Chapter 14: The Genesis Problem
D'Souza expands on issues with biogenesis as well as pointing out the differences between methodological and philosophical atheism. He explains that good scientists attempt to explain natural relationships using only natural means, however this does not entail that only the natural exists. These individuals may examine how neurons or related to mental activity, but they do not have to presuppose that mental activity is only neurons. Philosophical atheism on the other hand assumes that the natural world is all there is, therefore all explanations now and in the future must have a natural cause. An issues between religion and science appears to be only philosophical, because methodologically there is no overlap between the explanations for relationships. For instance, if asked why water is boiling, methodologically a scientist will explain it in terms of heat and the properties of molecules. He is confined to these sorts of answers. Philosophically though he can use either an atheistic answer or a different sort, for instance the water is boiling because I wanted tea.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Chapter 13: Paley Was Right
In response to Dawkins' argument against Paley, D'Souza examines what it would actually mean if evolution was true. He starts by pointing out that Darwin's original argument for evolution was not completely supported by the current science of the day. Sir Kelvin's predictions about the age of the earth did not give enough time for evolution to occur, which is one of the reasons many people opposed it. As additional knowledge has been gained, it appears, to D'Souza, that evolution is a sound theory. However, even if evolution is true there is no reason it needs to be seen as conflicting with Christianity. D'Souza cites Genesis to indicate that God breathed spirit into the dust of the earth to create man, making him a unique creature. He says that evolution is likely the mechanism used to bring about life.
Given that evolution is not a problem for Christianity, why do so many people think it is? D'Souza states that there is Darwinism which has profound political and philosophical implications. It says that we should promote survival of the fittest in the form of eugenics, that consciousness and reason are cognitive illusions (according to Dennett), and that life is without purpose.
Counterpoised, D'Souza is quick to point out that evolution by itself does not say these things are true. First off, it does not imply that a morality, it simply uses a natural selection mechanism, consciousness and reason could have come from another source, such as God, and it says nothing about life having purpose. Lastly, you evolution says nothing about the beginning of life, because you can not select from immaterial things. You need the first cell, which is vastly more complex than was once thought. Only by attaching atheism to evolution and birthing Darwinism do you create these implications. To conclude the chapter, a response to Dawkins' argument that evolution solves Paley's problem of complexity is presented. Namely, that is you explain that the complex watch was created by a watch factory, but fail to explain the even more complex factory, you have failed to defeat Paley's initial argument.
In response to Dawkins' argument against Paley, D'Souza examines what it would actually mean if evolution was true. He starts by pointing out that Darwin's original argument for evolution was not completely supported by the current science of the day. Sir Kelvin's predictions about the age of the earth did not give enough time for evolution to occur, which is one of the reasons many people opposed it. As additional knowledge has been gained, it appears, to D'Souza, that evolution is a sound theory. However, even if evolution is true there is no reason it needs to be seen as conflicting with Christianity. D'Souza cites Genesis to indicate that God breathed spirit into the dust of the earth to create man, making him a unique creature. He says that evolution is likely the mechanism used to bring about life.
Given that evolution is not a problem for Christianity, why do so many people think it is? D'Souza states that there is Darwinism which has profound political and philosophical implications. It says that we should promote survival of the fittest in the form of eugenics, that consciousness and reason are cognitive illusions (according to Dennett), and that life is without purpose.
Counterpoised, D'Souza is quick to point out that evolution by itself does not say these things are true. First off, it does not imply that a morality, it simply uses a natural selection mechanism, consciousness and reason could have come from another source, such as God, and it says nothing about life having purpose. Lastly, you evolution says nothing about the beginning of life, because you can not select from immaterial things. You need the first cell, which is vastly more complex than was once thought. Only by attaching atheism to evolution and birthing Darwinism do you create these implications. To conclude the chapter, a response to Dawkins' argument that evolution solves Paley's problem of complexity is presented. Namely, that is you explain that the complex watch was created by a watch factory, but fail to explain the even more complex factory, you have failed to defeat Paley's initial argument.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Chapter 12: A Designer's Planet
This chapter lays out evidence for the Anthropic principle (i.e., the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for human life). The evidence given is the infinitesimally small probability that our universe would arise by chance given the conditions necessary for life. One astronomer estimated this odds to the order of 10^229. There are three views or approaches to this data, according to D'Souza: Lucky Us, Multiple Universes, & The Designer Universe.
Proponents of the "Lucky Us" approach believe that of course we had the appropriate settings for the universe for life or else we would not be around to observe it. In other words, we are here, therefore the odds were in our favor. John Leslie has a response to this sort of error that D'Souza draws upon. If a man is about to be executed and the ten rifles fire and miss then fire and miss again, the man is not warranted in saying "of course they missed, or else I wouldn't still be here."
The Multiple Universe supporters believe that there are an infinite number of possible universe, therefore by pure number of chances eventually one would support life. However, this view has difficulties of its own. First off, there is no evidence for multiple universes. Second, if there were, there would be no way to observe them. Third, this theory fails to meet Occam's Razor. Lastly, and most problematic for those who are trying to escape theist implications, if there are multiple universes, one no longer has footing to deny hell, heaven, or a whole host of other similar phenomena.
After examining these three positions, D'Souza concludes that the Designer Universe hypothesis is best supported by the evidence. The universe is fine-tuned for life. We should not understimate the extremely unlikely odds that the universe arose by chance. The multiple universe hypothesis is not supported by evidence and fails Occam's Razor. This argument can best be considered inductive and does not tell us about the creator, only that he would have to be incredibly powerful and wise.
This chapter lays out evidence for the Anthropic principle (i.e., the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for human life). The evidence given is the infinitesimally small probability that our universe would arise by chance given the conditions necessary for life. One astronomer estimated this odds to the order of 10^229. There are three views or approaches to this data, according to D'Souza: Lucky Us, Multiple Universes, & The Designer Universe.
Proponents of the "Lucky Us" approach believe that of course we had the appropriate settings for the universe for life or else we would not be around to observe it. In other words, we are here, therefore the odds were in our favor. John Leslie has a response to this sort of error that D'Souza draws upon. If a man is about to be executed and the ten rifles fire and miss then fire and miss again, the man is not warranted in saying "of course they missed, or else I wouldn't still be here."
The Multiple Universe supporters believe that there are an infinite number of possible universe, therefore by pure number of chances eventually one would support life. However, this view has difficulties of its own. First off, there is no evidence for multiple universes. Second, if there were, there would be no way to observe them. Third, this theory fails to meet Occam's Razor. Lastly, and most problematic for those who are trying to escape theist implications, if there are multiple universes, one no longer has footing to deny hell, heaven, or a whole host of other similar phenomena.
After examining these three positions, D'Souza concludes that the Designer Universe hypothesis is best supported by the evidence. The universe is fine-tuned for life. We should not understimate the extremely unlikely odds that the universe arose by chance. The multiple universe hypothesis is not supported by evidence and fails Occam's Razor. This argument can best be considered inductive and does not tell us about the creator, only that he would have to be incredibly powerful and wise.
Since I have recently had the opportunity to read a great deal, I have decided to begin keeping a record of the books I have read. I shall write short synopses of each chapter as well as provide a general overview of the book at the end. My first post is a big one, because I am in the midst of completing a book right now. To keep it brief, each chapter will be summarized in a few short sentences.
What's So Great About Christianity: Book Review (Part I)
Chapter 1: D'Souza begins his book with a triumphalist announcement that Atheism is in decay and religions across the board, most notably Christianity, are on the rise.
Chapter 2: In an effort to build his case for the tides turning in favor of Christianity, the author points to biologists' inability to explain religion. Furthermore, he argues that it is areligiousity that needs an explanation within an evolutionary model of life. According to D'Souza, Areligiousity lacks teleological soundness. There is no purpose in atheism.
Chapter 3: The basic attacks on religion are presented with promises made that they will be fleshed out later. Nietzsche's viewpoint is quickly presented. He believed God was not tryannical enough to be feared. Alongside this, atheists, according to the author, argue that religions have caused mass tragedies and crimes against humanity.
Chapter 4: To conclude part I of the book, D'Souza argues that atheists are attempting to indoctrinate children as early as possible to be secular-minded. Furthermore, some atheists have go so far as to call teaching children religion child-abuse. Some would say that religion should be kept around as a historical phenomenon, but not as something useful or true.
Part II: Christianity and the West
Chapter 5: In this chapter, a general synopsis of government and religious beliefs as intertwining powers are discussed. D'Souza makes great efforts to support the idea that religion was important for the American government's emergence in its current form.
Chapter 6: An argument for the fallibility of man and capitalism is presented in this chapter. The general principles of economic theory Americans follow are presented as well as the elevation of the romantic heterosexual relationship in contrast to pederasty.
Chapter 7: To complete part II, we see an argument for human dignity. D'Souza traces the roots of human value through history and expiates Christianity's role in equal rights for women and blacks.
Part III: Christianity and Science
Chapter 8: Christianity is shown to be the soil necessary for modern science. D'Souza shows that the church preserved ancient writing and provided solid epistemological reasons for believing that our universe was predictable because it was created by a person.
Chapter 9: D'Souza argues that theology was the origin for believing the cosmos were able to be rationally discerned and name drops a plethora of scientists.
Chapter 10: As a final touch to the science section, D'Souza lays out how the Galieo incident actually occurred, according to him. This chapter is a strong apologetic for the Church being aligned and not opposed to science.
Part IV: The Argument From Design
Chapter 11: D'Souza lays out a basic form of the cosmological argument and provides strong evidence for the Big Bang theory as well as points to issues within the Steady State model.
What's So Great About Christianity: Book Review (Part I)
Chapter 1: D'Souza begins his book with a triumphalist announcement that Atheism is in decay and religions across the board, most notably Christianity, are on the rise.
Chapter 2: In an effort to build his case for the tides turning in favor of Christianity, the author points to biologists' inability to explain religion. Furthermore, he argues that it is areligiousity that needs an explanation within an evolutionary model of life. According to D'Souza, Areligiousity lacks teleological soundness. There is no purpose in atheism.
Chapter 3: The basic attacks on religion are presented with promises made that they will be fleshed out later. Nietzsche's viewpoint is quickly presented. He believed God was not tryannical enough to be feared. Alongside this, atheists, according to the author, argue that religions have caused mass tragedies and crimes against humanity.
Chapter 4: To conclude part I of the book, D'Souza argues that atheists are attempting to indoctrinate children as early as possible to be secular-minded. Furthermore, some atheists have go so far as to call teaching children religion child-abuse. Some would say that religion should be kept around as a historical phenomenon, but not as something useful or true.
Part II: Christianity and the West
Chapter 5: In this chapter, a general synopsis of government and religious beliefs as intertwining powers are discussed. D'Souza makes great efforts to support the idea that religion was important for the American government's emergence in its current form.
Chapter 6: An argument for the fallibility of man and capitalism is presented in this chapter. The general principles of economic theory Americans follow are presented as well as the elevation of the romantic heterosexual relationship in contrast to pederasty.
Chapter 7: To complete part II, we see an argument for human dignity. D'Souza traces the roots of human value through history and expiates Christianity's role in equal rights for women and blacks.
Part III: Christianity and Science
Chapter 8: Christianity is shown to be the soil necessary for modern science. D'Souza shows that the church preserved ancient writing and provided solid epistemological reasons for believing that our universe was predictable because it was created by a person.
Chapter 9: D'Souza argues that theology was the origin for believing the cosmos were able to be rationally discerned and name drops a plethora of scientists.
Chapter 10: As a final touch to the science section, D'Souza lays out how the Galieo incident actually occurred, according to him. This chapter is a strong apologetic for the Church being aligned and not opposed to science.
Part IV: The Argument From Design
Chapter 11: D'Souza lays out a basic form of the cosmological argument and provides strong evidence for the Big Bang theory as well as points to issues within the Steady State model.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
50 cent Philosophies 2/2
Anticipatory arousal activates the positive affect parts of the brain more than goal achievement. Motivation is better than alleviation!
How do we go about achieving a rich philosophy?
Descartes started by discussing what things could we know fundamentally and figured out that the only thing he could be sure of was that he was. Skipping ahead a few centuries in epistemology we find ourselves in an existential loop trying to find meaning within ourselves. Regardless of whether you are an unrelenting realist or a pragmatist, we must accept that what we perceive is the starting point of all interpretations of reality. If we are willing to forgo the dizzying logical loops of solipsism, we accept that there is a real world outside of ourselves and it is impacted by things outside ourselves. "This is the world we live in" (Alcazar) and we must (re)act to it.
Therefore, our philosophy should properly describe reality and prescribe a standard of behavior in this reality. Without accuracy in our description of reality our behavior is without context. Without a standard of behavior our reality is without meaning. Meaning is subsumed by all manner of inquiry by the question, is meaning important? In pure mathematics, meaning is mutually exclusive from the formula, however consciousness begs for meaning. It is ubiquitous to the human experience.
This short discourse is meant to resolve the problem of a poor philosophy, but not to recommend any solutions.
How do we go about achieving a rich philosophy?
Descartes started by discussing what things could we know fundamentally and figured out that the only thing he could be sure of was that he was. Skipping ahead a few centuries in epistemology we find ourselves in an existential loop trying to find meaning within ourselves. Regardless of whether you are an unrelenting realist or a pragmatist, we must accept that what we perceive is the starting point of all interpretations of reality. If we are willing to forgo the dizzying logical loops of solipsism, we accept that there is a real world outside of ourselves and it is impacted by things outside ourselves. "This is the world we live in" (Alcazar) and we must (re)act to it.
Therefore, our philosophy should properly describe reality and prescribe a standard of behavior in this reality. Without accuracy in our description of reality our behavior is without context. Without a standard of behavior our reality is without meaning. Meaning is subsumed by all manner of inquiry by the question, is meaning important? In pure mathematics, meaning is mutually exclusive from the formula, however consciousness begs for meaning. It is ubiquitous to the human experience.
This short discourse is meant to resolve the problem of a poor philosophy, but not to recommend any solutions.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
50 Cent Philosophies 1/2
"It's never too late to unkink your karma"
"Don't ever think you shouldn't feel something."
"Judging others is where I draw the line (in context of what they didn't abide with in others)."
There are a lot of poor philosophies floating around amongst fairly intelligent people these days. I wonder if a poor philosopher does a poor philosophy make. Analyzing this question, I know a hypocritical philosopher can come up with a good maxim and a good philosophy can be fallen upon by a bad philosopher. However, there are individuals who are quite happy to march through life to the beat of an arrhythmic routine; to recite words from an unplanned play.
I would say everyone I have encountered has sinned against pure logic. Has bowed before the idol of confirmation bias. Has given way to an emotional appeal. How are we to safeguard against the corruption of cognitive dissonance? What must we enact to have a stolid react? We must have a rich philosophy of life. We require a consistent worldview.
Our worldview should make sense of reality. It should explain possibilities and impossibilities. It is fundamental in our thinking. From it, we draw our variables of life to formulate algorithms for decision making. We interpret morality, epistemology, and reality through our worldview. Our worldview is revealed in our actions and our inactions.
This worldview should have at least thought about cosmology, ontology, and eschatology. Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where will it end? These are the questions that have the most value in life, because from these answers, like a good story, we understand everything between and among.
"Don't ever think you shouldn't feel something."
"Judging others is where I draw the line (in context of what they didn't abide with in others)."
There are a lot of poor philosophies floating around amongst fairly intelligent people these days. I wonder if a poor philosopher does a poor philosophy make. Analyzing this question, I know a hypocritical philosopher can come up with a good maxim and a good philosophy can be fallen upon by a bad philosopher. However, there are individuals who are quite happy to march through life to the beat of an arrhythmic routine; to recite words from an unplanned play.
I would say everyone I have encountered has sinned against pure logic. Has bowed before the idol of confirmation bias. Has given way to an emotional appeal. How are we to safeguard against the corruption of cognitive dissonance? What must we enact to have a stolid react? We must have a rich philosophy of life. We require a consistent worldview.
Our worldview should make sense of reality. It should explain possibilities and impossibilities. It is fundamental in our thinking. From it, we draw our variables of life to formulate algorithms for decision making. We interpret morality, epistemology, and reality through our worldview. Our worldview is revealed in our actions and our inactions.
This worldview should have at least thought about cosmology, ontology, and eschatology. Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where will it end? These are the questions that have the most value in life, because from these answers, like a good story, we understand everything between and among.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Yet another day falls beneath my feet,
Like those sunrises before, it I will treat,
Not sword or arrow but mighty protest,
Life is a tournament I must contest,
Armed to teeth battlements prepared for siege,
Man, a castle unto himself, bereaved,
All great wars fought one battle at a time,
Therefore today I will take at my liege,
For at the fall of each sun I consign,
On the morrow I may be relieved.
Like those sunrises before, it I will treat,
Not sword or arrow but mighty protest,
Life is a tournament I must contest,
Armed to teeth battlements prepared for siege,
Man, a castle unto himself, bereaved,
All great wars fought one battle at a time,
Therefore today I will take at my liege,
For at the fall of each sun I consign,
On the morrow I may be relieved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)