The Danger of Creationism

[Hans Blaster]

Here's a good video on why physicalism should be questioned.

If you hadn't provided a video I'd have thought "physicalism" was something you made up. So what is physicalism and what is this guy's short argument against it?

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Landon Caeli]

If you hadn't provided a video I'd have thought "physicalism" was something you made up. So what is physicalism and what is this guy's short argument against it?

Short answer from Wikipedia is:
Physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.

...There are some reasons why this way of thinking is incomplete.

Four very good reasons were explained in the video.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Short answer from Wikipedia is:
Physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.

...There are some reasons why this way of thinking is incomplete.

Is that different from "materialism" or "philosophical naturalism"?

What is the basic case the speaker makes?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Is that different from "materialism" or "philosophical naturalism"?

What is the basic case the speaker makes?

One case that I like, is how he explains that Physicalists unknowingly follow a belief system that cannot remain true, due to the inconsistencies between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that since our understandings are constantly changing, our current science will someday be obsolete as time goes on, as understood by pessemistic induction. He goes on to say that the few Physicalists who understand this, then turn their attention to a future end, that some day, science will eventually come to understand it all.

He concludes that these are both illogical positions to hold -one known to be currently wrong and the other, unknown.

He thinks the exclusivity of Physicalism, has proven itself flawed through the concepts:

1. Hempel's dilemma
2. Irreducible mentality
3. The evolutionary argument against physicalism
4. The universal cracking of the casual closure

Hempel's dilemma - Wikipedia

Irreducibility - Wikipedia

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2dKTZWUfsEHlbR_EjI0XiS

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://thesideview.co/journal/why-i-am-not-a-physicalist/#:~:text=Universals%20crack%20open%20the%20causal,such%20universals%2C%20such%20objective%20truths.&ved=2ahUKEwimn56BjaT3AhXjIEQIHTBWBlMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2tMWQAxyJxN5mUxG7u-le5

 

[Hans Blaster]

One case that I like, is how he explains that Physicalists unknowingly follow a belief system that cannot remain true, due to the inconsistencies between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that since our understandings are constantly changing, and our current science will someday be obsolete as time goes on, as understood by pessemistic induction. He goes on to say that the few Physicalists who understand this, then turn their attention to a future end, that some day, science will eventually come to understand it all.

He concludes that these are both illogical positions to hold -one known to be currently wrong and the other, unknown.

He thinks the exclusivity of Physicalism, has proven itself flawed through the concepts:

1. Hempel's dilemma
2. Irreducible mentality
3. The evolutionary argument against physicalism
4. The universal cracking of the casual closure

Hempel's dilemma - Wikipedia

Irreducibility - Wikipedia

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2dKTZWUfsEHlbR_EjI0XiS

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://thesideview.co/journal/why-i-am-not-a-physicalist/#:~:text=Universals%20crack%20open%20the%20causal,such%20universals%2C%20such%20objective%20truths.&ved=2ahUKEwimn56BjaT3AhXjIEQIHTBWBlMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2tMWQAxyJxN5mUxG7u-le5

Thanks for your reply Landon.

From your description, the speaker wants to use incompatibilities between QM and GR to disprove physicalism, but the 4 examples aren't about physics. So I am baffled. (I may watch some of this later. We'll see.) Irreducible mentality is just a weird phrase, from which I can see no connection. I am curious.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Thanks for your reply Landon.

From your description, the speaker wants to use incompatibilities between QM and GR to disprove physicalism, but the 4 examples aren't about physics. So I am baffled. (I may watch some of this later. We'll see.) Irreducible mentality is just a weird phrase, from which I can see no connection. I am curious.

It is true that this is more along the lines of consciousness of the mind, than it is straight evolution/creationism.

...But can it really be separated? I don't think so, personally.

 

[rturner76]

When you feel you don't have enough information to make a decision does it not make logical sense to adopt a neutral ("I don't know") approach until you have enough info to decide one way or the other?

OB

I guess if I felt like I didn't know I would but through observing the world and the laws of cause and effect, I am pretty confident that "creation" has a creator. What that creative force looks like? I could honestly say "I don't know." I just have a hard time with thinking the entire universe was an accident that came from nothing.

Still, I know what you mean in that I don't know literally. I never saw the physical form of the creative power that stitched together the universe. So I guess more than "I know" it's "I believe." That is a large component of religion also is belief and faith. I have faith or I believe we have a creator.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One case that I like, is how he explains that Physicalists unknowingly follow a belief system that cannot remain true, due to the inconsistencies between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that since our understandings are constantly changing, our current science will someday be obsolete as time goes on, as understood by pessemistic induction. He goes on to say that the few Physicalists who understand this, then turn their attention to a future end, that some day, science will eventually come to understand it all.

He concludes that these are both illogical positions to hold -one known to be currently wrong and the other, unknown.

He thinks the exclusivity of Physicalism, has proven itself flawed through the concepts:

1. Hempel's dilemma
2. Irreducible mentality
3. The evolutionary argument against physicalism
4. The universal cracking of the casual closure

Hempel's dilemma - Wikipedia

Irreducibility - Wikipedia

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2dKTZWUfsEHlbR_EjI0XiS

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://thesideview.co/journal/why-i-am-not-a-physicalist/#:~:text=Universals%20crack%20open%20the%20causal,such%20universals%2C%20such%20objective%20truths.&ved=2ahUKEwimn56BjaT3AhXjIEQIHTBWBlMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2tMWQAxyJxN5mUxG7u-le5

I've now watched the video. (It wasn't too long, but I was busy.)

1. The dilemma is supposed to be something about the contradictions in the definition of "physicalism", but it just comes across as a failure to come up with a definition that is coherent.

2. The speaker is unclear what "mentality" is. Is it consciousness, spirit, mind, soul? Who knows? The speaker is either unsure, or unwilling to say.

3. The "evolution argument" seems to be an incredulity that consciousness or mind as emergent properties of brains could possibly evolve. This part also contributes to the "mentality confusion" as part of the argument seems to be about saying that souls couldn't evolve.

4. Even though it was only an hour ago, I don't remember what this one was. Part of me thinks it was a return to hand-wavey arguments about physics.

I didn't think my opinion of philosophy could sink lower. I was wrong. It would seem much of philosophy is nothing more than an attempt to convince yourself that you have sophisticated arguments for the things you already think are true.

I end with the distinct impression that "physicalism" and "mentalism" (both of which my spell check think are misspellings) are just ill-defined substitutes for "materialism/philosophical naturalism" and "substance dualism" created to avoid the existing arguments related to those concepts.

 

[Astrophile]

How life started is part of the theory of evolution.

Do you think that how the elements were formed is part of the theory of chemistry, or that how the Earth got its atmosphere is part of the theory of meteorology?

 

[Astrophile]

Yes they do with carbon dating. Science is cool.

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years; as a result radiocarbon dating can only be used for dating material that is less than 50,000 years old. It is mostly used in archaeology, and not for dating rocks.

 

[rturner76]

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years; as a result radiocarbon dating can only be used for dating material that is less than 50,000 years old. It is mostly used in archaeology, and not for dating rocks.

I already got put in my place on that one. I believe I was thinking of radioactive dating or something like that.

 

[BPPLEE]

Of course. Not that it is any of your business, but I do. Next you will no doubt insinuate that I disbelieve in Original Sin
They appear in various proportion throughout the book.

Okay, what in the Gospels and the letters to the Churches is mythology if you don't mind me asking?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Okay, what in the Gospels and the letters to the Churches is mythology if you don't mind me asking?

Personally, I consider the miracle stories -- up to and especially including the resurrection -- as mythology.

The birth narratives barely reconcile with one another, and not in the slightest with any kind of secular history.

Jesus' arrest and trial before Pilate didn't happen as described... but we can chalk that up to dramatic license.

Just my two cents...

 

[BPPLEE]

Personally, I consider the miracle stories -- up to and especially including the resurrection -- as mythology.

The birth narratives barely reconcile with one another, and not in the slightest with any kind of secular history.

Jesus' arrest and trial before Pilate didn't happen as described... but we can chalk that up to dramatic license.

Just my two cents...

Thanks for your input I was asking a Christian though with all due respect

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thanks for your input I was asking a Christian though with all due respect

Fair enough. But I would want to point out that the entire point of "mythology" is that it need not be historically accurate in order to teach essential moral lessons.

And what is the Bible best used for teaching: history, or morality?

 

[BPPLEE]

Fair enough. But I would want to point out that the entire point of "mythology" is that it need not be historically accurate in order to teach essential moral lessons.

And what is the Bible best used for teaching: history, or morality?

You make a good point

 

[ottawak]

Okay, what in the Gospels and the letters to the Churches is mythology if you don't mind me asking?

None of it. Those texts belong to entirely different literary genres.

 

[BPPLEE]

None of it. Those texts belong to entirely different literary genres.

Thanks for answering

 

[Gottservant]

Is there a way to 'evolve' that distrust, pitabread?