CS is back for more “philosophy” and “arguments” as we finish up Book I of Mere Christianity. We talk about moral objectivity, the supernatural, and God’s keen interest in every last bit of your behavior. You better watch out, you better not cry …
52 Responses to “2.3: Mere Christianity II”
So glad you’re back!
THANKS!
I can’t hear the other person in the conversation. All i can hear is your voice. I hadn’t realized your ego had grown so large that all we can hear is you now. LOL
need a sound check. Each of the voices are split (one ear mono)
Whoops, forgot the final mixdown. Uploading new version now.
Uh, I mean, take that fuckers!
Great show, but I am puzzled that you ridicule the one statement by Lewis that I think he gets right. He says that all science is reduced to “I looked through a telescope at such-and-such a time and saw this, or I put this chemical i a pot and heated it and got this…” Well, yes. That’s exactly what science is, and why it works. Your supposed counterexample was relativity. Yes, Einstein came up with the idea by mathematical reasoning, but it didn’t become actual science until someone pointed a telescope at Mercury and saw its orbit fit his equations better than Newtons, pointed it at distant stars and saw light bending around them, and put clocks on satellites and measured them running faster than those lower in the gravity well.
Of course, Lewis is then completely wrong that moral questions can’t possibly be like this. I can observe and measure human behavior and its consequences just as well as I can stars, and I don’t even need a telescope. And these scientific observations can clearly affect moral reasoning, even if one does not accept the objectivity of moral values themselves.
You don’t consider the Theory of Relativity “science” prior to its confirmation in 1919? Why not? Do you similarly not consider current string theory science? I think you may be confusing whether or not something is “true” with whether or not it is “science.”
Lewis’s statement was “Every scientific statement in the long run, no matter how complicated it looks, really means something like …” and then goes on to describe two experiments. Lewis did not distinguish between theoretical and empirical science, for some reason (likely lack of familiarity or possibly just incompetence) believing that only empirical science fit the bill. That’s a mistake that people like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind follow. You might choose to split science between “largely confirmed/resistant to falsification” and “unconfirmed/untested as yet,” but the methodology of both theoretical and empirical science — the really important, field-defining stuff — is the same in both. String theory may not pan out, but it is most certainly science — and the burden of proof falls on Lewis when he claims otherwise.
Theoretical work like string theory is important, but it is only science insofar as it might someday be testable by experiment. There are many good physicists (e.g. Lee Smolin) who would in fact call string theory non-science or proto-science.
I’m going to go ahead and disagree with you and Lee and CS. Experimentation is important, but it is not the end-all and be-all of science. Just because a field hasn’t matured to a point where testing is feasible doesn’t make it non-science. Relativity was good science when Einstein published — the mathematics were solid, it made predictions that could in theory be tested, and it was at least in principle falsifiable. It was better science after 1919 when it passed confirmation, but that doesn’t mean it was “non-science” before.
Lol. I had one earplug in. What is this stereo you speak of? Sounds like wizardry and satanic magic! Off with you heathen.
It strikes me as terribly childish whenever I hear this sort of argument from morality; Lewis sounds like he doesn’t even consider the possibilty of trying to figure out by ourselves which morality can bring about a better world.
Freud may have been almost completely disproven by this point, but it seems like his statement about God being the Ultimate Dad still rings true.
You might be interested in http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#upb “Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB)
A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics” for how ethics can be described without religion.
I have come to the single definition of unethical as ‘one who intentionally initiates violence or fraud (on the unwilling)’ and the single definition of ethical as ‘owning the consequences of your actions (i.e. provide restitution when one has harmed another)’.
And this is why we call it the “Demarcation Problem” and not the “Demarcation Solution” =p
Chuck, you’re too stubborn in your atheism to see the obvious lesson of the Stickleback, which is that God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whatever Fish believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Oh, this was an enjoyable podcast. I’m 27, but at 18 I was a freshman at a Christian university. In one of my religion classes, I was assigned Mere Christianity, but I decided to drop the class instead. But over the summer in the midst of my “I think I’ll read some acclaimed apologetics before giving up on this thing altogether” adventure, I decided to read Mere Christianity. I apologize, I can’t remember the exact passage, but there’s this part where he’s like, so if you are having issues with faith, what you need to do is keep doing everything as if you believe, and then you’ll end of believing. Which I interpreted as: “if you want to be brainwashed, continue to brainwash yourself.”
I’d look up this passage for y’all, but unfortunately it’s at my childhood home in Colorado where my mom’s probably using it to prop up a bong or something.
But anyway, I ended up a heathen despite Mr. Lewis’ best attempts. It’d be interesting to revisit it now that I’ve taken philosophy and logic, so that I can appropriately mock.
Where to begin here. First, let me say that you have no claim on either “atheism” nor “feminism”. I know how deep the impact of your Mormon conditioning is when you gleefully demonize and condemn those with whom you disagree with ad hominem attacks and, rather than attempt to lay out a compelling argument for your perspective on these issues, relentlessly misrepresent people who disagree with you with strawman attacks reminiscent of evangelical apologists. How is this constructive?
I also take issue with your seething hatred. I too have a daughter (and wife, and sister, and mother, etc) and feel justifiably offended that you would insinuate that I mistreat or think less of them because I do not mirror you moral precepts. On that note, fuck yourself. You should know that atheism is only the lack of belief in god. Period. It does not mandate anything else, even what society would deem basic decency. If you believe that rational thought along with free discourse (as you have criticized the LDS continually for lacking) than give inquiring minds coming into atheism time to get there. Smashing them as worthless shit may detour open minds that could one day meet with yours.
Feminism has multiple schools of thought. I highly recommend you look into them before you stand shoulder to shoulder with a person or group. I have no issue with the school that calls for equality in any human rights but not every group of feminists think this way. Hard to believe? I didn’t until I did some researching on it. Check for yourself. In particular look into “gender vs equity feminism”.
In the end it is the evidence that should inform our attitudes, not looking down at others as though they were morally inferior. If you are truly a skeptic then you will agree. So perhaps you can provide your data next time so listeners can review and consider it.
Yours will be an uphill battle. Due to the hateful rhetoric, heavy handed censorship, organized pressure to remove speakers and ban attendees from conferences, demands to fire employees, etc, all without any evidence at all by Atheism Plus and Freethought Blogs proponents, more and more respected atheists and skeptics have felt compelled to speak out. Dawkins, Harris, Barker, Shermer, Thunderf00t, Penn and Teller, Novella, Dunning, Randi, etc etc etc. This “feminist” crowd has already begun to assault the late Hitchens, which I find sickening. You will also need to contend with most of the foundations of import. JREF, RDFRS, – you know, if you care I’ll let you look into the overwhelming consensus on this matter. To be clear the issue is NOT women’s rights or equality, which is overwhelmingly supported, but conduct. As atheists we cannot support attempts to silence the free expression of thought nor the bullying and guilt tactics being widely employed. It is too akin to religious ideology. We support open rational discourse. And as skeptics we cannot silently stand by as the very principles of skepticism, evidence based methodology, are co opted even at skeptical conferences (see Ed Clint analysis of Rebecca Watson’s Skepticon 5 Science Denialism, at Skeptic Ink) which serves to encourage emotional rather than rational decision making.
The disagreement is conduct, not female equality. As is my issue with yourself, Chuck. I have come to expect better. Give me your evidence, not just your wrath.
I give you the same challenge you issued this episode, to “examine what you said and admit perhaps… perhaps you could have been wrong.” Unless you feel too “privileged” (?) to live up to the expectations you demand of others.
On the happy side, you will find that you are not actually surrounded by demons but by fellow human beings with whom you have much in common. (Don’t be like CS Lewis, picking choosing when and how to see the goodness in others)
So I will not “get the fuck out of atheism”. In fact, I invite you to join us in Skepticism. I used to laugh with you, but now I feel pity at the rage you seethe. I hope you find happiness again.
In the meanwhile, if you aren’t going to bring Leighton back on to defend himself please stop shitting on him. It is coming across as vicious and cowardly at this point.
Evidence!
Elevator-gate has spilled into an unrelated episode’s comments.
I love it. Also I second bringing Leighton back. Your new co-host is a nice guy, and has good input, but no one can replace badly timed tasteless race/sexist jokes. You guys had a fall-out, yah, but lets be honest, judging by his work ethic on the podcast can you really say you were surprised?
@Corey Jansen: you are more than welcome not to join A+
@Chuck and Matt: here is a phonetic guide for Eythyphron (Ευθύφρων)
ef as is effervescent
THI as in thin
fron as in frontal
If only Greeks could pronounce their words correctly, like us ‘Mericans.
Hay chuck, I never heard back from you. Maybe you didn’t get it?
I would love to hear what you think about “the Mormon Murders”
Also I have been an atheist since about 12 but never into the debates like I am after listening to your show. So my question probably elementary.
I don’t understand the theist argument that a complex organism is proof of god. Complexity is a clear byproduct of evolution.
If there was a god and it created us we wouldn’t need hands that grip a banana perfectly ( thanks to Ray comfort’s explanation)
I think I have read Mormon Murders, but it was a long time ago. I guested on an episode of Conspiracy Skeptic with Karl Mamer that was all about the Hoffman bombings.
The theist argument from complexity is basically an analogy. They believe the only thing that can be responsible for complexity is an intelligent mind. So just like a building requires a builder, so something more complex like an eye, a brain, or a human being requires a designer. The flaws in the argument are many and varied, but basically it’s a terrible analogy and we have had a plausible alternative explanation for complexity, as you noted, since Darwin.
You were totally doing David J. Stewart voice for a sec there
The JIS cannot be contained to a single podcast.
It’d be funny (not to mention probably cathartic) if you guys starting doing JISes because we’re phasing them out
Many years ago, a conservative friend leared that I was an atheist. He insisted that I read Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley. I read it out of respect for my friendship any his keen mind. This was the worst polemic ever puked up from the bowels of the religious mind that I’ve read. My friend kept asking me whether the character of CS Lewis in the book had changed my mind. I told him, somewhat sheepishly, that it just affirmed my distaste for his religion.
In a way, this is the true cost of being an atheist. I can’t tell you how many relationships that I’ve had over the years that are strained by my mere status as an atheist. For instance, I’m deeply in love with a great woman, but she keeps bringing up my atheism as a problem when, in fact, I truly could care less about her theistic notions.
Anyway, a couple of niggles. One, you picked on the poor Incas when I think you meant to slam the Mayans. Two, string theory is, as of now, not subject to the scientific method so it’s a little hard to regard it as science. Relativity had immediate application and it made many, many predictions even some considered absurd by Albert himself (e.g., black holes). I hope smart people can bring string theory into science, and that may well happen, but right now it’s probably in the camp of fancy math.
On Incan child sacrifice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures#Inca_culture
I’ll again disagree with the definition of science that excludes all theories that aren’t currently testable. If a theory can in principle be falsified — even if practical testing may be years away or require energies not currently achievable — I’ll put it into the science camp. It may be wrong, or it may be bad science, but it’s still science. It’s stuff that can’t even in principle be tested or falsified that I’ll categorize as pseudoscience, or “not science.” Since string theory provides an explanatory construct that explains certain data (it arrives, for example, at some fundamental constants through the equations of the theory rather than simply plugging them in like quantum mechanics) and can in principle be tested, I’d say it’s a little more than “fancy math.”
Your mileage may vary, and as alluded to above, the demarcation line between “science” and “not science” is problematic at best.
Tell the truth Chuck, when you referenced the Incas you were thinking of the day-long rituals on the bloody temples. Apocalypto comes to mind I’m sure. Compared to most cultures of that era, the Incas were fairly subdued. But excellent wikifu either way.
I’d agree that someday string theory might be testable. But if science means subject to the scientific method, then it comes up short today. Math, for all its usefulness, does not necessarily reveal the secrets of nature.
Anyway, I’m a big fan and these debates should be conducted over beer. Cheers.
Just discovered your podcast in a roundabout way: “Skeptics with a K” referenced “Cognitive Dissonance”, and the first episode of that I listened to was the one featuring Chuck.
I like it!
But I have to take issue with one comment you made, which is about whether the question of origins is a scientific one. I really feel that it is not. Books like “The Grand Design” and “A Universe from Nothing” purport to provide a scientific explanation of where the universe came from, but they come up short.
Their explanations ultimately boil down to “the universe came into being because the laws of nature predicts that universes will come into being”.
The question then is where did the laws of nature come from?
I’m an atheist so I am not claiming that God is responsible, however whatever the answer is, it won’t be falsifiable. Science can only ultimately describe the way reality is, it can’t explain why it couldn’t be otherwise or why it should exist at all.
I think philosophical arguments are ultimately the only hope for answering the question. Personally, I favour The Mathematical Universe hypothesis proposed by MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark. Yes, he’s a scientist, but I regard the basis of the MUH to be philosophical rather than scientific (largely because I independently came up with an equivalent explanation on philosophical grounds).
By the way, I agree with you that relativity before verification and string theory are scientific, because there is no fundamental reason why they shouldn’t be falsifiable.
Hey there! Just wanted to say that I just discovered your podcast and it’s fuckin awesome! This was the first episode I ever listened to, and I look forward to going through the backlog. Chuck, everything you said about morality is what I was trying to relay to this one chick at Skeptics in the Pub the other day, but she just wasn’t getting it. Glad to know someone else is on the same page. Then when you mentioned Steinbeck, I almost crapped my pants because he’s my favorite author. THEN when I heard you guys are ex-Mormon, that really blew my mind since I grew up in the LDS church and had to suffer through all that bullshit too (and I’m a Pratt… :sigh:). Sounds a little too cosmic? Nah, just coincidentally awesome. Keep up the awesome work!
@ Tom: I actually don’t know much about the Mayans, and I’ve never seen Apocalypto (not a huge Mel Gibson fan). But remember I specifically referenced “child sacrifice” on the podcast. Did Mayans sacrifice children? I thought it was just adults.
@Disagreeable Me: I guess the only question I have for philosophical answers to the origin of the universe is, how do you know you’re right?
@Nietzscheese: It sounds like we were meant for each other. Now we just have to wait for gay marriage to be legalized in Utah.
@Chuck
The answer to how you would know you’re right would be a chain of reasoning. The same way we know anything – including empirical facts, which do not appear magically in our brains but need to be interpreted from observations and reasoned about.
If the argument is convincing enough, you believe it. If it isn’t, you don’t.
Of course chains of reasoning can lead you astray. Your mistakes may not always be obvious to you, so it’s always best to verify if you can.
But if you can’t, then reasoning is all you have, and at least sometimes it works out. Einstein was right about relativity, after all. His reasoning led him to the correct conclusions, which, happily, we were able to verify.
But what if we had no way to verify? Was Einstein wrong to believe his conclusions before the experiments were carried out? If his reasoning was correct and rigorous enough, it might be enough to convince us that he was right regardless.
This is the situation we find ourselves in with mathematics. We can’t typically experimentally verify our results, but we believe in the truth of theorems as strongly as we believe in anything because of the unbroken chain of solid reasoning leading to the conclusions.
If this is acceptable for mathematics, then why not for philosophical questions?
Ah, jokes on you… I’m a chick, you assuming, misogynistic bastard! Jk… but fo real, gay marriage should be legal anyway.
I am a misogynist! Ah well, I guess we have to wait until polygamy is legal in Utah (again).
Nice episode, although I must admit that Lewis tricked me into thinking that he was actually discussing the differences between Hegelian and Marxist dialectic, but it didn’t have enough about Elevatorgate. This comment thread could use a whiff of flame war.
What’s a JIS? I don’t remember what it is, but it sounds like something Chuck would like to do unto a Stickleback fish.
I would like to second not bringing Leighton back, and furthermore I would like to introduce a motion to kick Chuck off the podcast so that Matt can start Irreligiosophy 3.0: the wine-tasting podcast this nation deserves.
I hope this gives you paws.
On JIS, I was similarly confused before I realized that I could probably find the answer by googling for “David J Stewart”.
The results made me immediately realize that I had no interest in persuing the matter any further.
@Disagreeable Me
For starters, you are asking cosmology-related questions in the wrong place. neither Chuck nor Matt are cosmologists and basically you are coming off like the trolls who are asking questions on biology of The Atheist experience panel.
Science is a process, a way of tackling reality. Theorising about stuff can be useful, but when you stay in theorising, you don’t get anywhere useful. Case in point: the universe expansion. Fred Hoyle’s rejection of the Big Bang was backed by maths. What it was not backed by was reality.
As for what is “logical”, I point to towards quantum mechanics and what a paradigm shift it was for particle physics when it first came about.
Even then, theorising about math is a more solid foundation than theorising on philosophical questions because of the very nature of philosophy. Questioning moral conundra may be a common intellectual undertaking throughout the ages and civilisations, but each individual philosopher’s conclusions are ultimately coloured by his/her personality, beliefs, social standing and yes, biases.
This is why “theorising” about the birth of the universe in a “philosophical” manner is not and will not be scientific. There are processes of verification and falsification that are simply not used in such exercises and if there is no way to verify a theory the scientific thing to do is get cracking at making the verification/falsification happen. Or do you think it wouldn’t be easier (not to mention much cheaper) not to bother with large hadron colliders, since the maths for the standard model work beautifully?
If you have problems with Laurence Krauss’ work, ask Laurence Krauss, or someone who is an expert, and take them to task on the maths they use or on observations made and verified.
@somewhere in greece
I think if you read what I said more carefully you will find that we have more common ground than you suppose.
I didn’t come here demanding that Chuck and Matt explain the origins of the universe, I was simply noting my disagreement with what they said on the podcast regarding whether the origin of the universe is a scientific question.
And my position is that it is not, so when you say:
‘This is why “theorising” about the birth of the universe in a “philosophical” manner is not and will not be scientific.’
… I couldn’t agree more, in fact this was precisely my point.
My problem with Lawrence Krauss is not with any of his maths or verified observations but only with his claim that he has provided an ultimate explanation for existence. He can never explain with maths or observations why the laws of nature are such that they are, because that is not a scientific question (as you pointed out).
If theories regarding origins of the universe cannot even in principle be falsified or verified, I agree they are not scientific. There are two problems, though: 1) Who knows what the future holds as regards to our ability to falsify or verify origin theories, and 2) Nothing is better than science for getting at reality.
We’ve come about as far as we can by philosophy alone. The Greeks had various theories about the nature of matter, one of which was an atomic theory. Short of empirical testing, no chain of reasoning could be shown to prefer atomist theories over others. Aristotle pondered and rejected a theory of evolution using his chain of reasoning. Before Darwin, the teleological argument was a lot stronger (apart from Hume’s objections) because we had little alternative.
So if we are in the same position as regards to theories of the origin of the universe, one philosophy of origins is no better than any other, and barely better than religion. The problem with philosophical reasoning is that we just don’t know what we don’t know — what are the real alternatives? What other options are possible? What are we missing that might be totally obvious a century from now?
So we can present a chain of reasoning, but really your chain of reasoning is no more demanding upon my belief than Krauss’s, or Hawkings’, or Aristotle’s — in the absence of empirical data.
@Chuck
1) Who knows what the future holds as regards to our ability to falsify or verify origin theories
Well, there seems to be a problem in principle with falsifying something like the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, which seems to me to be both true and empirically unfalsifiable. I could be wrong, of course.
2) Nothing is better than science for getting at reality.
Nothing is better than science for determining how the universe works. But the ultimate question of why the universe exists is not a question about what the laws of nature are, it’s a question about where they come from.
I’m not going to make any effort to justify my personal pet explanation for the origin of the universe, because it’s beside the point I was originally trying to make.
However I would like to try to explain why I think that scientific explanations must fail, and that if we ever do find a satisfactory explanation it must necessarily be philosophical. If that means that you will never accept this explanation as true, that’s fair enough. Just don’t expect science to answer either!
I agree Krauss has given the outline of a justification for why the universe exists. His book is a good one, as is Hawking’s. They explain how the laws of nature might lead to the spontaneous creation of universes out of nothing. Any scientific account for the origin of the universe will necessarily be of this sort.
Science is the best tool we have for getting at reality, as you say, but what it manifestly does not provide is a framework for understanding the origin of the laws of nature referred to in these books. Even if we were able to discover some underlying principles which govern or constrain what laws of nature might exist, we would then wonder where these underlying laws might come from.
There have been many past failures of philosophy just as there have been many past failures of science. Scientific propositions now should be evaluated based on their merits, not dismissed because of past mistakes and the same is true of philosophical ones. Much of philosophy both ancient and modern is, frankly, horseshit. It doesn’t follow that it’s all worthless.
I agree that we need to be cautious in believing philosophical propositions because human reason is not perfect and that is the only method we have to test them. I just don’t think that’s sufficient reason to completely rule out the validity of believing something on philosophical grounds in all cases.
Just want to throw this out there, not as something I believe particularly strongly but curious how you would respond to it.
The theory of evolution by natural selection is not science, it is philosophy. Evolution itself is scientific, because we can confirm that species are related and change over time by looking at genomes and fossil records etc. The fact of evolution was believed by many before Darwin. What he contributed was a plausible mechanism.
However the mechanism, the natural selection part, can never be observed directly. Even in the lab, where we can see bacteria evolving over short time spans, we can only observe the changes and infer the causes.
As such, natural selection is probably unfalsifiable. However, we believe it because Darwin’s explanation of how it works is a sound philosophical argument. It is so obviously correct when laid out before you that it has even been criticised by ignorant creationists on the grounds that it is a tautology (i.e. necessarily true)!
But most people consider Darwin to be a scientist rather than a philosopher, so maybe my definitions of science and philosophy are too narrow. Maybe the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis could be considered science too, even though it is unfalsifiable — especially if the argument could be made as rigorously as Darwin made his.
It seems like you’re looking for some type of theory of origins that “satisfies” you, and you think you’ve found such a something, and so you’re arguing for it as an answer for some type of “why” question about the universe. That “why” question is meaningless to me.
I reject that origins are not in the domain of science, because as I said before, we don’t know what we don’t know. Your claim that “any scientific account for the origin of the universe will necessarily be of this sort” is simply a naked assertion. You don’t know that, I don’t know that, nobody knows that. I do not feel comfortable ruling out the possibility that science may, at some time in the future, be able to offer a different type of answer based upon testable hypotheses.
The problem with philosophy, as always, is that you can argue back and forth ad nauseum and be no closer to knowing that you have discovered any “ultimate reality” than you were when you began arguing. A thousand years from now, people may still be critiquing and responding to critiques of the MUH and still you’d have no idea if it represented actual reality.
If science can figure out how to get at origins, and there’s no denying we’ve made massive strides toward this goal over the last 100 years, then that will put the issue to bed. No amount of philosophizing ever will.
Hmm. I’m going to have to give this some thought.
Inferring causes is science.
@Lucy Harris
By that definition, the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is science, so that’s fine by me then.
I don’t enough about MUH to say if it’s falsifiable. NS would be falsified if for example it could be shown that, say, genetic drift was the sole mechanism of evolution.
@Lucy Harris
Well, I suspect the MUH is not falsifiable, however let’s say for argument’s sake that the logic supporting it is as rigorous as natural selection. Does that make it science or philosophy?
With regard to evolution, genetic drift doesn’t seem to work because that would be undirected. Organisms clearly evolve over time in such a way as to adapt to their environment.
The best explanation is clearly natural selection. Another, crappy explanation might be that some divine intelligence is guiding evolution.
In my view, both of these explanations are probably unfalsifiable, but one is much more philosophically rigorous (and so persuasive) than the other.
Where is a better place for me to post this? No idea…
I stumbled across the Irreligiosophy podcast just a couple months back, when the WIT episodes appeared. So I listened to the new ones, then went right back to the start.
I’m on episode 50something now (the ones where Chuck and Leighton interview Leightons brother – it makes incredible listening!). It’s been an absolute revelation (pun intended) for me to discover these, and I’m so pleased that there’s a healthy library to work through, along with new episodes being added.
I’ve resisted the temptation to skip ahead and listen to the brief ‘final’ episode – as currently I have no idea why things went south. Though I can assume that Leightons (ironic?) misogynistic and homophobic comments may have become an issue at some point…But for me it’s currently like following a soap opera where I know something goes wrong somehow, but when and why is the big surprise!
Anyway, as you can probably tell (having listened to over 50 podcasts in just a couple months), I’m a big fan, and really appreciate what you guys do.
It’s almost inspired me to attempt to start something of my own – a UK based version of something similar.
But I’m quite lazy, so probably won’t…
This is a pretty pointless comment really, right?
I once thought Lewis was a deep thinker. How naive! It’s a bit sad, seeing him torn down. Then again, when I talked about him with a fundamentalist over 30 years ago, she told me her preacher considered his writings to be heresy.* How times change — I see his positions as shallow and logically flawed, while Christians hold him up as one of their best apologists.
*Note she didn’t think he was heretical; rather, her preacher told her what to think about Lewis!
@Disagreeable Me
Yes, genetic drift doesn’t work as the main mechanism of evolution, but that’s not a point against NS’s unfalsifiability. It’s an example of how NS hasn’t been falsified. That gravity is proportional to mass and not to volume didn’t mean Newton’s theory of gravity was unfalsifiable.
As to MUH, from reading the Wiki I don’t really understand the theory, so I can’t answer about it. I do agree with your criticisms of Krauss and Hawking, in that they promise more than they deliver. But that’s also my impression from what I can gather of MUH.
@Lucy Harris
My contention is not that NS has been falsified, but that it can’t be (without falsifying evolution itself). NS makes no predictions that I can think of beyond that organisms evolve adaptively. Empiricism cannot therefore distinguish between NS and any other explanation that makes the same predictions, e.g. intelligent design.
The way we distinguish between NS and ID is to look at which argument is more logical, explains more and which argument assumes less. These are philosophical, not scientific criteria.
Gravitation, on the other hand, is more like evolution than like natural selection because it is falsifiable. Newton explained only what happened, not how or why it happened.
I’m glad you take my point with regard to Krauss and Hawking. I’m not going to defend the MUH here because it’s off topic. I’ll just say that I believe there is a very rigorous argument in favour of it but I realise that I’m only asserting this here.
Rather, my point here is to defend the rationality of believing something like this on philosophical grounds given a sound argument, and to deny that pure empiricism could ever explain why the universe exists.