Optimize → Selective Conservation.
1 Like
I have John and I appreciate you pointing this out.
I don’t however understand how this helps with idea that proteins we observe today are part of evolutionary processes. When we look at the comparative sequences over time the in species changes are getting filtered out in the vertebrate populations and this strongly favors Behe’s working assumption that most AA substitutions are not neutral.
That’s called selection, an essential aspect of evolution.
Have you looked at Major Histocompatibility Loci sequences?
1 Like
Well, verified by the doctors hearing the descriptions. That would seem to be good enough.
But those who hold that mindless atoms produce mind are saying that this is the entire explanation.
See Keener or Habermas’
books, they provide documentation for many such events.
But in various cases they were indeed flat-lined, brain dead. And they could recount what was said, as well as what was done, I believe.
But the calculator was produced by reasoning.
But evolution does not have a goal of producing reasoning beings. Survival is the goal, and if irrational fear of badgers will increase survival, say, by keeping us out of a forest alone at night, then evolution will select for that.
It’s still made of atoms. So nothing about atoms is incompatible with reliable or valid reasoning.
Yes. Have you noticed how you’ve got all sorts of basic and irrational fears? That’s a hint right there.
Of course, reasoning correctly about the world has survival value too in many circumstances, so you expect some amalgamation of both valid/reliable reasoning skills and instictive behavior that promote survival despite some times being in error.
1 Like
Hi John
There are selection coefficients in the models.
No but based on your suggestion I will look at them.
How could you possibly consider an anecdote to be sufficient evidence for such an extraordinary claim? It’s hard for me to see this as anything other than an admission of extreme credulity on your part.
3 Likes
Generally, survival will be increased by rational fears, and rational means of obtaining resources. Is that not rational?
In any event, irrational people exist, so clearly you and I are susceptible to faulty reasoning under creation as well as evolution.
6 Likes
I doubt that is true, Can you quote someone who actually offers that as an “entire explanation.”
You do understand now how your earlier argument commits the fallacy of composition, correct?
I was hoping for something better than some cheesy looking books. Every example I have read of such testimonies are not convincing when you get down to the details, an example being that one about the shoe on the window ledge we discussed earlier. And they are usually presented by people quite ignorant of basic neuroscience, or even basic medicine (such as the authors you just cited.) So if you DO have any good specific examples documented in a peer-reviewed or similarly scholarly source, do feel free to share it.
No, are certainly mistaken about that, though I don’t doubt you have read sources that have claimed that. Like I said, many of the people writing about this are not aware of basic medical facts. No one who is “flat-lined brain dead” comes back to life. At that point they’re a surfboard.
It also does not have as a goal the production of peacocks or giraffes. But they exist, correct?
5 Likes
“Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.” (PhilPapers here)
Do you mean my first argument?
Then check out the Global Medical Research Institute, " Applying rigorous methods of evidence-based medicine to study Christian Spiritual Healing practices". They focus on healing due to prayer, though, not NDEs.
Well, we may have to agree to disagree on that point, I believe the doctors when they say a patient flat-lined.
Certainly, but the contingency of peacocks and giraffes would seem to apply also to reasoning beings.
Well, chinks of irrationality need explaining, if evolution causes them, then that would seem to make the whole foundation totter.
Not if my faulty reason has as its source a perfect Reason, if it comes from God.
I don’t think it’s credulous to believe what the doctors reported the patient as saying. Gary Habermas devotes 20 pages in his book to near-death experiences. He insists on experiences that have objectively verifiable aspects, such as an accurate report of what was said and done with the patient.
“Our claim is that if the brain is not functioning… and consciousness is still evidenced during that time, then this is the definition of minimalistic life that exists at THAT MOMENT AFTER DEATH. Therefore, if verified consciousness is both separate from and extends beyond brain activity, there is no reason to think that, just because there is no irreversible death, one can somehow magically account for this life by naturalistic means. Since these intellectual faculties exist independently of brain activity … there is no viable reason to assume that the permanent cessation of brain activity would adversely affect personal consciousness. In short, normal bodily activity does not explain these data, which actually provide significant evidence for at least minimal consciousness beyond death.” (Amazon review, p. 170)
By “mindless atoms”, I mean unreasoning processes. If unreasoning processes control my reason, I cannot trust it.
And once you’ve noticed the error, how do you trust your reasoning? I can trust it because it’s derived from a perfect Reason, from God.
Yes, credulous people often don’t realize they are credulous.
Habermas isn’t qualified to discuss the subject.
4 Likes
Obviously I need to word my questions more clearly for you, because you keep providing answers unrelated to what I asked.
Of course, I do not deny that people hold to the metaphysical position of physicalsim. But what you suggested was that the existence of the human mind can be fully explained by saying “mindless atoms produce mind.” No one would be so foolish as to consider that to be an explanation. A lot more detail is needed.
In any event, I fail to see how your response pertains to the fact that you committed the fallacy of composition. Can you explain how your comment was intended in response to that?
Except I asked about NDE’s, not intercessory prayer.
Anyway, intercessory prayer has been tested and proven ineffective, so that’s another point against your position.
Background: The use of alternative treatments for illness is common in the United States. Practitioners of these interventions find them compatible with personal philosophies. Consequently, distant intercessory prayer (IP) for healing is one of the most commonly practiced alternative interventions and has recently become the topic of scientific scrutiny.
Purpose: This study was designed to provide a current meta-analytic review of the effects of IP and to assess the impact of potential moderator variables.
Methods: A random effects model was adopted. Outcomes across dependent measures within each study were pooled to arrive at one omnibus effect size. These were combined to generate the overall effect size. A test of homogeneity and examination of several potential moderator variables was conducted.
Results: Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding an overall effect size of g = .100 that did not differ from zero. When one controversial study was removed, the effect size reduced to g = .012. No moderator variables significantly influenced results.
Conclusions: There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.
No doctor who understands what brain death is would diagnose brain death in someone who was subsequently resuscitated. I think you are probably misreading the reports, or they are being described by a layperson who does not understand the terminology.
No, this is not an “agree to disagree” situation. I am a medical doctor, and I know what I am talking about here. If a brain dead person actually came back to live, that would be as big news as the resurrection of Jesus.
Here, if you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe the NHS:
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. TBH, I am beginning to doubt that you even understand the arguments you are trying to make here.
Gary Habermas is not a doctor. Not even close. That’s why he would write nonsense like this. The people he describes were NOT brain dead and DID have brain function.
Why do you trust your calculator, then?
You have ignored this argument: How do you know that a loving God would not create you with reasoning that is unreliable, but which you are convinced is reliable?
2 Likes
How does he know that God is loving, for that matter? A non-loving God would be perfectly capable of making you believe he was loving and of constructing your thought processes to produce that belief even if the evidence were against it.
One might also consider the analogy of vision. The eyes and visual cortex are quite accurate enough for most purposes, yet there are still optical illusions, which show that the visual system is in some respects faulty. Yet, even knowing this, optical illusions still look convincing. Vision is good enough to get by most of the time, exactly as expected from natural selection. Comparison to human reason is left as an exercise for the reader.
2 Likes
I don’t think that will help. Nigel Tufnel…
1 Like
True, but then that gets into the whole issue of God’s nature and how he wouldn’t do something that was wrong or inconsistent with him loving us. I wanted to avoid going down that particular rabbit hole.
Not only that, but many of the errors are exactly what would be expected from natural selection. For instance, we cannot make ourselves see the two squares in the optical illusion below as being the same shade, no matter how hard we try. That is because our brain has evolved to interpret that particular visual pattern as depicting a 3D object throwing a shadow.
If we “accurately” perceived objects changing color every time they passed from shadow to light it would be confusing to us and we would have difficulty tracking a moving object. So seeing things “inaccurately” in this manner is actually adaptive.
@lee_merrill might be tempted to say this illustrates the problem with physicalism that he is trying to explain, but in fact it just shows how our perception more closely resembles something that evolved, rather than something created by an omnipotent being to be accurate.
4 Likes