A beautiful argument for naturalism from Michael Shermer

[MrFrankZito]

I just finished reading Michael Shermer's wonderful book "Why Darwin Matters," which I strongly recommend to everybody. It's a concise, elegant defense of evolution and a blistering attack against ID creationism. Although the book boasts myriad quotable passages, I feel compelled to share one of them. It's one of the most convincing arguments for naturalism I've ever read.

"What science tells us is that we are but one among hundreds of millions of species that evolved over the course of three and a half billion years on one tiny planet among many orbiting an ordinary star, itself one of possibly billions of solar systems in an ordinary galaxy that contains hundreds of billions of stars, itself located in a cluster of galaxies not so different from millions of other galaxy clusters, themselves whirling away from one another in an expanding cosmic bubble universe that very possibly is only one among a near infinite number of bubble universes. Is it really possible that this entire cosmological multiverse was designed and exists for one tiny subgroup of a single species on one planet in a lone galaxy in that solitary bubble universe? It seems unlikely." (In the hardcover edition, pages 160-161.)

Never has insignificance been so exhilarating.

________________________________

My Case Against God

 

[lifegazer]

No revolution required?

Here's another scientist who assumes the reality of the universe prior to making an argument.
So bloody naive.

 

[wollery]

No revolution required?

Here's another scientist who assumes the reality of the universe prior to making an argument.
So bloody naive.

Sounding a little desperate there lg.

So bloody illogical.

 

[lifegazer]

Sounding a little desperate there lg.

So bloody illogical.

'Desperate'? Nay Wolly - frustrated.

Yet again, we are presented with a scientific idea/theory the validity of which is only relevant (and then arguably so) IF one assumes the actual reality of the universe beyond the experience of it.
And Yet again, we see the effects of this dogma upon the masses in the form of a cooing MrFrankZito.

It's serious Wolly. You shouldn't make light of it.
Absolutely basic philosophy and science takes zero notice.

 

[Mojo]

Have you read this yet, lg?

 

[Tricky]

{Tricky whistles The Galaxy Song}

 

[Skeptic]

Yet again, we are presented with a scientific idea/theory the validity of which is only relevant (and then arguably so) IF one assumes the actual reality of the universe beyond the experience of it.

Yes, scientists can be so illogical sometimes.

By the way, if the universe doesn't REALLY exist, can I have your car? It's not REALLY there, so who cares who drives it?

 

[scotth]

I am anxiously awaiting my copy of "Why Darwin Matters".

Mine should be coming direct from the source, inscribed and signed, even.

Anxiously.......

 

[lifegazer]

Yes, scientists can be so illogical sometimes.

By the way, if the universe doesn't REALLY exist, can I have your car? It's not REALLY there, so who cares who drives it?

You think that this negates basic philosophy and validates the aforementioned statement of M. Shermer? C'mon... up ze grade.

 

[Foster Zygote]

'Desperate'? Nay Wolly - frustrated.

Yet again, we are presented with a scientific idea/theory the validity of which is only relevant (and then arguably so) IF one assumes the actual reality of the universe beyond the experience of it.
And Yet again, we see the effects of this dogma upon the masses in the form of a cooing MrFrankZito.

It's serious Wolly. You shouldn't make light of it.
Absolutely basic philosophy and science takes zero notice.

And you'll never be other than frustrated. Fifty years from now no one will ever coo over your meaningless dogma. You will remain forever unknown to the worlds of science and philosophy.

Steven

 

[lifegazer]

And you'll never be other than frustrated. Fifty years from now no one will ever coo over your meaningless dogma. You will remain forever unknown to the worlds of science and philosophy.

Steven

You think that this negates basic philosophy and validates the aforementioned statement of M. Shermer? C'mon... up ze grade.

That there are enough empty-heads in the world to retain an incorrect status-quo, should not be cause for celebration... except by an empty-head.

My 'fame' is absolutely irrelevant. Truth is truth.

 

[scotth]

You think that this negates basic philosophy and validates the aforementioned statement of M. Shermer? C'mon... up ze grade.

That there are enough empty-heads in the world to retain an incorrect status-quo, should not be cause for celebration... except by an empty-head.

My 'fame' is absolutely irrelevant. Truth is truth.

So much for my irony meter. Smashed to smitherenes.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You think that this negates basic philosophy and validates the aforementioned statement of M. Shermer? C'mon... up ze grade.

That there are enough empty-heads in the world to retain an incorrect status-quo, should not be cause for celebration... except by an empty-head.

My 'fame' is absolutely irrelevant. Truth is truth.

Please explain in simple, straight forward language the following:

1. How do you eliminate all other possible scenarios other than that the universe is an illusion? As has been pointed out to you in the past a real universe is indistinguishable from one that exists only in the mind. So how do you get from "Experience of an object is not the same thing as the object itself" to "Therefore the universe does not exist except as experience"? Why is this the only possible conclusion?

2. How do you arrive at the logical conclusion that other conscious entities exist? By what logical method do you eliminate solipsism from your philosophy? It seems to me that you experience my consciousness no more directly than you experience two ~stars~ or any other ~thing~ in the universe. If the universe does not exist per your claims then why do you believe anyone else exists?

Rather than hijack this thread any further may I suggest you start a new one in which you address the above issues. These are two of the weakest elements of your "truth". You can either try to clarify these parts of your beliefs or you can continue to imply that you are one of the smartest people, if not the smartest person, who has ever lived and that everyone else is just an "empty head". The choice is yours.

Steven

 

[Phil]

Yet again, we are presented with a scientific idea/theory the validity of which is only relevant (and then arguably so) IF one assumes the actual reality of the universe beyond the experience of it.
And Yet again, we see the effects of this dogma upon the masses in the form of a cooing MrFrankZito.
.

Personally, I don't coo over anything except a cute baby or perhaps a pile of cash, but I'd like to comment on the first part of your post.

I'm pretty sure I've said this to you before (or if not you, one of the other philosophy guys on this board), and I never get a coherent response, but, I'll try again:

Barring any preference I have to pursuing a naturalistic worldview, suppose I grant you every single one of your philosophical points. Suppose I said to you, "Oh wise and mighty lifegazer, holding court in the coffee shop, impressing young co-eds with dreary, tiresome philosophical nonsense. I finally see the light. Nay, not just I. We all see the light. You are correct. You are right. The universe or lack thereof is as you have reckoned it to be."

Where do we go from there?

The correct answer is "no where". There is absolutely nothing we can do with your philosophy beyond talking about it.

Oh, "we all are god, we are his/her/its dream", you say, "and we must figure that out soon" for some as yet undisclosed reason.

Nope. Tried it. Still we go no where.

Now suppose further that the universe as the materialist perceives it is just an illusion, a dream. Suppose I grant you that as well. Well, it seems a pretty damn good illusion, because we can actually progress from merely perceiving it and then sitting around talking about it. We can perceive it, and we can formulate applications for and with the things we perceive, and we can use those applications to further and better perceive it. We can perceive it well enough to better some of the ills that exist within the illusion, the dream. We can perceive it and apply the knowledge gained to prevent the nightmarish portions of the dream, and to create more and more utopic elements for ourselves, if we so desire, or not, if we do not desire.

So even if it is just an assumed reality as you claim, it is a highly functional assumed reality. And until your reality or lack thereof has a function, any function, just one, why would anyone with any wit care whether your philosophy is valid?

 

[hammegk]

this

LOL.

Did someone notice we Kant have the prong of epistemological realism?

What's left?

 

[Almo]

My 'fame' is absolutely irrelevant. Truth is truth.

Yup. Excellent point. Shermer's right, though.

 

[lifegazer]

1. How do you eliminate all other possible scenarios other than that the universe is an illusion?

The objects experienced via ordered sensations are not in themselves real.
This is what we should acknowledge.

Following this acknowledgement, another swiftly follows: there is no evidence for a reality [of objects] beyond the experience of them.
So, the experience of a universe is something that occurs within consciousness, yielded to awareness directly from ordered sensations, and is not the same thing as a real universe full of real objects.

There is no observation/study of a real universe. There is only observation/study of sensations that yield the experience of a universe.
In other words, science is actually the study of the order existing amongst the experience of a universe.

This fact should be taught to every budding scientist before they study any science. But it's not and it never has been... which is why scientists continue to propose theories about the universe upon assuming the actual reality of that universe - when there is zero evidence for it.

MrFrankZito is so in awe of M. Shermer's "wonderful book", that he feels obliged to share a piece of his magnificent wisdom with the introduction "It's one of the most convincing arguments for naturalism I've ever read."

... Now, given that Shermer's statement is dependent upon the reality of a universe for which there is zero evidence or reason (truly, this is the case), only two comments come to mind:

1) How can "one of the most convincing arguments for naturalism I've ever read" follow from an assumption for which there is zero evidence or reason?
In all honesty, a conclusion derived from an absolutely unfounded premise is laughable when one sees the status of the man presenting it.
2) M. Shermer's book should be banned for the effect it is having upon people like Frank Zito, who is so enamoured with the BS contained within that book, that his mind appears to be beyond salvation.

Science is in dire need of revolution. It won't happen until men are brave enough to come forward in increasing numbers and stand before the angry conservative mob - forcing the truth home in the face of all manner of abuse.

As has been pointed out to you in the past a real universe is indistinguishable from one that exists only in the mind.

It has? By who?
You haven't got a clue if you think that an experienced object is indistinguishable from a real one. It's basic philosophy mate. If you don't believe me, do some other reading on the subject.

So how do you get from "Experience of an object is not the same thing as the object itself" to "Therefore the universe does not exist except as experience"? Why is this the only possible conclusion?

I haven't made that argument in this thread. I don't have to.

Rather than hijack this thread any further

Yeah... I should stay away so you can all continue to believe nonsense and praise a guy that hasn't got a clue.

 

[lifegazer]

Phil...
I would need to start my own thread to answer your questions.
A post answering your questions requires a higher billing than to be stuck amidst a thread that should be deleted by the mods for carrying zero weight, yet is dangerous in that it perpetuates - and seeks to expand the numbers of - the state of mind exhibited by Frank Zito himself.

 

[Phil]

Phil...
I would need to start my own thread to answer your questions.
A post answering your questions requires a higher billing than to be stuck amidst a thread that should be deleted by the mods for carrying zero weight, yet is dangerous in that it perpetuates - and seeks to expand the numbers of - the state of mind exhibited by Frank Zito himself.

Okay.

 

[elaine]

I am anxiously awaiting my copy of "Why Darwin Matters".

Mine should be coming direct from the source, inscribed and signed, even.

Anxiously.......

It is an awesome book. Dr. Shermer was in town last week for a reading and signing. Finally, I got to meet my hero. Can't wait to spend time with him at TAM.