In which I accuse Scott Youngren of not understanding Realism, Idealism, Quantum Mechanics (or his own ontological position) - updated 11/1/14

This is the second part of my efforts to chronicle my conversation with Scott Youngren at godevidence.com This started tongue-in-cheek, but unfortunately I was more right than I thought.

Part 1: Quote-mining
Part 3: Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)
Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws
Part 5: The "symbolic representation" in DNA
Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic
Part 7: Evolution and panspermia


ON MATERIALISM VS IDEALISM Part I of 2: Quotes Quotes Quotes

Oct. 30 Non: Our exchange started in response to a comment to Anon, in which you said, “…modern physics has demonstrated that matter is a manifestation of consciousness,” Your evidence for that seems to be in the form of quotes from physicists. Later, when asked to clarify, you said, “the consensus of modern physicists is of no relevance.”

First it needs to be said that it seems utterly reasonable to accept the consensus in areas where one is not very informed (in fact, silly not to), and QM is an area where virtually everyone on earth is pretty clueless—you and I included. Of course that doesn’t mean that we blindly accept matters as “settled” simply by consensus, but it can certainly be valid to appeal to the consensus of experts in a field. Still, if you think consensus is irrelevant, and thus don’t intend these quotes to represent the scientific consensus, I wonder at your purpose for leaning so heavily (in fact, almost exclusively) on them. For example, you quote Planck, a deeply religious man, but you offer no evidence from him beyond his opinion.

Another example: you recommend to me your essay, God is real, in which you say there is no third stance between materialism and idealism (actually the issue is between realism and idealism), so everyone needs to ask, “On which side… do I fall?” Then by way of answer you proceed to quote Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner, Arthur Eddington, and James Jeans. You offer no exposition of your own, just quote after quote after quote, followed by the conclusion, “There can be no question on which side of this debate modern physics falls.” If you don’t present these quotes as evidence of a scientific consensus, why are they there?

Maybe you’re appealing to authority rather than consensus. That seems unlikely, since surely you know a bald appeal to authority isn’t enough to establish anything. Besides, most physicists today disagree with the quotes you presented, and these physicists understand QM much better than the pioneers did, so any argument from authority (or consensus) would work against you.

And if you’re quoting Wigner as an authority, you need to explain why you reject his same authority when, later in life, he rejects “consciousness causes collapse.” Does he suddenly stop being an authority because you disagree with him?

Einstein is clearly not talking about idealism. His statement was in response to a question from a young girl who asked if scientists pray (there’s that pesky context again). His response set off a mini firestorm which led him to finally declare that he believed in Spinoza’s god (god-as-nature), not a personal theistic one. He said to call him an agnostic. This quote is content-less with regard to idealism vs realism. (Context context context)

Wigner was an atheist. If the thrust of your article is that modern physics proves idealism, which “discredits” atheism, it is undone by the fact that Wigner was both an idealist and an atheist (it’s not difficult to see how he could be both; one simply needs to have an understanding of the concepts, rather than blindly pulling quotes from apologetics books). And there’s still the pesky fact that he later reversed his views on consciousness causing collapse.

Your quote of Eddington (where he mentions the Logos) is obviously just his opinion. Regardless, given Eddington’s own mysticism, and the fact that Hellenistic ideas of the Logos predated Christianity by a long while and were highly mystic, it’s likely he was using it in the Hellenistic sense. But even if we can’t say that without context, it’s certainly not clear that he was using Logos in the way modern Christians would like to read him. In the end it doesn’t matter; it’s only his opinion either way.
.
Finally, you have a quote from James Jeans. Now his quote seems to make a definite statement about consensus when he says, “There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity,…” but you have wisely declined to appeal to the consensus. After all, that might have been the consensus in 1930, but the realism/idealism pendulum keeps swinging. It’s also problematic to say Jeans’ quote should lead one to God, since it didn’t lead him to God. He was an agnostic.

So this essay, meant to prove that God is real by proving idealism, trots out quotes from eminent men from the past, and boldly concludes “there can be no question on which side of this debate modern physics falls.” Yet of the five men you quote, two were agnostics and one was an atheist, so most of these eminent thinkers weren’t swayed by their own quotes to start believing in God. One was a realist whose quote you miscontextualized (I understand it wasn’t you; you’re just copying from apologetic authors who knew you wouldn’t do any actual research), and one author later reversed his stance on wave-function collapse, which is central to your argument. Furthermore, QM is an incredibly fast-moving field, and your quoted authorities are long dead. “Modern” physics, which you pretend to be representing, tells a different story than it did almost 100 years ago. There is an easy way to find out on which side modern physics falls—we can see if there have been any surveys done recently where elite physical scientists clearly state their position on this question. Would you care to make a small wager on what the results reveal?



ON MATERIALISM VS IDEALISM Part 2 of 2: YOUTUBE, SCHMUTUBE

The essay offers a myriad more quotes (no surprise there), but as far as I can tell, only offers a YouTube video focusing on the double-slit experiment as anything resembling evidence on behalf of idealism. What the author, InspiringPhilosophy (IP)doesn’t tell you (but acknowledges elsewhere) is that the conclusions and interpretations he presents as solidly established in his video are not at all agreed upon. Physicists have been thinking about these issues for almost a century, but have only recently gained the technology to actually test them via experimentation, and the implications of the experiments are still being debated. There are dozens of different interpretations of QM, and scores of sub-interpretations. IP presents this specific sub-interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI)–an interpretation of an interpretation–as a scientific fact, ignoring all the other interpretations and the problems with CI (all interpretations have their strong and weak points).

At a recent meeting of physicists, a poll was taken of which interpretation these experts in the field subscribed to. There were three or four front-runners, but no interpretation achieved majority acceptance among the attendees. In a few years, as more experimental data comes in, one of the existing interpretations (or maybe a new one altogether) may gain general acceptance , but for now QM is still in its infancy and there is very little that is “settled.” Most physicists loudly proclaim that there is a lot to learn before we can make many confident claims about many of the details of QM.

This, of course, is where the non-physicist apologists (and woo woo hucksters like Chopra and sellers of Quantum Crystals) appear, counting on the public’s misunderstanding of some key concepts to squeeze God into the admitted gaps in our knowledge. For example, in QM, the “observer” does not mean a conscious person; it more accurately refers to a measurement device. When you’re measuring things like electrons, a single photon used to measure/observe the position or momentum of the particle is enough to collapse the wave function. It’s like measuring the position of a bowling ball by seeing how a baseball bounces off it; the act of measurement affects the property you’re trying to measure. It must be said that most of the blame for the confusion of terms lies at the feet of the physicists. They love to concoct thought experiments and analogies about cats to illustrate their points, but after all this time they haven’t learned that they should stop giving new meanings to old words (like observer) because it only increases confusion.

You also say, “This points to an immaterial mind that is responsible for the production of physical reality (read: God).” It doesn’t, but I’d like to see if you can clarify your position. Are you saying there is no such thing as matter, that we’re all immaterial minds that produce the illusion of matter? Or are you saying there ismatter, but it doesn’t exist until a conscious mind produces it? (Or is there a third option?) If God’s mind “produces” matter, why does the double-slit experiment give the results it does, if there is an omnipresent consciousness to observe all things? Does God cover His eyes while we do these experiments?

Though you seem unable to articulate your ontological position as one of dualistic idealism, you clearly said you were not a monist, and you’re arguing against materialism, so there’s probably a 99% chance that you’re a dualistic idealist. However, there’s a problem with this: The YT video you link actually argues formonistic idealism, and against dualism. If you want anyone to accept the arguments from the video as valid in favor of your dualistic idealism, you need to explain why they’re not valid arguments in favor of monistic idealism (or, specifically, for IP’s weak panentheism). The logic and arguments are the same, so if you’re going to accept them when you think they establish idealism, but reject them when they likewise establish monism, you need to explain the blatant inconsistency on your part.

The author of that video is making some far-out theological claims, which you ignore completely while presenting the video, as a whole, as evidence favoring your position. This gives the impression that either you a) agree with his theology (though you say you don’t) or b) didn’t understand the material well enough to comprehend that by “endorsing” it you were undermining your own theological position.

Regardless, it should be stressed that the biggest problem with your appeal to this video is that the author is presenting one interpretation of many as a scientific fact when it is far from it. The jury is still out—heck, the jury hasn’t even heard much of the evidence yet, and IP is trying to render a verdict. He knows better, but he’s pitching his woo woo panentheism and isn’t going to let little things like facts distract him.


Nov. 1 Scott:  I will copy and paste your comments in italics and respond below:

NC: Your evidence for that seems to be in the form of quotes from physicists. Later, when asked to clarify, you said, “the consensus of modern physicists is of no relevance.”

No, my evidence is not quotes from physicists. Modern physics has shown that there is no physical reality independent of a conscious observer. This indicates that the physical world is the product of a conscious mind. I cited the double-slit experiment as evidence of this.

—
NC: Another example: you recommend to me your essay, God is real, in which you say there is no third stance between materialism and idealism (actually the issue is between realism and idealism), so everyone needs to ask, “On which side… do I fall?” Then by way of answer you proceed to quote Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner, Arthur Eddington, and James Jeans. You offer no exposition of your own, just quote after quote after quote, followed by the conclusion, “There can be no question on which side of this debate modern physics falls.” If you don’t present these quotes as evidence of a scientific consensus, why are they there?

Yes I do offer an exposition of my own. Until the wave function is collapsed by a conscious observer, particles exist only as a probability wave, not as actual physical objects. Therefore, the observation of a conscious observer is necessary for the production of physical reality. This indicates that the physical world is the result of a conscious and intelligent mind (read: God). I did not write this argument out in my essay, but this is the argument presented in the two videos that I linked to.

—-

NC: Maybe you’re appealing to authority rather than consensus. That seems unlikely, since surely you know a bald appeal to authority isn’t enough to establish anything. Besides, most physicists today disagree with the quotes you presented, and these physicists understand QM much better than the pioneers did, so any argument from authority (or consensus) would work against you.

And if you’re quoting Wigner as an authority, you need to explain why you reject his same authority when, later in life, he rejects “consciousness causes collapse.” Does he suddenly stop being an authority because you disagree with him?

Non Credenti, all human beings (whether they are a Nobel Prize winning physicist, or a homeless person) believe things for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons are logical and some of them are other-than-logical….such as psychological and ideological reasons. Probably the biggest motivator of atheism is the psychological need to be free from having to answer to a higher power for one’s actions.

I do not know if Wigner was an atheist or not. But if he was, you must cite his LOGICAL reasons for being an atheist. Anytime that you cite an authority’s opinion as evidence for something—-without also citing the LOGICAL REASONS behind that opinion——you are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. I do not commit this logical fallacy because I cite the following LOGICAL reason to support my citation of him:

Until the wave function is collapsed by a conscious observer, particles exist only as a probability wave, not as actual physical objects. Therefore, the observation of a conscious observer is necessary for the production of physical reality. This indicates that the physical world is the result of a conscious and intelligent mind (read: God).

—

NC: Wigner was an atheist. If the thrust of your article is that modern physics proves idealism, which “discredits” atheism, it is undone by the fact that Wigner was both an idealist and an atheist (it’s not difficult to see how he could be both; one simply needs to have an understanding of the concepts, rather than blindly pulling quotes from apologetics books). And there’s still the pesky fact that he later reversed his views on consciousness causing collapse.

Please explain how one can be an idealist and an atheist. Where do ideas come from if not minds? Further, you are clearly not an idealist. Rather, you are a materialist. Forgive me if I am wrong, but your arguments are very materialist. How do you support your materialism considering the insights of modern physics? In the video by Inspiring Philosophy, he cites Wigner as saying that materialism is NOT compatible with modern physics.

Please explain in detail how the wave function is collapsed without a conscious observer.

——
NC: Your quote of Eddington (where he mentions the Logos) is obviously just his opinion. Regardless, given Eddington’s own mysticism, and the fact that Hellenistic ideas of the Logos predated Christianity by a long while and were highly mystic, it’s likely he was using it in the Hellenistic sense. But even if we can’t say that without context, it’s certainly not clear that he was using Logos in the way modern Christians would like to read him. In the end it doesn’t matter; it’s only his opinion either way.

Finally, you have a quote from James Jeans. Now his quote seems to make a definite statement about consensus when he says, “There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity,…” but you have wisely declined to appeal to the consensus. After all, that might have been the consensus in 1930, but the realism/idealism pendulum keeps swinging. It’s also problematic to say Jeans’ quote should lead one to God, since it didn’t lead him to God. He was an agnostic.

So this essay, meant to prove that God is real by proving idealism, trots out quotes from eminent men from the past, and boldly concludes “there can be no question on which side of this debate modern physics falls.” Yet of the five men you quote, two were agnostics and one was an atheist, so most of these eminent thinkers weren’t swayed by their own quotes to start believing in God. One was a realist whose quote you miscontextualized (I understand it wasn’t you; you’re just copying from apologetic authors who knew you wouldn’t do any actual research), and one author later reversed his stance on wave-function collapse, which is central to your argument.

Once again, all human beings hold their beliefs for a variety of reasons…some of which are logical and some of which are psychological or ideological. Every time that you cite the views of an authority without citing the LOGICAL REASONS behind those views, you are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

—

NC: Furthermore, QM is an incredibly fast-moving field, and your quoted authorities are long dead. “Modern” physics, which you pretend to be representing, tells a different story than it did almost 100 years ago. There is an easy way to find out on which side modern physics falls—we can see if there have been any surveys done recently where elite physical scientists clearly state their position on this question. Would you care to make a small wager on what the results reveal?

At a recent meeting of physicists, a poll was taken of which interpretation these experts in the field subscribed to. There were three or four front-runners, but no interpretation achieved majority acceptance among the attendees. In a few years, as more experimental data comes in, one of the existing interpretations (or maybe a new one altogether) may gain general acceptance , but for now QM is still in its infancy and there is very little that is “settled.” Most physicists loudly proclaim that there is a lot to learn before we can make many confident claims about many of the details of QM.

This is AGAIN, the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Logical arguments consist of logic, not of opinion polls. The psychological need to be free of having to answer to a higher power is just as prevalent (perhaps more prevalent) in scientific circles. For example, Sir Arthur Eddington famously said that “the notion of a beginning [of the universe] is repugnant to me.” This is because accepting that the universe had a beginning forced him to recognize that a beginning requires a Beginner (read: God). The same is the case with Einstein, who adopted a fudge factor (known as a “cosmological constant”) in order to sweep the beginning of the universe under the rug. He later admitted that this was the biggest mistake of his career and said, “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

Unless you provide a LOGICAL ARGUMENT to back up the religious/philosophical beliefs of authority figures, you are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. We cannot merely assume that an authority believes something for purely logical reasons.

Physicist Richard Conn Henry explains why people (such as many scientists) cling to materialism/naturalism despite the fact that it has been completely discredited by modern physics:

“Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.” ["Solipsism" is defined as "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist."]

I have little doubt that many scientists will “cling with…ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality, ” as Henry puts it…for psychological and ideological reasons.

Further, you are committing the logical fallacy of Argument From Ignorance when you say, “In a few years, as more experimental data comes in, one of the existing interpretations (or maybe a new one altogether) may gain general acceptance.” You are basically arguing that what we DON’T know about quantum physics will some day vindicate your materialism, despite the fact that what we DO know about quantum physics already invalidates materialism.

—
NC: For example, in QM, the “observer” does not mean a conscious person; it more accurately refers to a measurement device. When you’re measuring things like electrons, a single photon used to measure/observe the position or momentum of the particle is enough to collapse the wave function. It’s like measuring the position of a bowling ball by seeing how a baseball bounces off it; the act of measurement affects the property you’re trying to measure.

No, the idea that the collapse of the wave function can be performed by a measurement device was debunked by the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment. Go to about 6:10 into the video titled Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism by Inspiring Philosophy (on YouTube).

Please read the following paper about this experiment:http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm

A copy and paste of a crucial excerpt from this paper:

“Comment: This is key. There is no which-path information for the signal photons when they initially arrive at D0. Which-path information for those signal photons is obtained only later, when the twin idler photon is later detected at D3 or D4 (and not obtained if the twin idler photon is detected at D1 or D2).”

“As discussed below, the experimental setup ensures that this which-path information for the signal photons is obtained or erased only after the signal photon has been detected and the information is winging its way toward the Coincidence Circuit.”

Another crucial excerpt (basically the last two paragraphs from the paper):

“Time 6. Upon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at D0 at Time 2 depends entirely on the information gathered later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment.”

“The position of a photon at detector D0 has been registered and scanned. Yet the actual position of the photon arriving at D0 will be at one place if we later learn more information; and the actual position will be at another place if we do not.”

Non Credenti, review the last sentence above: The measuring apparatus cannot be responsible for the collapse of the wave function because “the actual position of the photon arriving at D0 will be at one place if we later learn more information; and the actual position will be at another place if we do not.” Only an OBSERVATION OF A CONSCIOUS OBSERVER can learn information…not the presence of a measuring apparatus.

Non Credenti, atheism is rooted in the materialist worldview which says that ultimate reality (which can be simply defined as “the something-from-which-everything-else-comes”) is mindless matter. But this worldview is COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH MODERN PHYSICS…as Wigner famously said.

But if we assume that physical reality is a construct of consciousness (idealism/theism), then it is immediately clear why an observer collapses the wave function. The observer effect validates idealism/theism. As Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory put it:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

Or as the Nobel Prize winning physicist Erwin Shroedinger put it:

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”

Non Credenti, you suggest that the wave function can be collapsed by “a single photon.” PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW A PARTICLE CAN CAUSE THE COLLAPSE OF THE WAVE FUNCTION. If the fundamental substratum of the universe is consciousness (as in theism and modern physics), it is immediately clear how an observation collapses the wave function. But how can “a single photon” collapse the wave function? By emitting some ethereal radiation?! PLEASE EXPLAIN!

By suggesting that a particle causes the wave function collapse, you are suggesting that a physical object (a particle) is acting on a non-physical entity (a wave function). PLEASE EXPLAIN THE MECHANISM BY WHICH A PHYSICAL PARTICLE CAUSES THE COLLAPSE OF A NON-PHYSICAL WAVE FUNCTION!!

Again, this notion was debunked by the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment.

I cite Bruce Gordon, who holds a PhD in the history and philosophy of physics, for a more thorough explanation of why materialism/naturalism is completely incompatible with modern physics.

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952939

A copy and paste from his article:

….the ground has now been laid to summarize an argument showing not only that quantum theory does not support materialism but also that it is incompatible with materialism. The argument can be formulated in terms of the following premises and conclusion: 

P1. Materialism is the view that the sum and substance of everything that exists is exhausted by physical objects and processes and whatever supervenes causally upon them.
P2. The explanatory resources of materialism are therefore restricted to material objects, causes, events and processes.
P3. Neither nonlocal quantum correlations nor (in light of nonlocalizability) the identity of the fundamental constituents of material reality can be explained or characterized if the explanatory constraints of materialism are preserved.
P4. These quantum phenomena require an explanation.
C Therefore, materialism/naturalism/physicalism is irremediably deficient as a worldview, and consequently should be rejected as false and inadequate. 

The first two premises of this argument are uncontroversial: the first is just a definition and the second is a consequence of this definition. The key premises of the argument are thus the third and fourth; once these are established, the conclusion follows directly. Let’s focus our attention, therefore, on justifying the claims in premises three and four. 

In order for a particle to be a material individual, it must possess one or more well-defined and uniquely identifying properties. The prime example of such a property is spatio-temporal location. In order for something to exist as an individual material object, it must occupy a certain volume of space at a certain time. If it does not, then whatever it is – if it’s anything at all – it’s not a material object. The problem for the materialist is that the particles of relativistic quantum mechanics are not so localizable. 

Stated roughly, Gerhard Hegerfeldt and David Malament have shown that if one assumes (quite reasonably) that an individual particle can neither serve as an infinite source of energy nor be in two places at once, then that particle has zero probability of being found in any bounded spatial region, no matter how large! In short, the “particle” doesn’t exist anywhere in space, and so, to be honest, it doesn’t really exist at all. Hans Halvorson and Robert Clifton have extended these results and closed some loopholes by showing that the Hegerfeldt-Malament proof still works under conditions that are even more general. In particular, they’ve shown that once relativity is taken into account, there can be no intelligible notion of microscopic material objects. Particle talk has pragmatic utility in relation to macroscopic appearances, but it has no basis in microphysical reality (and this is the rock-bottom reality for the materialist). 

The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.

—

NC: You also say, “This points to an immaterial mind that is responsible for the production of physical reality (read: God).” It doesn’t, but I’d like to see if you can clarify your position. Are you saying there is no such thing as matter, that we’re all immaterial minds that produce the illusion of matter? Or are you saying there is matter, but it doesn’t exist until a conscious mind produces it? (Or is there a third option?) If God’s mind “produces” matter, why does the double-slit experiment give the results it does, if there is an omnipresent consciousness to observe all things? Does God cover His eyes while we do these experiments?

Though you seem unable to articulate your ontological position as one of dualistic idealism, you clearly said you were not a monist, and you’re arguing against materialism, so there’s probably a 99% chance that you’re a dualistic idealist. However, there’s a problem with this: The YT video you link actually argues for monistic idealism, and against dualism.If you want anyone to accept the arguments from the video as valid in favor of your dualistic idealism, you need to explain why they’re not valid arguments in favor of monistic idealism (or, specifically, for IP’s weak panentheism). The logic and arguments are the same, so if you’re going to accept them when you think they establish idealism, but reject them when they likewise establish monism, you need to explain the blatant inconsistency on your part.

Regarding your above question, please reference my above citation of Bruce Gordon, PhD. A copy and paste of a crucial excerpt:

“Stated roughly, Gerhard Hegerfeldt and David Malament have shown that if one assumes (quite reasonably) that an individual particle can neither serve as an infinite source of energy nor be in two places at once, then that particle has zero probability of being found in any bounded spatial region, no matter how large! In short, the “particle” doesn’t exist anywhere in space, and so, to be honest, it doesn’t really exist at all.”

Please explain why the video by Inspiring Philosophy supports monistic idealism. This is ridiculous. Please go to 14:00 into the video and review the commentary by the physicist Michio Kaku. Watch from this point all the way to the end. At 15:29, the author of the video (J. Ratz) says, “our mind doesn’t create reality, it only participates in it.”

But perhaps most importantly, I have to call you out for another red herring (an attempt to distract attention from the important points in order to cover up for the inadequacy of your logic). HOW CAN ATHEISM BE COMPATIBLE WITH EITHER MONISTIC OR DUALISTIC IDEALISM?

You want to start a debate about different forms of idealism in order to distract attention from the fact that your materialism is incompatible with modern physics.

Part 1: Quote-mining                                                               Part 3: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)

Debit where debit is due

So of course since I praised Frank Sontag for cautioning listeners against painting atheists with a broad brush, he restores balance to the Universe by reverting to form and painting atheists with a broad brush.

I'm an idiot for not noting the date and time--I wasn't really planning on blogging.

I don't remember the segment's topic, but he had a caller, Tamara, who told of her teen son who identifies as an atheist. She said she'll feel like she's making progress, then he'll spend the weekend with his father (an atheist) and will come back reinvigorated with the atheist juju. That's all she said about her son. She didn't say anything about his behavior.

A caller later in the segment said the problem was that Tamara wasn't being honest with her son about the dangers of his choices. Tamara wasn't warning him that he was headed to hell if he didn't come to Jesus. Frank cut the caller off and said he didn't know what Tamara said to her son, and he couldn't know from just a few seconds on the air. He said we shouldn't make hasty generalizations. Great.

Then the very next thing he said was, "One thing we know... that young man is angry."

Hmmm.

The experiment was a success. All the subjects are dead.

I initially planned to do no "advertising" of this blog, and just use it as a place to store my ramblings, but I think a better use would be to archive some conversations I have with others, and it wouldn't seem right to not tell them that I'm mirroring the conversations, so I guess I'm abandoning my initial experiment (how long would it take to get views/visitors to a completely obscure and unadvertised blog).

In which I accuse Scott Youngren of quote mining

This is the first part of a series of posts chronicling my interactions with Scott Youngren of godevidence.com. By the end of this post I've separated the discussion into a few different topics.
Part 2: Idealism/Materialism and QM
Part 3: Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)
Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws
Part 5: The "symbolic representation" in DNA
Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic
Part 7: Evolution and panspermia

Scott Youngren has a web site, godevidence.com, which I found somehow during a Google Walkabout. I haven't seen much of it, but in it he seems to present all the standard Christian apologetic arguments, with a heavy emphasis on deriding materialism (this seems to be his go-to argument), and a heavy, heavy emphasis on argumentation by quotation.

Not that I have a reason to think Scott Youngren would be dishonest, but I've been burned before with moderated comments. He also doesn't seem to have any recent posts (I guess he's gone through the apologetics books he has [Edit 10/30/14 Looks like he got a new book.]), so I don't know how long his site will be around. So I'm going to mirror the discussion here--if for no other reason than to collect my thoughts in one place (and maybe I'll look back in a few years and say, "I used to think that?")

His article can be found here. Below is the chain of responses. I will edit out opening and closing salutations. After thinking about it, I'm also going to unbold some of his typeface. For some reason he loves to bold entire quote blocks, and I'm finding it annoying to look at; maybe I'm just getting old. I won't change any bold/italics within the content; just huge chunks of it that appear to be bolded for no reason. He also bolds my responses, which I'll undo here.

I should note that I was really rushing when I first posted, and didn't edit well. Had I edited my thoughts, I would not have started off with such an argumentative tone. The conversation would have likely gone that way anyway, because Scott has the aggressive arrogance of the fundamentalist believer, but that doesn't excuse me for starting things off on such a negative foot. If I chronicle other interactions here, I'll try to be my more normal, less confrontational, self. The real mistake I made was not reading more of his site before responding. Had I read more, I would have moved on and not wasted any time with him. Scott is almost Hovind-like in that his basic ignorance of science is matched only by his confidence that he has near-expert mastery of it.


Oct 2. Non: My, you’re one giant quote-mining machine, aren’t you? You claim you’re providing evidence, but it’s only quotes from people long dead followed by blank assertions such as, “The physical laws like thermodynamics and gravity (like everything else) are the manifestations of consciousness.” Not a piece of actual evidence.

The problem is likely that you’re used to arguing science the same way theists argue theology–by proof-texting, quoting some ‘authority’ and sitting back proudly like you’ve presented some solid evidence. (At least it’s somewhat valid within theology debates, since that’s mostly about interpretation, and one man’s interpretation is as good as another’s.)


Oct 2. Scott: I have never been able to get an atheist to explain to me what “quote mining” is. How does “quote mining” differ from the use of citations which is a routine part of rational discourse…such as in virtually any scholarly journal? Please explain inspecific terms. Please note that rational discourse would be virtually impossible if the use of citations were disallowed.

It seems clear to me that you are making an accusation of “quote mining” (whatever that means) in order to distract attention from your inability to furnish a rationally constructed and fact-based rebuttal to the points made in this essay. An argument which is intended to change the subject, and thereby distract attention, is known as a “red herring.” Click here to read a wikipedia post about “red herrings”.

You state that there is “not a piece of actual evidence” for God. This is completely false. There is overwhelming evidence for God. Below are a few introductory pieces of evidence which I would like you to respond to with rationally constructed and fact-based rebuttals (not red herrings or rhetorical language).

1) The evidence for God from modern physics as presented in God Is Real: Why Modern Physics Has Discredited Atheism. In this essay, I discuss how modern physics has demonstrated that there is no reality independent of consciousness (mind). (Yes, I am going to use a citation now since rational discourse would be virtually impossible without the use of citations. Feel free to accuse me of “quote mining” but please don’t forget to explain what “quote mining” is). Physicist Richard Conn Henry from Johns Hopkins University explains why atheists try so desperately to ignore or deny the insights of modern physics:

“Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.” ["Solipsism" is defined as "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist."]

Similarly, the knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer Sir James Jeans says (in his book The Mysterious Universe)…

“There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” (italics added)

2) The evidence for God in the language of life (DNA), as presented in How Atheism Relies on Special Pleading and Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God. DNA is a language, since it uses symbolic representation to provide a set of instructions. These symbols are known as “codons” in the language of biology.

As I describe in the above essays, information science (not to mention everyday common sense) tells us that code or language is BY NECESSITY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind. Therefore, you must decide which conscious and intelligent mind is responsible for the origin of life.

Atheists who vigorously deny the insights of modern physics have been forced to resort to such absurdities as the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life (known as “directed panspermia.”) Click here to view a video of the famous atheist biologist Richard Dawkins endorsing this hypothesis in an interview. Click here to read an article about how the atheist biologist Francis Crick endorsed this hypothesis in his book titled Life Itself. Crick is famous as the co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix.

Which conscious and intelligent mind do you think is responsible for the language of life….God or the space aliens? Some other mind?

Will you join your fellow atheists by rejecting the insights of modern physics and endorsing the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life?

I am very extremely curious to hear your reply.

Oct. 6. Non: Quote mining is quoting someone out of context to make it appear they are saying something they’re not. Another form of it would be quoting someone and representing their words as the consensus; ignoring that they represent a tiny minority, and ignoring the fact that their claims have been debunked. Now, all of your quotes are not quote mining—though they certainly don’t tell the whole story.

However, your follow-up, contains a *perfect* example of quote mining. You say, in a response attempting to deny being a quote-miner, that Dawkins endorses ‘directed panspermia’ and link to Expelled. Have you actually watched that movie? Actually, it doesn’t matter, because Dawkins provides the context in the link you provide.

First he clearly states he doesn’t know how the first self-replicating molecule ‘happened.’ He says not only that he doesn’t know, but that nobody knows.

Secondly, when asked to give a scenario in which it *could* have happened, he mentions life-seeding aliens, repeatedly saying, “It could come about… it could be that… perhaps… it’s a possibility… I suppose it’s possible that… could well be…”

Thirdly, *twice* in that answer he says these life-seeding aliens *would themselves have come about by natural means*. He begins by saying this earlier civilization would itself have evolved, “probably by some Darwinian means,” and then designed another form of life. And he concludes by repeating that higher intelligence would need a natural explanation.

How could you possibly have missed all this context? Have you not heard the myriad complaints of scientists saying this movie, Expelled, is shameless in its misquoting of the experts? Having heard that (how could you have missed it if you felt confident enough to quote it as proof that Dawkins ‘endorses’ directed transpermia) how could an honest man not look to see if perhaps Dawkins himself said something about this quote (assuming you missed the obvious context of even that short clip)?

Even a cursory search would turn up Dawkins’ clear statements regarding this ridiculous misrepresentation of his words:

“Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (“oh NOOOOO, of course we aren’t talking about God, this is SCIENCE”) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn’t rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists’ whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity — and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently — comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.” - http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2394-lying-for-jesus

Oct. 6. Scott: [Here Scott begins bolding my words. I'll just set them off using block quotes.] 

Quote mining is quoting someone out of context to make it appear they are saying something they’re not. Another form of it would be quoting someone and representing their words as the consensus; ignoring that they represent a tiny minority, and ignoring the fact that their claims have been debunked. Now, all of your quotes are not quote mining—though they certainly don’t tell the whole story.

Please give me even a single example of where I “quote someone out of context to make it appear they are saying something they are not.” You accuse me of “quote mining” in my essay titled Riddles for Atheists. Please tell me specifically what quote I took out of context and what you feel the correct context is.

For example, in this essay, I cite Albert Einstein. Did I take his quote out of context by failing to mention that he made the comments in the context of a stand-up comedy routine? Did I attempt to fool people by failing to mention that he made these comments in the context of a joke? Please, please explain.

You say that I am not telling “the whole story.” Well, go ahead and tell the part of the story that I am not telling. Does the other part of the story consist of the fact that there are people who do not agree with me? Is that your broader context?!

“However, your follow-up, contains a *perfect* example of quote mining. You say, in a response attempting to deny being a quote-miner, that Dawkins endorses ‘directed panspermia’ and link to Expelled. Have you actually watched that movie? Actually, it doesn’t matter, because Dawkins provides the context in the link you provide.

First he clearly states he doesn’t know how the first self-replicating molecule ‘happened.’ He says not only that he doesn’t know, but that nobody knows.

Secondly, when asked to give a scenario in which it *could* have happened, he mentions life-seeding aliens, repeatedly saying, “It could come about… it could be that… perhaps… it’s a possibility… I suppose it’s possible that… could well be…”

Thirdly, *twice* in that answer he says these life-seeding aliens *would themselves have come about by natural means*. He begins by saying this earlier civilization would itself have evolved, “probably by some Darwinian means,” and then designed another form of life. And he concludes by repeating that higher intelligence would need a natural explanation. 

How could you possibly have missed all this context? Have you not heard the myriad complaints of scientists saying this movie, Expelled, is shameless in its misquoting of the experts? Having heard that (how could you have missed it if you felt confident enough to quote it as proof that Dawkins ‘endorses’ directed transpermia) how could an honest man not look to see if perhaps Dawkins himself said something about this quote (assuming you missed the obvious context of even that short clip)?”

Missed this context?! I didn’t miss this context! Suggesting that the Darwinian mechanism can apply to non-living things is one thing which is so absurd!

Please note that the Darwinian mechanism utilizes the random mutation of genes and the natural selection of reproductive offspring. Unfortunately for Dawkins and other atheists, only things that are ALREADY ALIVE have genes to mutate and reproductive offspring to naturally select.

This is part of the absurdity that I am trying to call him out on!! He is citing a mechanism that only applies to things which are already alive to explain how the space aliens (that brought life to earth in their spaceship) evolved from non-living matter!

Below are some of the words that Dawkins spoke in the interview:

It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now, that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Non-Credenti, what SPECIFICALLY in your citation of Dawkins changes the context in which he made these comments…so as to make his absurd speculation less absurd? What SPECIFICALLY in his comments is there that constitutes a rationally constructed and fact based counter-explanation to the theistic explanation for the origin of life from non-living matter? Please note that merely falling back on his worldview and citing “some kind of Darwinian means” is in no sense a logically constructed counter-explanation.

Bo Jinn writes in his book Illogical Atheism:

Why on Earth does Richard Dawkins propose that life could have been designed by extra-terrestrials after he had devoted an entire repertoire of literature staunchly opposed to the entire designer hypothesis? It is palpable that there is something extremely wrong with that, which is not to be ignored by any conscientious thinker. It is painfully obvious that the problem being faced by atheist ‘evolutionists’ is not with a ‘designer’ at all, but rather with a very particular type of designer.

Further, you have failed to explain why we should accept mindless natural explanations for the origin of life in light of the BROADER CONTEXT of what modern physics tells us about the primacy of consciousness (mind) in the production of the physical world. You have utterly ignored my points about the broader context of the insights of modern physics. A copy and paste of a citation from a previous comment since you have ignored this broader context:

Physicist Richard Conn Henry from Johns Hopkins University explains why atheists try so desperately to ignore or deny the insights of modern physics:

Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism. ["Solipsism" is defined as "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist."]

Similarly, the knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer Sir James Jeans says (in his book The Mysterious Universe):

There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (italics added)

Here are the points that I am trying to make by citing the video of Dawkins endorsing the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life from non-living matter (“directed panspermia”):

1) Dawkins and other ultra-elite atheist scientists such as Francis Crick, Leslie Orgel, Fred Hoyle, and Chandra Wickaramsinghe clearly understand that life is the product of a conscious and intelligent mind. As I mentioned before, DNA is a language that uses symbols (“codons”) to provide a set of codified instructions. And we know from the insights of information science (not to mention everyday common sense) that language or code is BY NECESSITY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind.

2) Because their worldview requires them to deny God, atheists must ignore the insights of modern physics (about the primacy of mind in the production of the physical world) and resort to absurd speculations such as the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life from non-living matter. The aliens were, in turn, brought into existence by “some sort of Darwinian means” even though the Darwinian mechanism only applies to things which are ALREADY ALIVE. Please recall that non-living things have neither genes to mutate nor reproductive offspring to naturally select.

The fact that Dawkins reverts back to his worldview and cites “some kind of Darwinian means” to explain the emergence of the space aliens only makes my point stronger!



Oct. 9 Non: You object that “the Darwinian mechanism utilizes the random mutation of genes…” and this only works on things that are already alive. This stems from a lack of understanding of evolution. Take a wild guess how many times the words “gene” or “DNA” appear in Darwin’s Origin. You are conflating a general mechanism of evolution with a specific mechanism of evolution. At its core, evolution requires some means of replication, some means of change, and some means of selection. Abiogenetic theories include means of replication other than DNA. Are you truly not able to extrapolate to the more general principle of evolution and figure out that when “Dawkins and other atheists” talk about abiogenesis they are talking about a means of replication that doesn’t involve genes?

Anyway, that’s really an aside. The issue is quote-mining, and the context of Dawkins’ words. You said Dawkins “endorses” directed panspermia. That is false, and the context of his words shows that he was not endorsing it as anything more than a wild hypothetical possibility. He presented it as a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. Because he says something is “possible” does not mean he’s endorsing it as the explanation for life on earth. If someone did that to you, would you say it was accurate, or fair to twist the conversation like that?

You want to know what makes his “absurd speculation less absurd.” What makes it absurd to begin with? Are you saying it’s impossible for aliens to exist? Are you saying it’s impossible for sufficiently-advanced aliens to design and seed life? If so, you need to support that idea. If not, then you need to explain why allowing for a possibility is absurd.

You ask: 

What SPECIFICALLY in your citation of Dawkins changes the context in which he made these comments…so as to make his absurd speculation less absurd? What SPECIFICALLY in his comments is there that constitutes a rationally constructed and fact based counter-explanation to the theistic explanation for the origin of life from non-living matter? Please note that merely falling back on his worldview and citing “some kind of Darwinian means” is in no sense a logically constructed counter-explanation.

Merely saying his answer is not logically constructed does not make it so. You need to point out his failure in logic. If you are referring to your earlier complaint that evolution requires genes, then we can drop this as asked and answered (you now understand that ”some kind of Darwinian means” doesn’t necessitate DNA, right?). If you mean something else, point out where the logic breaks down. 

Next you quote Bo Jinn, who asks, 

Why on Earth does Richard Dawkins propose that life could have been designed by extra-terrestrials after he had devoted an entire repertoire of literature staunchly opposed to the entire designer hypothesis?

Dawkins was asked to forget his ‘repertoire’ and, for the sake of argument, propose a possible scenario in which life <em>could have</em> arisen by means of a designer, so he answered the hypothetical. In his later explanation he chastised himself for not recognizing the dishonesty of the situation. I chastise him, also. For as many times as honest scientists have their words twisted by people like Bo Jinn to imply that they’re contradicting themselves, or are “endorsing” ID (or in this case, directed panspermia), they keep falling for it. 

You ask about the broader context of how modern physics has killed idealism. You seem to be headed down a certain road with this, so let me ask you a few questions so I’m clear:

Are you a monist idealist?

Are you saying the consensus of modern physicists is one of monist idealism?

If monist idealism is the consensus of modern physicists, are you saying I should accept monist idealism because that is the consensus among the experts?

Since Dawkins didn’t “endorse” it, your first point is moot, as I hope is clear by now. As for information theory, that is a very complicated topic (only slightly less complicated then QM) and, frankly, until you can show that you understand basic scientific concepts, it would be a waste of time to discuss it with you.

I know that’s offensive, and I apologize, but there’s no way around it. You don’t understand evolution, the second law of thermodynamics, or even what a scientific law is, so how can you possibly hope to understand vastly more complicated concepts? I know that’s a terribly confrontational thing to say, but I don’t want you to keep quoting large blocks of text saying I’m not answering, when it would just be completely pointless.


Oct. 10 Scott: You are very transparently trying to avoid questions which cannot be coherently answered from within the framework of your atheist belief system. To accomplish this, you both passively ignore and actively attempt to evade these questions.

Your accusing me of “quote mining” is an example of where you attempt to actively evade questions that you cannot coherently answer. This accusation is a transparent attempt to divert attention away from your inability to answer these questions (known as a “red herring argument”). Third party observers of this debate can be assured that it is a diversionary tactic because you accused me of quote mining in my essay titled Riddles for Atheists, but you have conveniently avoided telling me what citation in this essay I took out of context…or what the correct context is for the out-of-context quote. Suggesting that something was taken out of context—–without being able to explain what the CORRECT context is—–demonstrates conclusively that you do not understand the words that you are using.

Here is a question that you have avoided by both ignoring, and by active evasion: Which conscious and intelligent mind do you think is responsible for DNA, the language of life….God or the space aliens? Some other mind?

DNA utilizes symbolic representation to provide a set of instructions (the symbols are known as “codons” in the language of biology).

Information science (not to mention everyday common sense) tells us that code or language is BY NECESSITY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind. Therefore, you must decide WHICH conscious and intelligent mind is responsible for the origin of life.

NON CREDENTI: WHAT CONSCIOUS AND INTELLIGENT MIND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION PRESENT IN DNA?!?!

Your atheist belief system requires you to reject God, so was it space aliens or some other mind? When an atheist ignores or evades my questions, I find it helpful to keep a counter of times that the question has been asked:

THE COUNTER IS ON THREE (3) for the question of what mind was responsible for the DNA and the origin of life from non-living matter.

You cite “abiogenetic theories that include means of replication other than DNA.” WHY DO YOU CITE SUCH UNSPECIFIED “ABIOGENETIC THEORIES”?! TO EXPLAIN THE SPACE ALIENS WHO IN TURN CREATED DNA? IT IS THE SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION PRESENT IN DNA THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED!! Please, please explain.

You can cite “general mechanisms of evolution” and “specific mechanisms of evolution” all that you wish. But by citing these mechanisms, you are trying to evade the question which you cannot coherently answer: WHAT CONSCIOUS AND INTELLIGENT MIND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION PRESENT IN DNA?!?!

SPIT IT OUT!!!!!

If you do not want to agree with the ultra-elite atheist scientists who endorse the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life (including not only Richard Dawkins, but Francis Crick—in his book Life Itself, Leslie Orgel, Chandra Wickaramsinghe, and Fred Hoyle) that is fine. But you must either cite what mind was responsible for DNA or you must try to deny that symbolic representation is NECESSARILY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind…and therefore deny the conclusions of both information science and everyday common sense.

WHICH IS IT GONNA BE?!?!?!?

READERS, PLEASE TAKE NOTE BECAUSE THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE: Atheists must try to evade the question of what conscious and intelligent mind is responsible for the symbolic representation present in DNA with every tool in their arsenal, because atheism cannot coherently answer this question.

Even the world’s most outspoken atheist, the biologist Richard Dawkins, concedes that DNA is a language very similar to a computer language. In his book River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life,

Dawkins writes:

“…The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”

Elsewhere, Dawkins writes:

“What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth.”

You write, “The context of his [Dawkins’] words shows that he was not endorsing it [directed panspermia] as anything more than a wild hypothetical possibility. He presented it as a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. Because he says something is ‘possible’ does not mean he’s endorsing it as the explanation for life on earth. If someone did that to you, would you say it was accurate, or fair to twist the conversation like that?”

I never suggested that he endorsed it as anything other than a wild hypothetical possibility. If you are suggesting otherwise, then this is a straw-man argument. YOU KEEP MISSING THE CRUCIAL POINT: DNA utilizes symbolic representation, and symbolic representation is NECESSARILY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind. Because atheists deny God, they must resort to such wild speculations (“hypothetical possibilities”) to explain what conscious and intelligent mind is responsible for the symbolic representation present in DNA. WHAT HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBILITY DO YOU USE TO EXPLAIN THE SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION PRESENT IN DNA? SOME OTHER MIND THAN THE SPACE ALIENS?

Discussing whether or not Dawkins “endorses” directed panspermia amounts to quibbling about semantics. Such quibbling about semantics is another attempt to divert attention from your inability to answer the question of what conscious and intelligent mind was responsible for the symbolic representation present in DNA.

You ask me: “Are you saying that it is impossible for aliens to exist? Are you saying it’s impossible for sufficiently-advanced aliens to design and seed life? If so, you need to support that idea. If not, then you need to explain why allowing for a possibility is absurd.”

No, I am not saying that it is impossible for aliens to exist. As an aside, ARE YOU NOW ENDORSING THE SPACE ALIENS EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE?!

Here is what I AM saying: Living things require a set of instructions to grow and develop…reproductive capability necessarily involves information storage and retrieval (which requires symbolic representation). So, you can punt the ball and say that space aliens were responsible for the origin of the symbolic representation present in DNA, but you must then specify what conscious and intelligent mind was responsible for the origin of the symbolic representation that allows for the alien life that created DNA.

You write: “Merely saying his answer is not logically constructed does not make it so. You need to point out his failure in logic. If you are referring to your earlier complaint that evolution requires genes, then we can drop this as asked and answered (you now understand that ”some kind of Darwinian means” doesn’t necessitate DNA, right?). If you mean something else, point out where the logic breaks down.”

Non Credenti, what needs to be explained is the symbolic representation present in DNA….or in the alien life if you are going to endorse the “hypothetical possibility” (in your words) that space aliens created DNA. Reproductive capability requires symbolic representation since information storage and retrieval are necessary components of reproductive capability. How can reproduction occur if a set of instructions is not present? How can a set of instructions occur without code/language (symbolic representation)?

The absurdity of the space-aliens-created-DNA explanation is that it just conveniently kicks the can down the road so as to evade the question of how the symbolic representation present in reproductive capability came into being.

You write: “You ask about the broader context of how modern physics has killed idealism. You seem to be headed down a certain road with this, so let me ask you a few questions so I’m clear:
Are you a monist idealist?
Are you saying the consensus of modern physicists is one of idealism?
If idealism is the consensus of modern physicists, are you saying I should accept idealism because that is the consensus among the experts?”

No, I am not a monist idealist. I am a Christian theist.

Whether or not the consensus of modern physicists is one of idealism is of no relevance. The relevant question is whether or not idealist/theist explanations are true or not. Scientific consensus cannot be used to judge what is true or not. Only the application of reason can be used to determine what is true.

It is impossible to coherently explain all of the facts without resorting to theism. This includes the facts that we know from modern physics and modern biology, as well as facts from other branches of science and human experience.

Modern physics declares that there is no physical reality independent of mind. This points to an immaterial mind that is responsible for the production of physical reality (read: God). I recommend an article titled Mental Universe by the Johns Hopkins University physicist Richard Conn Henry:

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

An excerpt from this article:

The 1925 discovery of Quantum Mechanics solved the problem of the universe’s nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe the unbelievable—this time—that the universe is mental. According to [the nighted the knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer} Sir James Jeans:‘There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.’

I recommend the following video which describes the famous double-slit experiment in order to understand why we know that mind is responsible for the production of physical reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA

Please also watch the following video to understand why quantum physics has conclusively debunked materialism (in which atheism is rooted):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

These theistic conclusions dovetail neatly with what we know about the symbolic representation present in DNA. The Nobel Prize-winning Harvard University biologist George Wald was forced to admit the following in his 1984 address to the Quantum Biology Symposium titled “Life and Mind in the Universe”, despite begin ideologically opposed to theism:

It has occurred to me lately—I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities—that both questions [the origin of mind and the origin of life from nonliving matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality—the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals.

Did I take these citations out of context? If so, what is the right context? Again, I asked you to specify what citations in my essay Riddles for Atheists that I took out of context, but you have conveniently ignored the question. Suggesting that something was taken out of context—–without being able to explain what the CORRECT context is—–demonstrates conclusively that you do not understand the words that you are using.

You write: “Since Dawkins didn’t ‘endorse’ it, your first point is moot, as I hope is clear by now. As for information theory, that is a very complicated topic (only slightly less complicated then QM) and, frankly, until you can show that you understand basic scientific concepts, it would be a waste of time to discuss it with you.”

Again, whether or not Dawkins “endorses” directed panspermia is a quibbling about semantics. The aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the symbolic representation present in DNA is the best explanation that Dawkins can come up with from within the framework of his atheist belief system.

“Endorsement” or a mere “wild speculation”, this is the best explanation that the atheist explanatory framework can produce. That was my only point.

Of course you will not discuss information theory with me! You are afraid that it will expose the incoherence of your atheist belief system. Making a personal attack against me by suggesting that I cannot understand something constitutes a textbook example of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy. This logical fallacy occurs when a person launches an attack against the person making an argument in order to avoid responding to the logical argument itself.

You write: “I know that’s offensive, and I apologize, but there’s no way around it. You don’t understand evolution, the second law of thermodynamics, or even what a scientific law is, so how can you possibly hope to understand vastly more complicated concepts? I know that’s a terribly confrontational thing to say, but I don’t want you to keep quoting large blocks of text saying I’m not answering, when it would just be completely pointless.”

Non Credenti, so as to not make it inescapably clear that you are trying to distract attention from your inability to logically defend your atheist belief system with a personal attack against me (again, the Ad Hominem logical fallacy), why don’t you point out SPECIFICALLY what I do not understand about “evolution, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or even what a scientific law is”?

Who do you think that you are fooling? What intelligent third party observer is going to be fooled by this smoke-screen? If I don’t understand something, then go ahead and point out what it is that I don’t understand? Could it be that you cannot explain what I do not understand since you are desperately trying to distract attention from your inability to construct a coherent rebuttal to my arguments?

Trying to assume a posture of intellectual superiority in order to avoid presenting a logically coherent explanation will not fool any intelligent third party viewer of this debate. Vague references to unspecified “abiogenetic theories” (while simultaneously ignoring the fact that symbolic representation is necessarily mental in nature) does not constitute a logically coherent explanation for the origin of life (and DNA).

Oct. 14 Non: Sorry for the delay in responding. There are two significant issues I’m trying to respond to, along with some minor ones. To save a little time, could you clarify something for me?

Your main question seems to be about DNA-as-code. You repeatedly say “DNA utilizes symbolic representation,” and a “mind is responsible for the symbolic representation present in DNA.” So that I can answer, can you tell me exactly what you mean by symbolic representation? What are the symbols, and what are they referring to?

Also, when you say DNA is “the language of life” are you saying that literally, or figuratively?

Oct. 14 Scott:  DNA uses symbols known as “codons” (in the language of biology) to provide a set of instructions.

Even the world’s most outspoken atheist, the biologist Richard Dawkins, concedes that DNA is a language very similar to a computer language. In his book River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Dawkins writes:

The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.

Elsewhere, Dawkins points out that calling DNA a language is very much literal, not a mere figure of speech:

What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth.

The simplest living thing (the single celled organism) is described by Oxford University scientist Franklin M. Harold in The Way of the Cell:

…a high-tech factory, complete with artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction … [and] a capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.

Non-Credenti, mindless processes cannot, even in principle, produce something such as an “artificial language and decoding systems,” etc..

Oct. 14 Non:  Thank you. Another question. When asked if you’re a monistic idealist, you responded “No, I am not a monist idealist. I am a Christian theist.” Does that mean you’re a dualist idealist? Pluralist idealist? Judging by your writings (or at least, by the people you quote) you’re not a materialist, but I can’t tell beyond that. I’m pretty sure the most common camp a Christian would choose, if they couldn’t pick any type of materialism or monistic idealism, would be dualistic idealism, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

Oct. 15 Scott: “I am a Christian theist” means that I am a Christian theist. Labels such as “monistic idealist” and “dualistic idealist” only serve to muddy the waters.

Oct. 15 Non:  No, refusing to define your position and instead using a vague term that can apply different ways is muddying the waters.

I understand, it can be terrifying to have to actually stake out a position with no quotes to hide behind.

Oct. 16 Scott: Your asking me to adopt a label other than “Christian theist” (which is what I am) is another textbook example of a red herring fallacy. Again, a red herring fallacy occurs when a person tries to mislead or distract from the important or relevant issue. The form of idealism that I endorse is called Christian theism. Period.

You are very transparently trying to evade a question which cannot be coherently answered from within the framework of your atheist belief system.

READERS, PLEASE AGAIN TAKE NOTE SINCE THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE!! ATHEISTS MUST USE EVERY TOOL IN THEIR ARSENAL TO AVOID THE QUESTION OF WHAT MIND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE FROM NON-LIVING MATTER!! Non credenti is trying to distract attention from this crucial question by starting a debate about my position on various forms of idealism.

Information science (not to mention everyday common sense) tells us that symbolic representation is BY NECESSITY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind. DNA uses symbols know as “codons” (in the language of biology) to provide a set of codified instructions. Therefore, we know that life was BY NECESSITY produced by a conscious and intelligent mind.

Non Credenti, THE COUNTER IS NOW ON FOUR (4) for the number of times that I have asked you the question of what mind was responsible for DNA and the origin of life from non-living matter. Was it the space aliens, as the ultra-elite atheist biologist Francis Crick proposed in his book Life Itself, or as the ultra-elite atheist biologist Richard Dawkins speculated in the video to which I linked you?? Some other mind? Or are you going to deny that symbolic representation is NECESSARILY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind?

SPIT IT OUT!!

Oct. 16 Non:   Scott, I said I was very busy and it would take some time to answer, but in the meantime had a few clarifying questions, which caused another tantrum by you.

You’re just going to have to be patient. And since I jotted off this quick response without answering the dozens of questions you’ve asked, feel free to bump your silly little counter up to 5 or 7 or whatever you think it is now. In fact, add one more tick for every day I don’t respond. Heck, add a tick every hour I don’t respond if it makes you feel good.

Oct. 22 Scott:  Take all the time you need. Do you really think that you are going to come up with something more coherent than the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship explanation for the origin of life cited by ultra-elite atheist scientists such as Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins?

You are cornered. Your atheist worldview leaves you with the following options for explaining the very extremely sophisticated symbolic representation present in DNA:

1) Engage in speculation about a mind other than God creating life (such as the space aliens cited by numerous ultra-elite atheist scientists). Please note that such speculations do not explain the origin of life because they leave us with the question of how alien life emerged from non-living matter.

2) You can try to deny that symbolic representation requires a conscious and intelligent mind. This option is even worse for you because information science and everyday common sense both tell us that symbolic representation is necessarily the product of a conscious and intelligent mind.

The point of the counter is to call you out for ignoring questions which cannot be coherently answered from the framework of your atheist worldview. Rational arguments do not utilize rhetorical language such as “silly little counter.” The use of such rhetorical language amounts to a withdrawal from rational discourse, and therefore a tacit acknowledgement that your stance cannot withstand logical scrutiny.

Oct. 30 Non:  I apologize for how long this is taking. I am in the middle of starting a new business and things moved more quickly than I anticipated. I was going to respond to everything at the same time, but the response would be way more than anybody wants to read at once. Then I decided to break it up into sections but post all responses together so you didn’t bother responding to something that might be addressed later, but I didn’t count on how busy I would be and if I wait until I’ve responded satisfactorily to all your points I might never finish. Unfortunately, your big question (about the “symbolic representation” in DNA) is the one I haven’t answered as anything more than a rough outline.

.
I plan on responding to the various issues as I see them with the following posts:
.
Quote-mining
Realism vs Idealism (2 parts)
“Symbolic Representation” (possibly 2 parts)
Things Scott Youngren Doesn’t Understand (multiple parts), including:
-Second Law of Thermodynamics
-Scientific Laws
-Miscellaneous
.
I’ll say it now in case I forget later; some of these issues I think you have a fair enough grasp of, but I think you misrepresent them.

Next I post a long response, outlining the many times he's been dishonest in his characterization of Dawkins' quote. I'll break that--and the resulting responses--out into a separate post here, as this one is long enough.

Quote-mining II

I also made claims that he didn't understand a number of topics, and I'll make new entries for those. I doubt I'll continue the conversation much longer, so the new entries shouldn't be too long. First up: 


Part 2: Idealism vs Materialism & QM