MiracleQuest Continues: On Deacon Duncan’s “Unapologetic”
Posted in Atheism, Blogosphere, Faith, Logic, Religion, Responses, Skepticism, Television, Thinking Critically on | 10 minutes | 33 Comments →So I was about to hit "post" when I took a break, and found myself randomly staring at a TV that was on. It was that History Channel show called MonsterQuest and now you probably see the significance of the title. The show begins with narration on the nature of different sorts of monsters, you know, Big Foot, the New Jersey Devil, Werewolves, et cetera: "Monsters. Are they real? Or imaginary? Join us as science tries to find out."
That's exactly what's been going on at EvangelicalRealism for the past few weeks now: we've been on a MiracleQuest. Except that MonsterQuest can at least define exactly or near-exactly what it is they're looking for. Despite my stodginess on the issue and the naysayers, I think we'll soon solve these problems of definition and criteria. The more we talk about it, the more ideas get tossed out, the bigger the pile of potentially good ideas grows, and sooner or later we're there.
DD recently posted this article describing the three-tiered core of what he calls his "unapologetic against Christianity." My first thought was to post my responses to the thread as usual, but as of late I've started to really lose patience with comment threads. It can be more than unsatisfying to put hours of work into a line of reasoning only to have that reasoning effectively obfuscated by personal attacks or short-minded oversights, and I don't really feel like dealing with a few of the commenters at ER right now. Plus, if you develop your own post, you're likely to spend more time thinking things out. So, we can discuss DD's unapologetic here if anyone happens to be interested, and I'll just post the link over at his spot.
DD begins his "unapologetic" thusly:
There are three ideas at the core of my unapologetic against Christianity. The first is the principle that truth is consistent with itself. The second and third are what I call the Undeniable Fact and its Inescapable Consequence: God does not show up in real life, and consequently men have no option but to put their faith in their own Fantasies, Intuitions, Superstitions and Hearsay (FISH). To the extent that salvation depends on true faith in God, therefore, salvation is impossible, since God is not here to give us something real to put our faith in, and since mere gullible trust in men’s words is not really the same as having genuine faith. (DD, caps, paren. mine)
To reiterate, DD's unapologetic is three-tiered: Truth is consistent
with itself, God does not show up in real life, and people have no
option but to put their faith in fantasies, intuitions, superstitions
and hearsay (FISH). Do these ideas hold up under closer scrutiny?
A) Truth is consistent
with itself: I agree with this, so not much to elaborate on there. A is more an observation of reality than an argument against any particular interpretation of reality.
B) It's an Undeniable Fact that God does not show up in real life: This is a potentially misleading claim. There are at
least two possible interpretations of B. One interpretation is very
narrow and another quite broad, and I think we
need to draw a clear line of demarcation before we can reasonably decide whether B is
"Undeniable Fact" or not. DD is aware of the problem:
Lately, it seems like much of the opposition to my unapologetic is centered around the idea of what it means for God to
show up in real life.
That's correct. In fact, it was me that elaborated on this ambiguity. The narrower interpretation of “God showing up in real life” is what I described as a disparate manifestation
(DM) somewhere between Genesis and Revelation, any instance
where God has temporarily intruded into space and time to interact with
humans. This was the interpretation of “God not showing up in real life” that I
was arguing as unknowable from the beginning, and also the interpretation I thought DD had intended,
but I began to wonder when DD introduced Revelation 21 as corroboration of his star analogy.
The broader interpretation of “God showing up in real life” can be
described as analogous to the situation in Revelation 21. We could call
this the final revelation (FR), and such can be described as the instance where God makes His presence known to all people.
Now, if DD means there has never been an instance of DM, such is not undeniable or fact. However, if DD means simply that God hasn't revealed Himself to humanity at large, a la Revelation 21, then I think we're justified in calling B both undeniable and fact.
Either way, despite the protestations of my opponents that I am a "disingenuous" stickler for definitions, it certainly seems sensible that securing accurate definitions of the pertinent terms is helpful to clear debate and not obfuscating, right?
C) No options but DM, FR or FISH for faith: Regarding C, the first time I heard DD's so-called "Inescapable Consequence" was here, where I basically said the argument was a false dichotomy. What could prove C a false dichotomy? One or more means of deducing information that cannot be reasonably described as "God showing up" (DM / FR), or "Fantasies, Intuitions, Superstitions and Hearsay" (FISH). Do we have another way of deducing information about God besides DM, FR or FISH? I believe we do.
Earlier I mentioned that reasonable believers engage in a form of testing that is systematic and analogous to empiricism. What kind of testing am I referring to? Well, take prayer experiments as one example. And no, I don't mean all those silly intercessory
prayer experiments that are the source of untold arguments in the
atheosphere; I mean an individual's private prayer experiments
(warning: entering the land of subjectivity here).
If you plan on commenting, please feel free to make a note to self here: I do not think the testing I allude to here is any sort of conclusive or reliable means of proving or disproving God; more a "gathering of evidence" that may or may not justify us in leaving the NULL position.
I don't think we can use current evidence to prove God in the context of proof that most atheists are looking for, but I do think we can use current evidence to justify leaving the NULL position in favor of belief. This is an important distinction that can lead to all sorts of strawman arguments if not taken into careful consideration, so please, realize again that I'm not saying such testing represents useful God-proofs or disproofs, but rather a means of collecting raw data to assist us in the decision-making process, raw data that emerges not from DM, FR or FISH, but a process that is systematic and analogous to empiricism.
For example, say I prayed for X, Y and Z – and sure enough – X, Y and Z came to be. I would now have some varying degree of raw data that could justify leaving the NULL position in favor of positive, and my faith would rest on something that was not reasonably describable as an instance of "God showing up" or "FISH." On the other hand, say you pray for X, Y, Z and every other letter in every other alphabet that ever was and nothing happens, you have some degree of raw data that justifies leaving the NULL position in favor of negative. You say our methodology is problematic? Of course, and that's exactly why I claimed that stopped-watch tests aren't the best means of attempting to
prove or disprove God. There are simply too many confounders for these types of tests to be applied in rigorous, scientific settings, but…
Regardless of the conclusions we draw, the results represent raw data we can use to potentially support theism or atheism. So, clearly there are other things we can do to obtain information in the matter than wait for DM or FR, or believe in FISH. So I feel I've defended the false dichotomy claim pretty well, because DD clearly presented limited options when other options clearly existed, and such is the textbook definition of false dichotomies and either/or fallacies.
But how many arguments are 100% airtight? Indeed, I suspect DD would simply dismiss the false dichotomy charge by categorizing any and all ascriptions of causality as superstition. I suspect DD's reasoning in this regard would be something along the lines that we can't possibly know for sure that the particular God we prayed to actually answered our prayers. Maybe Satan answered the prayers? Maybe no being or entity heard the prayers and it was all coincidence? Maybe auto-suggestion and some interweaving web of consciousness we have yet to discover are responsible for the illusion of answered prayers? Maybe my particular spatial coordinates just happened to pass through a SMERF (Spontaneous Magical Entropy Reversal Field)? In a spirit of strict rational rigueur, any of those could be possible.
And as a matter of fact, that's why none of those responses sit right with me. Certainly the most parsimonious explanation for any given phenomenon is open to debate, but none of the hypothetical responses in the last paragraph seem more parsimonious than the obvious conclusion. If one can't know it was God or some being that answered three prayers, how can one reliably know anything?
Per Occam's, when somebody parks a car, they've parked a car. If prayers are answered, then per Occam's, prayers are answered. Isn't DD's just a flip-flopped version of the blanket non-omniscience argument
simple-minded theists use to defend God's potential existence? The exact same argument that commenter jim tried to smear me with in the first sentence of his second paragraph right here? Indeed, DD's hypothetical questions seem analogous to asking, Did that person really just park that car? after somebody indeed just parked a car. But per Occam's, when somebody parks a car, they've parked a car. Special pleading seems at least on the horizon here.
And more importantly, all this entails the "Inevitable Question" – If we cannot trust the validity of our own senses regarding whether or not three prayers have been answered, how can we possibly trust the validity of our senses in any other problem-solving situation?
So to summarize:
1) B needs clarification to be reasonably decided;
2) Depending on that clarification, B can be either false or true: we cannot rationally call ~DM either undeniable or fact,
but it certainly seems reasonable and rational to call ~FR both undeniable and fact;
3) C does not logically entail B and represents a false dichotomy;
4) And what I'll only half-jokingly refer to as the "Inevitable Question" – If we cannot trust the validity of our own senses regarding whether or
not three prayers have been answered, how can we possibly trust the validity of
our senses in any other problem-solving situation?
pevo
says...All observations are natural by definition. The supernatural does not exist be extension. Now, if it did at one point in time happen that the laws of the universe that science is converging on were suspended and a event occurred that would be incompatible with all modern theories, well, so what? It would not be a miracle. It would simply be an extraordinarily rare event. And as we have no examinable evidence of it, we can not incorporate into our theories. Also, considering its rarity, there is no loss in not including it.
So, if ‘miracle’ means the supernatural, well, then miracles do not and can not exist. If ‘miracle’ means very rare, yet still natural, event in stark contract to known scientific laws, the best we can do is record them in as much detail as possible and try to eventually adjust our understanding of nature to explain them.
cl
says...pevo,
I get the gist from your comment that no “miracle” or unexplainable event could sway you to belief in God. Is that correct?
I tend to agree with this. “Natural” and “supernatural” are categorical inventions. If God is, it’s reasonable that God is natural. If there are universes “outside” or “within” this one, it’s reasonable that they are natural. I think people generally use “supernatural” as a euphemism for that which they cannot explain. Lightning used to by “supernatural,” same with fire.
I generally use “natural” synonymously with “naturally occurring” in reference to that which emerges without human prodding. But here’s an interesting slant: When you say,
Presuming God exists, are there any other possible options? We can both agree that nothing “supernatural” exists. Outside this universe perhaps things exist, but such things would still seem natural. What if an event is neither natural nor human influenced, but somehow emerges from a higher Consciousness? Of course it would be difficult or impossible for us to prove such, but I’m asking for categorical purposes and not to make truth-claims. Presuming such Consciousness existed, what would you call such an event?
If we can agree that “natural” describes events not influenced by human consciousness, how would you classify an intrusion into nature by a higher Consciousness? A natural act of God?
pevo
says...First, you haven’t chosen which of my two definitions of miracle you are using, or perhaps your own. If the first, then there can be no miracles, so the question is moot. If the second, then *enough* miracles could very well point to a powerful conscious force that has a personal interest in humans.
“Presuming god exists” are there other options? Well, no. If god exists, he is natural and his actions are natural. So, there would be no need to rely on the supernatural to explain anything. If events stemmed from a consciousness that was not human, well, ok, that is certainly possible. Not sure what ‘higher’ means though. More powerful?
Why the sudden limitation on ‘natural’? Even the acts of humans are natural. To answer the question though, if some other consciousness acted, it too would be natural.
To quote myself: All observations are natural by definition.
If it exists, its natural. There are of course other definitions of natural, but that is the one I use when the categorical distinction of ‘natural’ vs ‘supernatural’ comes up.
It might be all together simpler if we drop the use of both natural and supernatural and limit ourselves strictly to that which is observed. From there, we can decide how to interpret observations and how to consolidate them into working models for future predictions.
cl
says...pevo,
Well, your first definition was logically impossible given the precondition that nothing supernatural exists.
To draw a line of demarcation between events that require consciousness and events that do not.
I agree. And in this strict sense, I also agree that if God exists, God is natural, and so are acts of God, and miracles by extension presuming they are acts of God. However, when people describe a miracle as something unnatural or something that cannot happen naturally, I think what they generally mean is sans conscious direction. To me, naturally occurring means that which can be reasonably attributed to non-consciousness. Per Occam’s, the best explanation of our re-capitated man example appears to be Consciousness, but with one sample we cannot draw any firm conclusions.
pevo
says...This seems to me just as artificial a distinction as natural vs supernatural. Ok, things can be the result of conscious action, and I’ll take that to mean intelligent foresight, be it human or some other source of intelligence. But, its all still natural.
‘Miracle’ is just loaded with supernatural associations. So, even if you and I agree that ‘miracle’ really means ‘very rare natural event’, it would still be best to simply not use the word as it invites misunderstanding.
I think when people describe miracles as unnatural or something that can not happen they mean just that, it can’t happen. Only the natural happens. Consciousness is also natural, so any events that result from conscious actions would of course be natural. There is nothing ‘magical’ about something just because conscious effort went into it.
cl
says...Well then you’ve lost me. I see genuine differences between photosynthesis and offset printing, for example. I would never think a legible book was produced sans consciousness.
“…its all still natural” in the sense of, all a part of nature or all that exists, sure. But not naturally-occurring, so to speak. But I agree with that part 100% as stated. Essentially natural reflects all that exists. Under this definition, books and buildings are still natural, just not naturally-occurring. It seems semantical to me, but however we wish to draw it, we need a clear line of demarcation between events that require consciousness and naturally-occurring events. For example, as far as we know, photosynthesis does not require consciousness (although I am aware that many people consider plants and rocks to have lower forms of consciousness), but book production does.
My general definition of a miracle is a very rare event that requires conscious intervention by any higher, non-corporeal being. Alien visitations would not count as miracles under my definition, for example.
I can agree with that in spirit, and I can also agree in spirit with the person who views the re-capitation example as magical or supernatural.
pevo
says...To repeat what I think we have both said:
The ‘natural’ in ‘natural vs supernatural’ is *not* the same ‘natural’ in ‘natural vs man made’.
They are two separate concepts that happen to be spelled the same way. Your method of calling one ‘natural’ and one ‘naturally-occurring’ seems good, if still somewhat misleading when used in close proximity of each other. Yes, though, I do agree its semantics. A lot of debate is unfortunately equivocation, so this kind of clarification is necessary.
Seems we’ve slipped right back into the supernatural again. Help me out: What do
you mean by ‘higher’ and ‘non-corporeal’? Does higher mean more powerful? More intelligent? Non-corporeal, well, I just don’t know what that is supposed to be if not the supernatural.
cl
says...Right. The ‘natural’ in ‘natural vs man made” refers to that which can occur sans human consciousness, and could be replaced with ‘naturally-occurring’ or something similar.
But the supernatural doesn’t exist as far as we’re concerned, right? Higher in my definition reasonably corresponds to more powerful and more intelligent. Non-corporeal just means the consciousness is not necessarily embodied. Now – if such is possible, such is natural per our established definitions, and not supernatural, right?
pevo
says...No. You are simultaneously making two contradictory claims:
1) Consciousness is not embodied. Or, is not material, or, is of a supernatural origin.
2) The supernatural does not exist.
‘Not embodied’ or ‘non-corporeal’, these are just alternative ways of relying on the supernatural.
cl
says...Hmmm.. I’m not sure where we’re talking past each other then. The very first thing we agreed on was that nothing supernatural exists or can exist.
So I defined a miracle as, “…a very rare event that requires conscious intervention by any higher, non-corporeal being… Higher in my definition reasonably corresponds to more powerful and more intelligent. Non-corporeal just means the consciousness is not necessarily embodied.”
Then, I asked, “…if such is possible, such is natural per our established definitions, and not supernatural, right?”
And you said, “No.”
Yet earlier, you said something that appears to contradict this. You said, “If god exists, he is natural and his actions are natural.”
?
pevo
says...I said no because your comment was nonsensical. Your argument, as I see it anyway, goes like this:
1) Anything that exists must be natural.
2) A miracle is a supernatural event.
3) Therefore, if a miracle occurs, it must be natural.
Is the contradiction not clear? If a miracle has supernatural qualities it can *not* exist. You have even agreed with this.
In case I wasn’t clear, ‘non-corporeal’ and ‘non embodied’ are equivalent to supernatural.
You can’t just say ‘if the supernatural exists it must be natural.’ It doesn’t make sense.
Because you define ‘miracle’ as having supernatural qualities, we are back to the beginning: such a miracle can not exist.
cl
says...pevo,
Correct me with a “no” if I mis-state anything:
1) You said in comment #1 (and I agreed for the purposes of discussion) that nothing supernatural exists. Yes or no?
2) You stated in comment #3 that if God exists, God and God’s acts are natural. Yes or no?
Now tell me, if you can suggest that God and God’s acts are natural, why can’t I suggest that a non-corporeal higher intelligence and its acts are also natural???
pevo
says...Yes and yes to your two questions. Although, I did not define ‘god’.
I do wish you would try to answer some of my direct questions. Particularly: ‘Is the contradiction not clear?’
Why can’t you suggest that the supernatural is natural? How is that not clear to you? You can not claim the blue ball is red. At least argue that the ‘non-corporeal’ is still natural. It must be clear that *if* the ‘non-corporeal’ *is* supernatural, as I claim, then obviously it can not be a characteristic of anything that exists. And that is why you *can* suggest such a supernatural thing is natural, but that suggestion is clearly contradictory and nonsensical.
cl
says...pevo,
In comment #3 you defined God as “natural” and you also defined God’s acts as “natural” so no, the contradiction is not clear.
You said “yes and yes” to the two questions. So that’s a “yes” to the idea that God is natural. If you can say God and God’s acts are natural, why *can’t* I say the same for a non-corporeal higher intelligence?
cl
says...Actually, the contradiction might be clear: You claim I can’t just insert “non-corporeal consciousness” into the equation because you claim “non-corporeal consciousness” is inherently supernatural, correct?
cl
says...Also in comment #3, you said, “if some other consciousness acted, it too would be natural.”
So, your concepts of “God” and “consciousness” can be reasonably described as “natural,” but mine cannot?
pevo
says...Hm. Well, the contradiction, which you get in comment 15, is about the use of both supernatural and natural at the same time. Let me take a more clear position on ‘if god exists he is natural’. I mean that only to say that if some powerful entity (very corporeal, btw) existed that had for some reason a personal interest in humanity and we chose to call him god, then he would of necessity be natural.
That is it exactly.
I would hope you don’t think I’m trying to apply asymmetric rules. I am certainly not trying to.
Do you mean the question to ask ‘why can you define what’s natural but i can’t?.’ I’ll assume as much for now. Well, ‘corporeal’ basicially means ‘matter’. In our context, I don’t think its unfair to claim it is representative of materialism, or, of both energy and matter. I further don’t think its terribly unfair to claim that if something is neither energy nor matter, it is supernatural.
cl
says...Thank you. That was a big source of my problem.
And I mean only to say that if a similar non-corporeal entity existed, it would of necessity also be natural. Yet you object to that, because you say the idea of non-corporeal consciousness is inherently supernatural. But we’ve agreed that nothing supernatural can exist, and that whatever exists is natural, so if non-corporeal consciousness exists in actuality, then per our agreements, it is natural, correct?
So it seems to me that you are left only with the option of claiming non-corporeal consiousness cannot exist, because if it can exist, it is natural per our agreement as previously stated.
I don’t know if you’re trying to apply asymmetric rules or not, but that’s exactly what I’m seeing – special pleading. You allow yourself to say your own concept of God is natural if it exists, but you won’t allow the same of me. On what evidentiary basis? As you yourself do, why can’t I also “assume as much for now?”
I do think that’s terribly unfair and irrational. If such a thing exists, sans evidence we can’t simply assume it is “supernatural” because we don’t know what it is, right? That is an argument from ignorance.
You’re saying anything which isn’t energy or matter is supernatural, but 1) neither of us know, and 2) per your word, nothing supernatural can exist, and 3) per your word all that potentially exists is natural by definition.
So, if something can exist which is not energy or matter, it is natural per your own definition. Hence, if non-corporeal consciousness exists, it is natural per your definition.
Right?
pevo
says...Well, yes and no. Yes it would be natural. However, in the process I think we would have to redefine natural and corporeal. This is normal, btw. Science has no qualms with redefining itself when new evidence comes along. I would have to question the nature of this ‘non-corporeal’ thing and how exactly we know it to exist. It is neither energy nor matter, so what is it? Does it interact with matter via gravity? Does it have its own conservation laws? Lets call it…chime. So, there is matter energy and chime in the universe that we can observe (that’s how we know its there). If we keep non-corporeal as ‘not energy or matter’ than anything made of chime would easily fit the bill. If it was, however, to keep a similar standing as it currently does, it would change in meaning to ‘not matter, energy, nor chime’ which would then result back into a reliance on the supernatural.
It can not exist under our current umbrella of scientific knowledge. I have no problem admitting that science does not explain everything, and if we have good reason to believe that something non-energy and non-matter exists, well, then we will gladly expand our models.
I have yet to see any reason to believe anything non-corporeal exists.
No, I am not at all. It is not remotely special pleading. Not sure why you are taking my ‘assume’ out of context. I clearly only meant that I was taking your question in one way and was open to your correction if it was the wrong way. It was not ‘I just assume reality is *this* way and you don’t get to do the same.’ If you find this conversation frustrating, you are not the only one. I am trying to hold this conversation in good faith and assume you are too.
I agree. I hope I clarified my point above. Yes it would be natural, but along the way, we would have to change our models to incorporate the new observations which presumably do not fit existing models or there would be no need to change anything.
It would have been if I was saying what you took me to be saying. Again, I hope that is more clear now.
Neither of us know what? Are you perusing absolute truth? I most certainly am not. I am interested in approximate, practical and obtainable truths based on observations. When you show me the rational for believing in chime, I will do so.
Again, yes. So, why should I believe in the non-corporeal? I have very good reasons for believing in matter and energy. What reasons can you give me for believing in the non-corporeal?
Another common trait of the supernatural is its special exemption to verification. A very nice feature of the natural is that it is testable, because it exists. So, where is this chime? If it is unobservable, than how can you claim its existence? If it is observable, than we can test it and see if it fits in current models as a part of matter or energy, or we can update our models to include a new dynamic.
cl
says...pevo,
Good, because I don’t think you’re trying to be shady, and nor am I. We are legitimately talking past each other, and I’m really trying to find out how and why. Check back later tonight or tomorrow, I’m going to try to parse all this stuff from the very top – again.
cl
says...pevo,
I guess let’s just take it point by point from the top. Consider your very first comment:
This just seems like pure semantics to me. The “event” in question either happens or does not, regardless of whether we call it “miracle” or “extraordinarily rare event,” right?
So what is the benefit in making this distinction?
pevo
says...‘A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.’? Yes, but if I go around telling people that I’m selling rhinos they would be wise to not buy. Semantics matter. Definitions matter.
There are people who rely on supernatural existence to justify irrational beliefs. However poorly, I was trying to point out that the supernatural simply does not exist. Its an abstract concept who’s very meaning generally implies ‘non observable, at least not in the usual way’.
So, sure, the event occurs or it doesn’t. But the question was whether it was a miracle or not. And that of course depends on the definition of miracle. Semantics? Yeah. But we need that to be able to communicate.
To me, and I think most people, a miracle is a supernatural event. A suspension of the natural laws. So, I say miracles do not and can not exist.
cl
says...Does non-observable entail non-existent? If that’s what you mean, that’s not an opinion I can share.
Right. And before we can have any sort of meaningful attempt at answering that, we need to be on the same page as to what a miracle is. So I stated preliminarily that miracle describes “a very rare event that requires conscious intervention by any higher, non-corporeal being.” We hit a wall when you said you cannot accept my definition, because a “non-corporeal consciousness” cannot exist, yet you maintain that a corporeal God can. I still don’t see how that’s fair, but what if we just start with the “consciousness” part?
For me, a miracle certainly must manifest marks of consciousness or determination. For example, an answered prayer suggests the prayer was heard, that the prayer was heard suggests consciousness. Contrast that to events which might reasonably be explained without consciousness, for example, some unexplainable healing that occurred without prayer is much more easily arguable as the result of a non-conscious, naturally-occurring phenomenon.
The whole point is to distinguish between naturally-occurring events and events that require consciousness, because people used to think naturally-occurring events like fire and lightning were miracles. So we need to safeguard against that mistake by drawing criteria that allow us to identify and exclude naturally-occurring events.
But where it gets tricky is that there are certainly countless naturally-occurring events we still have zero knowledge of.
pevo
says...I have written a reply to an earlier comment you left on DD’s article: “Claiming omniscience” which I believe to be directly relevant to this discussion. Of specific interest is your answer to the questions: Does absolute truth exist? and If it does,
is it obtainable? My answers, echoing the mentioned post, are yes and no respectively. I think I need your answers to those questions to even be able to sufficiently communicate.
In an absolute truth sense, no. In an approximate truth sense, yes. When in the process of constructing our approximate truth, and revising/improving it, why should we try to include that which can not be seen? It would only serve to needlessly complicate our models while providing zero additional predictive power to them.
I said a powerful corporeal consciousness, ie aliens, could exist. Choosing to call it god would not turn it into what most people mean when they say ‘god’. My objection is that I don’t know what you mean by non-corporeal. You have told me what it can not be, but not what it *is*. You have removed it from my working approximation of truth and asked me to certify its existence. How can I when you have rendered my tools invalid?
I get that you only consider an event a miracle if consciousness (presumably non-human) was a part of it. Overlooking for the moment that you are assigning a strictly human trait to something non human, I accept you criteria. Is that the only criteria? Further, I’ll accept that an answered prayer would imply non-human consciousness action of a sort. But as you already pointed out, that is by definition of ‘answered prayer’. There is still the matter of demonstrating that the prayer was in fact answered and not merely a coincidence or otherwise explainable.
This seems a false dichotomy. Consciousness itself is naturally occurring. I’ll take it then that you wish to distinguish between events that require consciousness and those that do not. You also seem largely uninterested in human consciousness. Why do you think there is any other form of consciousness? Is it human-like? If we did manage to find something that we could not explain with current models, what would be the means of determining it was this non-human consciousness and not some other as-of-yet un-modeled source?
Tricky.. I suppose. I prefer ‘challenging but immensely rewarding’. Every new observable allows us to update our models to include it which in turn increases our predictive power. This is a good thing, its what lets us move ahead. If we had already seen everything there was to see, scientific progress would stagnate. We might be able to sift through existing data and combine theories a little better in the end, but in general, new data keeps things charging ahead.
If I may: Back to absolute truth, approximate truth, models, and challenges. It occurred to me that there are at least two types of challenges to a ‘factual’ statement.
1) The conclusion you drew with the model we share is incorrect. Ie, your logic along the way was in error.
2) The model you are using is incorrect. (or, at least, not the model I am using)
I think we’ve managed to flop back and forth between those types of objections without clear delineation of the nature of the challenge.
To restate my objection to your ‘non-corporeal consciousness’: You have dismissed the model I was using by saying ‘non-corporeal’ and yet expect me to draw conclusions, for which I need a model.
Now, if you hand me a model that *starts with*:
1) non-corporeal consciousness exists
2) this consciousness causes events to happen
3) ‘miracle’ is defined as any such event
Then, under that model, it would be easy to conclude that miracles exist. But I have not been given any recognizable reason to conclude items 1 or 2 from recorded observations and my current understanding of mainstream scientific models. The shorthand way to say this is “non-corporeal consciousness does not exist”.
I will try to not assume which type of objection your challenges have been, but do suggest we are more clear about it going forward.
cl
says...I’m pretty much over DD’s for a while so don’t waste any more time responding to me there. I enjoy talking to DD, Jayman and a few others over there, but I just can’t fathom the whole Undeniable Fact thing (it’s still laughable to me) and I also can’t stand the piss-ant immaturity of some of the other commenters who never seem to fail to quip arrogantly about this statement of mine or that. I don’t really care what people think about me, it’s just that all that ad hominem snarkasm nonsense doesn’t do anything but further obfuscate discussions that badly need clarity, and I’ve got better things to do than waste time with people who aren’t serious.
You said “Yes” and “No” respectively. Can you give me an example of an absolute truth, followed by an explanation of why said truth cannot be obtained? That will clear things up even further, then I’ll take a stab.
Because not all causes are visible.
I stated specifically what it was – consciousness not limited to a physical body, but really, what would we gain even if I could get you to admit non-corporeal consciousness could exist?
See, I can’t accept that. There’s no reason consciousness must be described as strictly human. But I suppose if we’re looking for a workable criteria, my inclusion of non-corporeal may not even be necessary, and might actually be harmful. All I want to be able to prove is that some consciousness caused some event, and that such consciousness was not human.
Right, but say a group of people prays over a little girl told she had a few weeks to live, and a week later cat scans find absolutely zero trace of cancer? Per Ockham’s, isnt’ it simpler and most straight-forward to assume a genuine miracle over an extremely coincidental spontaneous regression?
I haven’t presented limited options so I disagree with the false dichotomy charge, and that consciousness itself is naturally-occurring is presupposition entirely.
Each case would be different and we’d have to cross those bridges when we got there.
Come on now, I’m not a child, and I’m not implying the constant unfolding of knowledge is something to lament. And no offense in that, either.
Everything after this needs clarification for me: “If I may: Back to absolute truth, approximate truth, models, and challenges.” Regarding 1), what conclusion do you think I drew from the model we share? What model do you claim we share? Regarding 2), again, what model do you think I’m using? How is it incorrect?
I never advanced my definition of miracle in a way that it was meant to overthrow or compete with yours, and I’m not convinced our models compete. Perhaps you can clarify. The only difference is you say “corporeal God” and I don’t demand corporeality. I don’t think that’s a big enough difference that we can’t start looking at some cases and say, “Does this one qualify as a genuine potential miracle?” And if that seems silly, I agree, but to me right now, that seems the closest we could ever hope to possibly get.
I didn’t hand you that model. I handed you,
1) a miracle is an event caused by consciousness
2) events caused by human consciousness are not miracles
3) if miracles exist, they are caused by ~human consciousness
And that’s logically sound. The question is, how do we test for such? And that’s the point of MiracleQuest.
So, where does all that leave us?
pevo
says...Please do read that one post over at evangelicalrealism. Like I said, it is pertinent to this conversation. I can’t sufficiently
structure my response without knowing where you stand on the existence of absolute truth and if you believe that such absolute truth is obtainable.
cl
says...Pevo,
Well okay… I stomached the thread for our sake, took one for the team as they say. The only comment of yours I saw was this one.
When you say “absolute truth is not obtainable,” is absolute truth 100% synonymous with 100% certainty in your statement? Yes or no?
And when you say in pp.5, “currently validated theories” what are you alluding to?
So, it’s not an “Undeniable Fact” but “Undeniable (?) in accordance with the understood laws of nature?” That seems more confusing. Why don’t we try my example? Would it be intellectually accurate or honest in your view if a person says with certainty so high as to warrant capitalization, “It is an Undeniable Fact that extraterrestrials have never shown up on Earth?”
Yes or no? I say such is not intellectually accurate or honest.
When you say,
The “observations claimed to violate the laws” are always going to be the claims of the miracle, for example some healing or life-saving situation. Where I can’t go on is when you ask me to provide an “ideally improved set of laws” that would explain the miracle. The reason for this is that the miracle is not naturally-occurring like photosynthesis that we might reliably, repeatedly test and study it. So we’re at an inherent disadvantage when trying to “prove” any sort of miracle…
But again, what do you mean by absolute truth? What are you asking me when you say, “Is absolute truth obtainable?” For more on how I perceive truth, see On The Nature Of Truth if you already haven’t.
cl
says...Damnit Pevo, see what’cha got me into? Now I’m on another thread at ER. Hahahaha… just teasing. Seriously though, you did kinda force me over there, and I just couldn’t let today’s blunder pass. Now, if you don’t either give DD some legitimate heat, I’m not talking to you anymore – maybe ;)
cl
says...Damnit Pevo, see what’cha got me into? Now I’m on another thread at ER. Hahahaha… just teasing. Seriously though, you did kinda force me over there, and I just couldn’t let today’s blunder pass. Now, if you don’t either give DD some legitimate heat, I’m not talking to you anymore – maybe ;)
Arthur
says...Truly a telling rhetorical blow from which Deacon Duncan will not soon recover.
Arthur
says...Pevo,
You have to remember that cl is only willing to employ rationalism up to a point, beyond which he considers it to “descend into dogma.”
This thought experiment is a barely-altered version of Deacon’s recapitation story, from which cl has chosen to learn nothing. It seems apparent that, where prayer or the possibility of miracles is involved, he would rather presuppose a causal connection than remain “in the NULL position.” In other words, his appreciation for rational rigor stops well short of his bias on the subject.
Note also that, though his definition of a miracle is “an event caused by consciousness,” he is now offering it (“per Ockham’s”) as an explanation which is simpler than coincidence. Perhaps the Cretaceous thread will clear up that little incongruity.
Another gem:
This isn’t the first time I’ve had to remind cl that Deacon’s claim is a pretty specific one: the Bible provides us with a mass of detail sufficient to say that the God it describes isn’t real. And Deacon only just took cl to task, in that thread he doesn’t like to read, for failing to appreciate the importance of importance: “I… do not claim to know that no trivial and inconsequential god exists; however I don’t believe Christians claim that their god is trivial and inconsequential.”
The more broadly cl is permitted to define “extraterrestrial,” and the more inconsequential their presence on the planet has been, the stronger is his case is against making any conclusive statements about them—but the more misleading the comparison to God is.
What’s so confusing, anyway, about modifying “undeniable” to mean “undeniable in accordance with the understood laws of nature”? I mean, really.
cl
says...Arthur,
Do you have an argument which shows that real-world truth is not consistent with the Bible regarding false Christs and prophets?
Truly a telling rhetorical blow from which I will not soon recover.
I’d love to simply handwave Pevo towards all the areas in which I think you’ve learned nothing, or where I think your logic fails, but really, what could possibly be the positive benefit? And your comment shows you misunderstand my “NULL position” remarks. If you want to understand something, ask! Don’t presuppose and then insult.
And this isn’t the first time I’ve had to remind you that people disagree. Yes, the above is your opinion. DD shares it. I do not.
The God of the Bible is not claimed to be trivial or inconsequential, and go ahead, make up any analogy you want that you think will help justify DD’s elevation of an unknowable to the status of Undeniable Fact.
It is an undeniable fact that the God of the Bible is not revealed before us right here, right now. And, according to the outlook of the world you and DD share, I believe that neither one of you sees anything that would justify either of you putting faith in the God of the Bible. That’s fine. It is an undeniable fact that neither of you see what you’re looking for. The problem, which has been readily apparent to most everyone else I’ve asked who’s not had a stake in our discussion, is that we can’t just assume everyone else shares our outlook and call that an Undeniable Fact. It is not an Undeniable Fact that God has never shown up to anyone or any group of people at some point in history. It is intellectually dishonest to say we know it is an “Undeniable Fact” that this has never happened. If you can’t see this, I honestly don’t think any amount of exegesis or argumentation can change that, and see little point in continuing, but I’m always interested in hearing your response.
Now, if you’re sooooooo confident in your position Arthur, by all means, give me your argument – What is it your looking for that you don’t see when you say, “the God the Bible describes?”
Arthur
says...Do you feel insulted? You say that rationalism is only useful up to a point. And you’re clearly willing to short-circuit logic in situations involving prayer. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were exercising your principles. “…chosen to learn nothing” might be a little harsh, I suppose, but what am I supposed to think?
What do you mean when you say “NULL position”? It seems straightforward enough. Is it complicated?
Do you really consider charges of bad logic to reduce to matters of what we think? Do you really consider the truth or falsity of Deacon’s Undeniable Fact to be a matter of outlook? Why all the fuss, then, if reasonable people may draw whatever conclusions they like? And how does such a position square with that business On the Nature of Truth?
Why on earth do you think I’m looking for something in the Bible? I’ve never looked at the Bible. I came here to better understand your position. Maybe the problem is that I’m trying to rationalize with someone who believes rationalism is a world view—an outlook—and can be abandoned if it ever conflicts with personal taste.