> I have found this discussion, largely between Stephen E. Jones and Chris
> Cogan, to be interesting and helpful. I will say that Chris' arguments
> strike me as largely inspired by Aristotle, and while I am partial to
> Aristotle's methods and judgments, I don't find Chris' arguments against a
> certain version of theism convincing -- particularly his discussion of
> substance and contingency, which is confusing. (Chris' Aristotelianism
may
> be a corollary to his Objectivism, although Ayn Rand's allegiance to
> Aristotle is highly selective and restrictive.
Chris
As is my allegiance to Rand and Aristotle.
I regard Existence as a metaphysical and epistemological primary. *What*
Existence is (or what it is that actually exists) is a different question. I
simply take a minimalist position here, which, so far as I can tell at
present is a kind of naturalism (though not all forms of naturalism are
minimalist). Jones is plumping for a theory that seems to serve no cognitive
function that is not more elegantly, cleanly, simply, and less drastically
served by alternative naturalistic theories.
Non-naturalism seems to be simply a waste of time and mind. Even if we could
prove that abiogenesis and macroevolution are impossible on Earth, would we
need a non-naturalistic alternative? No. As I pointed out, contrary to
Jones' claim, naturalism does not imply or require evolution. Evolution is
natural to it, but not necessary. He would also have to disprove a multitude
of *other* non-naturalistic theories. But, so far, even invalidating
abiogenesis and macroevolution has proved to be too much for the
"Intelligent Design" folks. The best they have done is point out what was
accepted all along: That we can't be absolutely certain that abiogenesis
occurred or that macroevolution is just longer stretches of
*micro*evolution.
One way to approach the issue of whether non-naturalism has a real basis is
to ask: What kinds of empirical facts would *require* a non-naturalistic
explanation (not merely a novel or very unusual *naturalistic* explanation
that might require going beyond present understanding)? I can't think of
any, and I doubt that anyone else can, either. In fact, in order to help
clarify the issue -- and possibly resolve it conclusively -- I challenge
anyone to come up with an imaginable set of empirical facts that would
*require* a truly non-naturalistic explanation. Alleged facts offered by
Jones (such as the supposed resurrection of Christ) certainly don't do it,
since I can *easily* think of a few naturalistic alternatives to
non-naturalism to explain this resurrection (even if I were able to accept
that there is any strong evidence that Christ existed and that the
resurrection occurred).
Another way to approach this issue is to ask: If there's a non-naturalistic
explanation, what explains *it*? Jones wants a designer. Fine. What explains
the designer? Did it *evolve*? I hardly think Jones would find that theory
acceptable. Did it *always* exist (infinitely)? If so, then why could there
not be *naturalistic* life that always existed (from a prior big bang
universe, or from outside what we take to be our universe now, perhaps) and
that came and "seeded" our planet and left an as-yet-undiscovered machine
that occasionally "tweaked" genes to produce the apparent macroevolutionary
effect? If the alleged designer did *not* always exist, then how did *it*
come to be? Obviously, it can't evolve if Jones rejects real macroevolution
as such, so it must have been created by yet *another* designer. This
obviously leads to a *very* pernicious infinite regress (into ever
more-sophisticated designers).
Thus, at some point, he has to say something like, "Okay, this is the *last*
designer I'm going to postulate. This one was not designed. Nor did it come
into existence. It just always was and is and will be, *period.*"
But, is this really any better than the naturalistic theory Jones is
attempting to refute and replace? Even if we had *no idea at all* as to how
macroevolution worked, and even if we absolutely excluded naturalistic
designers, we'd *still* have to say that the theory of evolution was
*vastly* better than any such monstrous alternative. After all, which is
worse: A *currently* unanswered question about *how* macroevolution
occurs -- or a theory that postulates, as the only alternative, that there
is an incomprehensible infinite being who has always existed and who is
itself completely inexplicable in *principle*?
It is considerations such as these that make Jones' claim that I don't care
about *evidence* for my (tentative) belief in macroevolution so ludicrous.
Macroevolution is to be preferred precisely because it sticks so *closely*
to the evidence of genetics, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry,
climatology, computer modeling, ordinary biology, animal and plant breeding,
morphological topological matching, the evolution of antibiotic resistance
(via the development of new genes) in bacteria, and so on. The
non-naturalistic designer theory is to be rejected because it basically has
no support from *any* of these fields of study.
Consider this: Johnson wants people to reject naturalistic evolutionary
theory essentially *merely* because he hasn't seen macroevolution. But he
wants us to *accept* another theory without any *positive* evidence at all,
but primarily on the basis that he hasn't seen macroevolution. Well, I
haven't seen electrons, either, but I have all kinds of reasons for
believing in their existence. I *don't* have any evidence to support the
alternative non-naturalistic theory that there are no electrons, but that
there *is* an "Electron God" who, as needed, produces the *effects* that
*would* be produced *if* electrons existed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 20 2000 - 22:11:34 EST