverse. I do consider both plausible, and so both are possible.

ok neither are they mutually exclusive


Joe: Multi verse just repeats the problem each universe must be fine tuned,

PX:See, this is why you should be banned from making pronouncements about the multiverse!

except I'm right it;snot a disproof of fine tuning,


Each universe in the multiverse has a random set of fundamentals. Given an infinite number of universes, some (albeit a very small fraction) will hit upon the exact combination required for life. We will necessarily be in such a universe.


that is not proof that it is so all pervasive as to counter balance the fine tuning argent, say we have proof of other universes, but we don;t know if they have life in them we can say they must because the odds are they would but still does not mean that when we find fine running it;s not against the odds. I the same finely utnned occurs and persist in all universes it might just mean they are all fine tuned,


Seriously, if you do not get that, you have entirely missed the point of the multiverse with respect to fine-tuning.

I understand the argent that is being made,I am countering it you are not listening, you are just going: you are supposed to think this way" I get that but it;s wrong.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: Dark flow does not disprove fine tuning

Of course not! The Dark flow and fine-tuning are observations. The multiverse is a solution that explains both.


But it doesn't. The other universes need fine stunning, just the existence of another universe is not proof that it;s odds and not God.


Joe: No I said evidence is where you find it, OS modern theologians can learn physics like physicist Polkinghorn learned theology then they can do both,

Polkinghorne studied theology because he became a Christian. That is fine, but what is the motivation for a non-Christian physicist to study Christian theology? Why should they think Christian theology is woorth spending time on, rather than Hindu theology?


If you want to disprove the thinking of theologians you must first first kinow what they think



How much has Polkinghorne studied Hindu theology?

that is irrelevant, The atheist assertion that christianity might not be true but some other faith might be is a foolish argument. All gods point to God belief does not support unbelief,.All those Hindus would side with a Christian before they side with an atheist,


Joe: No I said evidence is where you find it, so modern theologians can learn physics like physicist Polkinghorn learned theology then they can do both,

Px:What evidence will I find in modern theology?

the five proofs are an example. my experience arguments as in my book the Trace of God are an example.

Joe: ... We can have scientific proof of religion. ...

Pix: Okay, so give a single example of a theologian using a scientific proof of any religious claim.

Joe: Polkinghorn. Scientist Paul Davies argues for God using science,

So what is the scientific proof of the religious claim that God exists?

arguments like fine tuning and cosmological argument, go back and read some of your old arguments, we won all those,


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...




See, I do not think there is one. I very much think that if Polkinghorne had a scientific proof that God exists then I would have heard of it. You would be all over it. Christians at CARM would be all over it. Science would be all over it. Scientific proof of God is worthy of a Nobel prize.

You are assuming that science is the only form of knowledge. Seine only works on physical tangible aspects of reality. It cannot tell us about reality beyond the physical realm. God is beyond the physical realm. iciness cannot tell us about God.we have to approach God in some other way interlining concerns itself with that other way.


PXI think it is telling that no one has ever done (as far as I know).

that is just total ignorance, There are tons of scientifically based arguments for God, scientists have made them and philosophers such as Craig, read Creaig,

PXThe reality is that even Polkinghorne's Wiki page fails to mention he has a scientific proof of God.

I have intimated time ad time again that "proof" is not an issue, proof is only for mathematics and self referential statements and ideal abstract hypothetical. everything else must be on faith, it's not a matter of proof but of veri dissimilitude or confidence.


Because it does not exist!

12:39 AM Delete
Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: there is a difference in speaking in terms of your own educated opinion and trying to evoke the authority of a discipline on some issue that it can't settle,

Right, so we agree theologians should shut up about theology.

Because we have knowledge you can't answer, you dare not face the truth we know that;s why you have to have the unfair advantage of expertise in a field we are not imitated into,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: Unless they train in it, you don;t need to do math to argue about fine tuning others have done that for us,

PX:But it would help if you understood the alternatives. You clearly do not understand how the multiverse addresses fine-tuning.

I;ve gone beyond the conventional prescribed opinion to think about it for myself, you have yet to do that.

Joe: no amount of science disproves God. big bang doesn't disprove God. God can make a big bang,

PX:How does that relate in any way to what I said?

Fine tuning is not Taken out by multiverse, Multiverse is not proven it;s still just theory it not a reality we do not know that there is one,


Joe: No it can;t, You can never get under the initial origin,

So?

Pix: The difference between religion and belief in UFOs!

that is quite a senseless statement...you can;t answer the argumemt so try to laugh the truth out of the debate

PXIt is tricky, isn't it? At the end of the day there is really no more reason to think Christianity is true than to think we routinely get visited by aliens in UFOs.

a little guilt by association is always necessary when trying to lough the truth out of the room.

Both claims are believed by a lot of people, both can be explained in other ways, both reject science as a way to investigate them - and in both cases I think that is because science indicates they are not true.


No it does not judgments about the existnece of God is beyond the preview of science, Science is no more able to comment on God that is ethics or aesthetics,


Joe: I am not opposed to all Bayesian analysis but I am opposed to sitting probability for God.

Why?

PXMy guess: Because you think the probability of recovery from Lourdes is essentially the same as it is in the general population. If you actually look at the data, you might find your supposed evidence is nothing of the sort.

That is factually wrong it;s clear you have never studied it,I've talked with member of the Lourdes medical committee, it's BS.


Joe: you are confusing healing with passing the tests the church set;s for Lourdes thousands are healed, but they don;t pass the stringent tests,

PXLots of people get well after being ill without visiting Lourdes.

wrong. Lourdes has rules that screen out such cases,they do not consider them none of the Lourdes headlights involve cases that could have gotten we;l by itself,


If you want anyone with a clue to believe your claims about Lourdes, you need to get the data that shows people who visit Lourdes have a significantly higher probability of full recovery.

wrong, that;s the issue i discussed with the committee member,the cases they use have no remission rate, they use cases where no chance of being healed. they use double blind studies to check ,Here;s a book by a woman who was a checker she didn;t know she was one, she was asked to verify certain records she didn;t know they were for Lourdes

http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2012/11/medical-miracles-doctors-saints-and.html


I think it is telling that no one has ever done (as far as I know).

this shows the depth your lightface,they have a whole academician journal of such data

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

correction, Duffin was a researcher for saint making miracles,I think they are interchangeable. Lourdes and saint miracles, they use the same committee and same rules

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

here is a monaural Clarice following a team of medical historians researching Lourdes, rather it's my summary of the artichoke,

the original article

J Hist Med Allied Sci. 2014 Jan; 69(1): 135–162.
Published online 2012 Jul 27. doi: 10.1093/jhmas/jrs041


on line article in Journal


https://academic.oup.com/jhmas/article-abstract/69/1/135/734376?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

this is not the journal i mention above btw this journal associated wth Oxford

you have heard of Oxford right? (Joke)

The Pixie said...

Joe: sure it's a philosophical conclusion that makes them stupid.

No it really is not! It is how they arrived at them that matters. An idiot can be right by accident - a stopped clock is right twice a day.

It looks like you have decided you do not like the conclusion, and so have decided they are stupid. That is antithetical to rational thinking.

Joe: I find it odd that you can't distinguish between speaking as a eternally educated person who should be taken serious or as a total expert who knows all and must not be questioned, we re not talking about censorship but the fear of expertise.

No one should ever be "a total expert who knows all and must not be questioned"! Again, that is antithetical to rational thinking. Science is all about questioning, and the idea that anyone cannot be question is nonsense in science. Even in cosmology, Hawking's claim can and should be questioned.

Joe: there had been no argument about dark flow you were saying I am right about this therefore i am right about this other unrelated thing,

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you could specific what the two instances of "this" actually refer to, that would help. I suspect you do not actually know.

Joe: except I'm right it;snot a disproof of fine tuning,

It is a disproof of the fine-tuning argument for God. From CADRE Comments:

The argument says simply that the universe must be structured in very exact ways to produce life. It's so exacting as to be totally improbable. Because it's so improbable that gives us a good reason to think the game is fixed.

The plausibility of the multiverse invalidates the claim "It's so exacting as to be totally improbable." The possibility of the multiverse indicates that the probability is much higher than you claim, and so your conclusion is not valid.

This is the problem with any default-based argument. The fine-tuning argument is saying that we cannot explain fine-tuning by naturalistic processes, therefore God by default. You can dress it up all you want, but that is what it is.

The multiverse gives a naturalistic process that explains fine-tuning. It does not have to be proven, only plausible, to invalidate your argument.

Joe: that is not proof....

I am not saying it is proof. I am saying it is plausible, and the fact that it is plausible is all that is needed to invalidate the fine-tuning argument.

Joe: that is not proof that it is so all pervasive as to counter balance the fine tuning argent, say we have proof of other universes, but we don;t know if they have life in them we can say they must because the odds are they would but still does not mean that when we find fine running it;s not against the odds. I the same finely utnned occurs and persist in all universes it might just mean they are all fine tuned,

All I need is a naturalistic process that engenders a fine-tuned universe to invalidate your argument. The multiverse does that.

I am not saying it proves God does not exist.

Joe: I understand the argent that is being made...

No you do not, because you go right on to say:

Joe: ... The other universes need fine stunning...

If you think all the universes need fine tuning then you do not understand the argument, and have entirely missed the point.

The universes are entirely randomly. Some a suitable for life, but the vast majority are not.

The Pixie said...

Joe: If you want to disprove the thinking of theologians you must first first kinow what they think

Pix: How much has Polkinghorne studied Hindu theology?

Joe: that is irrelevant

Of course it is! When you say "theology", you mean specifically the theology YOU believe. Obviously YOUR beliefs should be given special consideration, and no one is to speak on theology unless he or she has studied YOUR beliefs.

Back in the real world, non-Christians give Christian theology just as much respect as you give Hindu theology.

Joe: The atheist assertion that christianity might not be true but some other faith might be is a foolish argument. All gods point to God belief does not support unbelief,.All those Hindus would side with a Christian before they side with an atheist,

That was not the point. The point is how YOU (and other Christians such as Polkinghorne) regard theology you do not believe. Then asking you why anyone else should not do likewise.

Joe: the five proofs are an example. my experience arguments as in my book the Trace of God are an example.

None of those are proofs! If they were, all philosophers would agree that God existed!

Joe: arguments like fine tuning and cosmological argument, go back and read some of your old arguments, we won all those,

The fact that you think you won all of those arguments shows how low you set the bar. To be frank, it makes you look deluded.

Think how often we argue about "warrant". If you had a proof, why would you bother with "warrant"? The fact that you need to use "warrant" to cover up the uncertainty in your claims shows that you know as well as I do that you do not have proof God exists.

Joe: You are assuming that science is the only form of knowledge.

Oh come on! You specifically said "We can have scientific proof of religion". What I am assuming is science is the only way to get scientific proof.

Is this an indication of why you are convinced you won all those argument?

Joe: Seine only works on physical tangible aspects of reality. It cannot tell us about reality beyond the physical realm. God is beyond the physical realm. iciness cannot tell us about God.we have to approach God in some other way interlining concerns itself with that other way.

So your claim that "We can have scientific proof of religion" was just BS. Thanks for confirming.

Joe: I have intimated time ad time again that "proof" is not an issue, proof is only for mathematics and self referential statements and ideal abstract hypothetical. everything else must be on faith, it's not a matter of proof but of veri dissimilitude or confidence.

And yet you said "We can have scientific proof of religion".

Joe: there is a difference in speaking in terms of your own educated opinion and trying to evoke the authority of a discipline on some issue that it can't settle,

Pix: Right, so we agree theologians should shut up about theology.

Joe: Because we have knowledge you can't answer, you dare not face the truth we know that;s why you have to have the unfair advantage of expertise in a field we are not imitated into,

The issue of the existence of God cannot be settled, therefore, according to you, theologians should not evoke their authority on that issue.

Or have you changed your mind on that too?

The Pixie said...

Pix: The difference between religion and belief in UFOs!

Joe: that is quite a senseless statement...you can;t answer the argumemt so try to laugh the truth out of the debate

The issue is about the nature of the evidence for religion, compared to the nature of the evidence for UFOs. Science cannot disprove either, and believers in both insist that scientific evidence is not applicable.

Why should I believe you, and not the crank down the road who claims he got abducted by aliens?

This is really the same as the earlier issue about Hinduism. What makes your beliefs special? Why should anyone believe your claims over the alien abductee or the Hindu? How is your evidence any more convincing than theirs?

As an aside, take a look at this, which suggests belief in UFOs may soon catch up with Christianity as the most popular religion in the US (according to a professor of theology).

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/6/4/18632778/ufo-aliens-american-cosmic-diana-pasulka

The Pixie said...

With regards to Lourdes:

Here is a better link for the "Oxford" article, as it contains the full text.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3854941/

It gives a visitor rate of 150,000 a year during the "Golden Age", 1890–1915. They tabulate the number of "cures" (which they put in scare quotes) per year, from 101 in 1909, falling to just 13 in 1914.

Just 13 "cures" from 150,000 pilgrims? That really does not sound miraculous to me!

The last period they look at is 1991 to 2006. Total cures over those 16 years: Zero.

I would suggest that we would expect a rather higher rate of "cure" if this was legitimate.

I find the theology here bizarre too. Catholicism has taken Mary and turned her almost into the fourth part of the trinity. I suspect the reason for that was to appeal to pagans who worshipped an earth mother goddess, and nothing to do with Christianity, and it is no coincidence that the Protestant church rejects such glorification of Mary.

Soubirous's story is hardly unique; visions of Mary were relatively common (eg Anglèze de Sagazan two centuries earlier, and Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat just 12 years earlier). There is a Wiki page on the phenomenon.

What is so special about this one?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The Pixie said...
Joe: sure it's a philosophical conclusion that makes them stupid.

PX:No it really is not! It is how they arrived at them that matters. An idiot can be right by accident - a stopped clock is right twice a day.

they have no empirical evidence against God, their unbelief is philosophical and based upon will/


PX:It looks like you have decided you do not like the conclusion, and so have decided they are stupid. That is antithetical to rational thinking.

Yes I don;t like the conclusion because it';s illogical





No one should ever be "a total expert who knows all and must not be questioned"! Again, that is antithetical to rational thinking. Science is all about questioning, and the idea that anyone cannot be question is nonsense in science. Even in cosmology, Hawking's claim can and should be questioned.

It is cool that you say that yet I believe you are disingenuous because that is what athies want, they want science to be all knowing priesthood of knowledge,


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: there had been no argument about dark flow you were saying I am right about this therefore i am right about this other unrelated thing,

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you could specific what the two instances of "this" actually refer to, that would help. I suspect you do not actually know.

fill in blank this way: I am right about [dark flow or any other example] therefore i am right about [fine tuning] other unrelated thing,


Joe: except I'm right it;snot a disproof of fine tuning,

It is a disproof of the fine-tuning argument for God. From CADRE Comments:

The argument says simply that the universe must be structured in very exact ways to produce life. It's so exacting as to be totally improbable. Because it's so improbable that gives us a good reason to think the game is fixed.

PXThe plausibility of the multiverse invalidates the claim "It's so exacting as to be totally improbable." The possibility of the multiverse indicates that the probability is much higher than you claim, and so your conclusion is not valid.

no that is conventional bull shit based upon wishful thinking, Multiverse does not guarantee life or abundant life,or advanced life,

besides all that MV is totally unprofitable that is a contradiction to the basic argumemt atheists always make that one must have empirical proof fir anything believed



reader notice they jacked it down room only empirical evidence is valid to even just the possibility of MV disproves that;s because they can't ever prove it.




PXThe multiverse gives a naturalistic process that explains fine-tuning. It does not have to be proven, only plausible, to invalidate your argument.

No it es nt it proves n process forFT .you are assuming that FT can happen in dead matter, you can;t prove Mv would have life you are begging the question.


Joe: that is not proof....

PXI am not saying it is proof. I am saying it is plausible, and the fact that it is plausible is all that is needed to invalidate the fine-tuning argument.

that i bs MV ,might be lifeless, it might nt exist


Joe that is not proof that it is so all pervasive as to counter balance the fine tuning argent, say we have proof of other universes, but we don;t know if they have life in them we can say they must because the odds are they would but still does not mean that when we find fine running it;s not against the odds. I the same finely utnned occurs and persist in all universes it might just mean they are all fine tuned,

PXAll I need is a naturalistic process that engenders a fine-tuned universe to invalidate your argument. The multiverse does that.

you have a naturalistic process. FT requires mind, it means setting target levels you can;t prove they are jsut set automatically. when I say set I mean hit.


I am not saying it proves God does not exist.

Joe: I understand the argent that is being made...

No you do not, because you go right on to say:

Joe: ... The other universes need fine stunning...

If you think all the universes need fine tuning then you do not understand the argument, and have entirely missed the point.

Yes it does,I already documented that


The universes are entirely randomly. Some a suitable for life, but the vast majority are not.

it might be the case that none are

5:36 AM
The Pixie said...

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The Pixie said...
Joe: If you want to disprove the thinking of theologians you must first first know what they think

Pix: How much has Polkinghorne studied Hindu theology?

Joe: that is irrelevant

Of course it is! When you say "theology", you mean specifically the theology YOU believe. Obviously YOUR beliefs should be given special consideration, and no one is to speak on theology unless he or she has studied YOUR beliefs.

It is irrelevant the issue is there are people who do both theology and physics. Just because Polkinghorn doesn't do all theology is not proof that one can;t do both theology and physics,you have no idea what he or I think about Hinduism.


Back in the real world, non-Christians give Christian theology just as much respect as you give Hindu theology.


I give Hinduism respect. That;s why I developed the approach of saying all god;s point to God. rather than say your thing is evil and mine is true I say there is a realty bedimmed all our traditions,. We are all right,we re all wrong. Now Jesus speaks to me so I will risk my eternal fortunes on him, But I don;t disrespect your decision to go with Vishnu.


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: arguments like fine tuning and cosmological argument, go back and read some of your old arguments, we won all those,

The fact that you think you won all of those arguments shows how low you set the bar. To be frank, it makes you look deluded.

you are not really thinking about any of this I have always known this is the case,it's not about thinning its not about logic or proof you have no concept of anything I;ve said argue you have not heard it or thought about any of it.I argue circles around you are not even well read,. It's all about the will.I will not bow to other i am my own God period.

Think how often we argue about "warrant". If you had a proof, why would you bother with "warrant"? The fact that you need to use "warrant" to cover up the uncertainty in your claims shows that you know as well as I do that you do not have proof God exists.

what better proof could there be that You don;t listen, i say every time it can't be proven you act like it;s some big secret I;ve never owned up to.I say it every fucking time we argue. Of course it can;t be proven, it;s beyond our understanding, it;s the cardinal rule of mysticism. why would I write a book about defending mystical expedience and then violate the cardinal rule of mysticism.??

why don't you try listening for a change?


7th Stooge said...

I find it odd you are both advocating limiting a person's freedom to speak. I wonder if this blog should be shut down because the author lacks the appropriate qualifications? Joe clearly fails to understand the multiverse; this post should be deleted immediately! Is that a positive way forward?

"Restriction" wasn't what I meant. But I did say "same," referring to what you were saying. So judging from the context, you should have been able to guess what I was saying: "We should approach with the same skepticism when a scientist is talking about something s/he knows very little about and have very little support for as we do about a non-scientist."

The pronouncements of anyone should be weighed against the evidence for and against. If Hawking had good reason to say "Philosophy is dead", then we should pay attention (which is not the same as agreeing necessarily). If he had no good reasons, we should ignore it.

I believe he had no good reasons. I believe that he and Krauss and others believe that hilosophy impedes scientific expansionism.

7th Stooge said...

Question to both of you as you are both posting on this: What do you think I am arguing by analogy?

Where did I say I thought you were arguing by analogy? My point was with Joe, that argument by analogy isn't necessarily a fallacy. It depends on the strength of the analogy.

7th Stooge said...

Each universe in the multiverse has a random set of fundamentals. Given an infinite number of universes, some (albeit a very small fraction) will hit upon the exact combination required for life. We will necessarily be in such a universe.

Seriously, if you do not get that, you have entirely missed the point of the multiverse with respect to fine-tuning.


Is a motivation for positing a multiverse then a way of getting around the fine-tuning problem? And if the probability of a multiverse were to go down significantly, would that increase the probability of something being "up" in the universe?

7th Stooge said...

No it really is not! It is how they arrived at them that matters. An idiot can be right by accident - a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I think what Joe was saying there was that Hawking was using a philosophical statement to say that philosophy is dead, which on the face of it sounds a little silly. It does sound like one of those triumphalist statements that a logical positivist would have made about 80 or 90 years ago. My point is that you have people like Hawking and Dawkins who criticize philosophy and theology but who don't seem to know much about what's gone on in those fields in a long time, if ever. It's like creationists who don't know much about biology or physics and have little to support their claims. Maybe the analogy isn't always exactly parallel but it is close. You have an under-informed dogmatic fundamentalism either way. Yes, Hawking and Dawkins wouldn't be dogmatic about any given scientific findings, but I think they'd be much more certain about their metaphysical commitments.

Anonymous said...

Joe: they have no empirical evidence against God, their unbelief is philosophical and based upon will/

Wrong. There argument is based on evidence; it is speculative, sure, but it is what the evidence points to.

Joe: Yes I don;t like the conclusion because it';s illogical

Earlier you said we should reject their conclusions because of their area of expertise. This is a huge improvement over that nonsense!

Now you just need to show their concklusion is illogical.

Joe: It is cool that you say that yet I believe you are disingenuous because that is what athies want, they want science to be all knowing priesthood of knowledge,

Absolutely not! At least not in the sense that it can never be questioned, which is the issue here. It is religion that promotes unquestioning faithg, it is religion that seeks to prevent enquiry. In that sense, science is the antithesis of a preisthood.

Joe: fill in blank this way: I am right about [dark flow or any other example] therefore i am right about [fine tuning] other unrelated thing,

You think I have said that? Quote me.

I can assure you I have not.

By the way, the analogy was the billiard ball, so it is clear you actually had no idea what it was.

Joe: no that is conventional bull shit based upon wishful thinking, Multiverse does not guarantee life or abundant life,or advanced life,

Again, you prove you do not understand it.

Here is an analogy (which is to help you understand, not to prove anything!):

Let us suppose a computer program that randomly generates a universe. It picks 10 random numbers, each from 1 to 1000, as the fumdamental constants. Only one exact combination of numbers gives the specific universe we want. What are the odds of stumbling on that by accident?

1 in 10^30 (10^30 is 1 with 30 zeros after it - a very big number)

We can be sure it will not happen.

But wait, the computer is superfast, and we can have it generate an infinite nuyber of universe,given infinite time. What are the odds of it hitting on that one specific combination now? Well, now it is an absulte certainty.

The multiverse is like that computer, producing an infinite number of universes. It is then a certainty that it will, at random, hit upon the right combination occasionally.

Joe: besides all that MV is totally unprofitable that is a contradiction to the basic argumemt atheists always make that one must have empirical proof fir anything believed

reader notice they jacked it down room only empirical evidence is valid to even just the possibility of MV disproves that;s because they can't ever prove it.


So the multiverse is not a part of science. it is one plausible explanation for fine-tune, just as God is a plausible explanation. In fact, just as the universe-generating computer is a plausible explanation.

Joe: No it es nt it proves n process forFT .you are assuming that FT can happen in dead matter, you can;t prove Mv would have life you are begging the question.

If (and it is conditional) there are infinite random universes, then it necessarily follows that in our universe we have fine-tuning.

Joe: it might be the case that none are

No it is not, because we know that at least one specific set of fundamentals is good - the ones this universe has.

Pix

Anonymous said...

Joe: It is irrelevant the issue is there are people who do both theology and physics. Just because Polkinghorn doesn't do all theology is not proof that one can;t do both theology and physics,you have no idea what he or I think about Hinduism.

You reject Hawking's view because he has not studied Christian theology; it is just as reasonable to reject Polkinghorne's - or yours - because he has not studied Hindu theology.

Either we say a person must have a certain level of understanding of the theology of ALL religions or not. You do not get to say everyone has to know your pet theory to be able to dismiss it. Not until you have shown good reason for everyone to think it is true.

Joe: what better proof could there be that You don;t listen, i say every time it can't be proven you act like it;s some big secret I;ve never owned up to.I say it every fucking time we argue. Of course it can;t be proven, it;s beyond our understanding, it;s the cardinal rule of mysticism. why would I write a book about defending mystical expedience and then violate the cardinal rule of mysticism.??

why don't you try listening for a change?


I do listen. I listened when you said "We can have scientific proof of religion" for example. How about you try keeping your story straight for a change?

And please listen to me about the multiverse, because you really do have it wrong.

Pix

Anonymous said...

7th: "Restriction" wasn't what I meant. But I did say "same," referring to what you were saying. So judging from the context, you should have been able to guess what I was saying: "We should approach with the same skepticism when a scientist is talking about something s/he knows very little about and have very little support for as we do about a non-scientist."

Absolutely! Whenever anyone makes pronouncements like this we should think about why they said it; what is their motive and what is the evidence? We should also look at how others in the field, the experts, receive the pronouncement.

7th: I believe he had no good reasons. I believe that he and Krauss and others believe that hilosophy impedes scientific expansionism.

Why would he think that? Oh, right, people like Joe want to tell him he is not allowed to look at the fundamental origins of the universe.

Science should be free to investigate anything. Why would anyone choose to stop it? Now there may be areas where it fails, areas that do not suit the scientific method, but if anyone things it is worth trying, and they can get funding, then it should be allowed to go ahead.

So why would anyone choose to stop it? Because they are afraid their pet theory will be refuted. And so we see people declaring that science shold not be allowed to try, and using emotional phrases like "scientific expansionism".

7th: Is a motivation for positing a multiverse then a way of getting around the fine-tuning problem? And if the probability of a multiverse were to go down significantly, would that increase the probability of something being "up" in the universe?

Or spinning it the other way, the multiverse is a possible solution to the issue of fine-tuning.

If the evidence indicated there was no multiverse, then the "we do not know" answer becomes more likely. You do not get to win by default in science.

7th: I think what Joe was saying there was that Hawking was using a philosophical statement to say that philosophy is dead, which on the face of it sounds a little silly.

Then it would be just as silly if the world's foremost philosopher said. Joe indicated he was rejecting it because it was said by a non-philosopher, so I suspect your analysis is wrong.

7th: It does sound like one of those triumphalist statements that a logical positivist would have made about 80 or 90 years ago. My point is that you have people like Hawking and Dawkins who criticize philosophy and theology but who don't seem to know much about what's gone on in those fields in a long time, if ever. It's like creationists who don't know much about biology or physics and have little to support their claims. Maybe the analogy isn't always exactly parallel but it is close. You have an under-informed dogmatic fundamentalism either way. Yes, Hawking and Dawkins wouldn't be dogmatic about any given scientific findings, but I think they'd be much more certain about their metaphysical commitments.

Now that sounds more like Joe's point.

I think Dawkins is a little different to Hawking. Dawkins really should learn more about Christian theology, because he s talking specifically about Christian theology - and it reflects badly on him when he gets it wrong.

Hawking, on the oher hand, is talking from what the evidence in his field points to, and I think that that is very different. He knew better than pretty much anyone on the planet what the likely nature of the early universe was like; who is better qualified to speculate further back in time about it? A philosophy?

I would suggest that quantum mechanics has had more impact on philosophy than the entirety of philosophy has had on our understanding of the universe in the last one hundred years. That is just a guess; see if you can think of any great insights from philosophy. Convince me philosophy is not dead!

Pix

7th Stooge said...

Why would he think that? Oh, right, people like Joe want to tell him he is not allowed to look at the fundamental origins of the universe.

Science should be free to investigate anything. Why would anyone choose to stop it? Now there may be areas where it fails, areas that do not suit the scientific method, but if anyone things it is worth trying, and they can get funding, then it should be allowed to go ahead.

So why would anyone choose to stop it? Because they are afraid their pet theory will be refuted. And so we see people declaring that science shold not be allowed to try, and using emotional phrases like "scientific expansionism".



No, the point is that science is equipped to address only certain kinds of questions. The problem comes when esteem for science becomes so great, that prestige combined with money and institutional power seduce some scientists and followers of science to begin to lose their conceptual grounding. This often results in the assumption that the questions that science is able to address are the only questions that can legitimately be asked. It's not about 'allowing' scientists to investigate any particular problem or not. It's about encouraging scientists, and everyone else for that matter, to be more reflective about what they are doing and why.

Or spinning it the other way, the multiverse is a possible solution to the issue of fine-tuning.

I agree. How about answering my question now?

If the evidence indicated there was no multiverse, then the "we do not know" answer becomes more likely. You do not get to win by default in science.

Oh, right. So, "heads, we win, tails, you lose." I would say that if multiverse were ruled out, the probability of a purely naturalistic explanation, on any naturalistic theory currently available, for fine-tuning would decrease.

Then it would be just as silly if the world's foremost philosopher said. Joe indicated he was rejecting it because it was said by a non-philosopher, so I suspect your analysis is wrong.

If the world's foremost philosopher said it, it would very likely be accompanied by an actual argument and some sound reasoning, not just "Science won. Get over it." There would be something to actually argue with and not merely an expression of tribalism.

Hawking, on the oher hand, is talking from what the evidence in his field points to, and I think that that is very different. He knew better than pretty much anyone on the planet what the likely nature of the early universe was like; who is better qualified to speculate further back in time about it? A philosophy?

Here's what he said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

If that's not an expression of scientism, I don't know what is. Why would philosophy be dead because it can't speculate about the early universe? WHy is that the most important question? Elevating that question to the highest rank isn't itself a scientific question. The problem is that Hawking and all other physicists and nearly all scientists engage in philosophy all the time. It's inescapable, just as proto-scientific questions engage philosophers all the time. So Hawking was a philosopher of sorts, just a very naive one.

I would suggest that quantum mechanics has had more impact on philosophy than the entirety of philosophy has had on our understanding of the universe in the last one hundred years. That is just a guess; see if you can think of any great insights from philosophy. Convince me philosophy is not dead!

You're repeating the same mistake that Hawking made! Implicit in your question is the assumption that philosophy must meet the same criteria of 'progress' and instrumental success that science does in order to legitimize itself and to convince people like you that it isn't 'dead'. Case in point.





Anonymous said...

7th: No, the point is that science is equipped to address only certain kinds of questions.

But if you decide in advance what those kinds of questions are, then you are choosing to limit science.

What we should be doing is letting science investigate everything. If it turns out there are areas it cannot investigate - yet - then so be it.

7th: The problem comes when esteem for science becomes so great, that prestige combined with money and institutional power seduce some scientists and followers of science to begin to lose their conceptual grounding. This often results in the assumption that the questions that science is able to address are the only questions that can legitimately be asked. It's not about 'allowing' scientists to investigate any particular problem or not. It's about encouraging scientists, and everyone else for that matter, to be more reflective about what they are doing and why.

Okay, but then argue about it when it happens.

7th: I agree. How about answering my question now?

You would have to read the next paragraph for that.

7th: Oh, right. So, "heads, we win, tails, you lose." I would say that if multiverse were ruled out, the probability of a purely naturalistic explanation, on any naturalistic theory currently available, for fine-tuning would decrease.

Opinion noted. In real science, the default is "we do not know", not your pet theory. You want your theory to get accepted, you go find evidence that supports that theory. Just disproving the other theory is not going to cut.

I would hope that that is also true in philosophy, but...

7th: If the world's foremost philosopher said it, it would very likely be accompanied by an actual argument and some sound reasoning, not just "Science won. Get over it." There would be something to actually argue with and not merely an expression of tribalism.

So it comes down to the argument. If the argument is good, we should pay attention. If the argument is bad or non-existent, we reject it out of hand - whether it comes from a philosopher a scientist.

7th: Here's what he said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

If that's not an expression of scientism, I don't know what is. Why would philosophy be dead because it can't speculate about the early universe? WHy is that the most important question? Elevating that question to the highest rank isn't itself a scientific question. The problem is that Hawking and all other physicists and nearly all scientists engage in philosophy all the time. It's inescapable, just as proto-scientific questions engage philosophers all the time. So Hawking was a philosopher of sorts, just a very naive one.


From the article: “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.” His statement is certainly a sweeping generalisation, and really is only applicable to origins, which I would attribute to his own narrow focus, but go ahead: prove him wrong. Show that some philosophers have kept up with modern developments in physics.

7th: You're repeating the same mistake that Hawking made! Implicit in your question is the assumption that philosophy must meet the same criteria of 'progress' and instrumental success that science does in order to legitimize itself and to convince people like you that it isn't 'dead'. Case in point.

What is the point of philosophy if not to understand the universe? What criterium of progress can there be besides how it has contributed to that understanding?

So okay, give your own criterium of progress. Then tell me how much progresss philosophy has made in the last century.

Pix

7th Stooge said...

But if you decide in advance what those kinds of questions are, then you are choosing to limit science.

What we should be doing is letting science investigate everything. If it turns out there are areas it cannot investigate - yet - then so be it.


Again, you're missing the point. It's not about 'letting' science do anything. Science has all the money and power in the world - it can and will do try to do anything and everything it bloody well pleases. My point was that when science investigates a subject matter, say, consciousness, the worry is that it will leave out the bit that it's not so good at investigating, the intrinsic aspect, and focus on what it is designed for, the extrinsic third=person aspect, and it will end up saying that the intrinsic part doesn't count or isn't real because it can't investigate it. It's a circular procedure.

Opinion noted. In real science, the default is "we do not know", not your pet theory. You want your theory to get accepted, you go find evidence that supports that theory. Just disproving the other theory is not going to cut.

I would hope that that is also true in philosophy, but...


But the FTA isn't a strictly scientific theory anyway, I thought. So Multiverse couldn't be a scientific disproof for it. Who's to say that God couldn't fine-tune a universe in a multiverse? I was asking what the defeat of a MV would do to the probability of this universe being fine-tuned. As a side-note, FT isn't my "pet theory". I don't really have a dog in that fight and my theism doesn't hang in the balance.

From the article: “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.” His statement is certainly a sweeping generalisation, and really is only applicable to origins, which I would attribute to his own narrow focus, but go ahead: prove him wrong. Show that some philosophers have kept up with modern developments in physics.

I don't know enough about modern physics to judge. But again, why would it matter, and why is this not a case of begging the question, as I already pointed out? It assumes that his sub-specialty is the most privileged kind of knowledge there is. There is a field called "Philosophy of Physics" where I assume there are philosophers who "keep up" with modern developments in physics, if that's what you mean.

https://takingupspacetime.wordpress.com/philosophers-of-physics-the-websites/

How many physicists 'keep up' with the latest developments in action theory or metaethics?

What is the point of philosophy if not to understand the universe? What criterium of progress can there be besides how it has contributed to that understanding?

So okay, give your own criterium of progress. Then tell me how much progresss philosophy has made in the last century.


Greater clarification and understanding of presuppositions and arguments. Greater awareness of assumptions and the reasons for them. So if I ask "What is the point of philosophy if not to understand the universe?" I wouldn't assume I know what I mean by "understand" and "universe."

7th Stooge said...

Pix, Here's an article you might find interesting:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/?redirect=1