On SETI, the Brain/Mind Problem and the Best Explanation of the Evidence
I'm carrying on an email exchange with an old friend who studied under Norman Geisler and did further Ph.D. work in philosophy. He had asked me about the SETI project and what it would take for me to accept that there might be extra-terrestrial life in the universe as a parallel to accepting the evidence that there might be a supernatural intelligent being, God. Here are my rambling thoughts on this:
I have not written about SETI in my book as an example of anything. I guess it's mere hypothetical since there is as of yet no evidence of ET's. But if we did have such evidence then we would have to calculate the probabilities and say something like, there is a 45% chance that ET's exist (or 75%, or even 90%) depending on the data. But there is a difference between evidence for ET's and a god, because said evidence would be within this universe. That is, the waves we experience would be physical evidence since that's what wave lengths represent. And from this evidence scientists (qua scientists) would never postulate a supernatural explanation or force or being as the best explanation for this evidence.
I don't know if you know James Sennett. A grad of LCC/LCS who wrote a couple books on Plantinga and other stuff. He experienced a crisis of doubt when he pondered the brain/mind problem. This problem is as serious of a problem as what theists have with the existence of massive intense suffering. Unless you can solve that problem for me I cannot take seriously any beliefs in gods, spirits, poltergeists, out of body experiences, or miracles performed in the physical world by a spiritual God.
On the one hand you claim to have a supernatural explanation of the evidence. On the other hand you have an insoluble philosophical problem. If I must accept the god of the gaps type of explanation of the evidence and along with it embrace an insoluble philosophical problem, then I must reject the the god of the gaps explanation as the best explanation of the evidence. For an insoluble philosophical problem carries with it much more weight, since one cannot kick against the goads of reason when I already have difficulties accepting the god hypothesis as an explanation in the first place.
Here's what you're doing (if I may presume to tell you). You have unexplained phenomena like noises in the night, or a complex universe. Then you postulate your particular God as the solution, the god of the gaps. But as I've said, any supernatural explanation will do once that type of explanation is allowed. On this you should see Gregory Dawes, Theism and Explanation, the second best atheist book of the past decade. *ahem*
My contention is that scientists, historians, psychologists, biologists, geologists, astronomers, physicians, chemists, meteorologists, and physicists must all assume a natural explanation for any and all phenomena. And since I reject faith as a way to cross the bridge from the sciences to some conclusion then you have no evidence for your beliefs. You have made an unjustifiable Kierkegaardian leap of faith. I don't know what you think of Kiekegaard but that's all you're left with. Is there a possibility that I'm wrong about this? Yes. But the probabilities are on my side. And even if I am wrong you can never claim to the kind of certainty that most believers do. You know what I'm talking about. Christians who claim to have no doubt are simply fooling themselves. The only thing we can claim not to doubt is our existence, and maybe not even that.
I have not written about SETI in my book as an example of anything. I guess it's mere hypothetical since there is as of yet no evidence of ET's. But if we did have such evidence then we would have to calculate the probabilities and say something like, there is a 45% chance that ET's exist (or 75%, or even 90%) depending on the data. But there is a difference between evidence for ET's and a god, because said evidence would be within this universe. That is, the waves we experience would be physical evidence since that's what wave lengths represent. And from this evidence scientists (qua scientists) would never postulate a supernatural explanation or force or being as the best explanation for this evidence.
I don't know if you know James Sennett. A grad of LCC/LCS who wrote a couple books on Plantinga and other stuff. He experienced a crisis of doubt when he pondered the brain/mind problem. This problem is as serious of a problem as what theists have with the existence of massive intense suffering. Unless you can solve that problem for me I cannot take seriously any beliefs in gods, spirits, poltergeists, out of body experiences, or miracles performed in the physical world by a spiritual God.
On the one hand you claim to have a supernatural explanation of the evidence. On the other hand you have an insoluble philosophical problem. If I must accept the god of the gaps type of explanation of the evidence and along with it embrace an insoluble philosophical problem, then I must reject the the god of the gaps explanation as the best explanation of the evidence. For an insoluble philosophical problem carries with it much more weight, since one cannot kick against the goads of reason when I already have difficulties accepting the god hypothesis as an explanation in the first place.
Here's what you're doing (if I may presume to tell you). You have unexplained phenomena like noises in the night, or a complex universe. Then you postulate your particular God as the solution, the god of the gaps. But as I've said, any supernatural explanation will do once that type of explanation is allowed. On this you should see Gregory Dawes, Theism and Explanation, the second best atheist book of the past decade. *ahem*
My contention is that scientists, historians, psychologists, biologists, geologists, astronomers, physicians, chemists, meteorologists, and physicists must all assume a natural explanation for any and all phenomena. And since I reject faith as a way to cross the bridge from the sciences to some conclusion then you have no evidence for your beliefs. You have made an unjustifiable Kierkegaardian leap of faith. I don't know what you think of Kiekegaard but that's all you're left with. Is there a possibility that I'm wrong about this? Yes. But the probabilities are on my side. And even if I am wrong you can never claim to the kind of certainty that most believers do. You know what I'm talking about. Christians who claim to have no doubt are simply fooling themselves. The only thing we can claim not to doubt is our existence, and maybe not even that.
3 comments:
John, I'm not sure that I follow you.
Are you saying that the methodological naturalism of science sets up this faith/reason dichotomy?
Kierkegaard has a lot of good things to say, and he himself recognized that his writings were a corrective to the Hegelian concept of absolute knowledge. I think he called it a "pinch of spice." Of course, there would be no faith without doubt, so I track with you on that. I think Kierkegaard saw faith as self-actualizing, though, once "someone took the leap."
Anyways, I was just a little confused about how this argument was working, maybe you can enlighten an uneducated boof such as me?
John, first a little pedantry for which I apologise. I wouldn't mention it but you used the same simile a couple of weeks ago and I don't think it is correct - but I made be wrong.
"kick against the goads of reason"
From Acts 9:5 and Acts 26:14 in the KJV "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks". I was taught as a child that the pricks (stop sniggering at the back) were sharpened lengths of wood fixed into the whippletree (or whatever it is called) at the rear of ploughing cattle to dissuade them from kicking their hind legs backwards. On the other hand, a goad is a hand-held piece of wood or bone with a sharp end to prod into cattle to move them on. Hence should not the simile be “kick against the pricks of reason”?
But with respect to SETI, I think that the subject of life elsewhere in the universe is even more fascinating when examined from a YEC point of view. I have thought for some time, despite Peter Ward's 2000 book "Rare Earth Hypothesis", that the universe is probably crawling with life. I can't prove it but the Holy Ghost assures me it is so.
If the HG is correct then it poses the question of whether the fall of Adam related just to life on earth or did it extend even into other galaxies? If meat-eating man-like intelligence is found to exist elsewhere would their diet be a result of their own fall in which case does it mean that Jesus has to pop down every 30 years on to some benighted planet to suffer death for a couple of days to make amends? If this is the case, perhaps we have some sort of yard stick to calculate the minimum number of intelligent civilisations currently around in the universe. By my reckoning and based upon that fine work by Bishop Ussher, there are currently in the universe about 200 civilisations (6,000 years divided by 30) most if not all doubtless spending their spare time arguing over religion.
If you look at the evolution of life from chemical stew to now as a big tree, from the beginning, at each point that something 'happened', there were a number of other possibilities, from whether life was carbon based to our form. Just looking at form, there was no reason that our two-sided for should have won out over radial symmetry. Or on this branch where we are symetric about a spine, no reason 4 limbs instead of 6 needed be. So even if there is life other place, it is statistically slim that it will resemble us. Too many branches that could make better sense in slightly tweaked conditions. And behaviorally, as the 'most intelligent' life form, it isn't certain that other life would possess the curiousity we have to explore. There are certainly other mindsets that would suit survival as well. Just the evolution of 'intelligent' life is not a given. There could be planets where nothing 'smarter' than a ragweed developed. It isn't obvious that 'intelligence' is good for 'life' as a system. Also, time is a factor. Given that life on this planet is a tiny sliver of the time of our universe, life in other universes may just not coincide with life in ours. So it may be statistically likely that there is life, which one could determine by deciding how likely various factors and and multiplying them, setting up varous if-then liklihoods. But the liklihood that there is life that is our shape, our size, of similar intelligence, desiring to communicate with us, traveling to our planet, considering all those branches on that tree that got us to here, is so close to zero as to BE zero.
But that is all natural. Real physics and biology.
What that has to do with SUPERNATURAL escapes me. That is like saying if you allow for undiscovered plant forms in the arctic, you must also allow for the existance of Santa, isn't it?
Post a Comment