You also have to believe that C. S. Lewis is a respected philosopher of science.
And finally, it seems that you have to believe that G. K. Chesterton had something profound to say about miracles and how those materialist scientists are just too dogmatic to accept them:
The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant’s word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant’s word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both.
Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story.
That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism — the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence — it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed.
But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, “Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,” they answer, “But mediaevals were superstitious”; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say “a peasant saw a ghost,” I am told, “But peasants are so credulous.” If I ask, “Why credulous?” the only answer is — that they see ghosts.
Chesterton apparently believed that you have to "trust the peasant’s word about the ghost", and if you don't, then you "deny the main principle of democracy". It looks like Chesterton knew even less about democracy than he knew about science.
For one thing, in democratic societies we don't usually talk about "peasants". But even if you replace "peasant" with "average person", there's no principle of democracy that says we need to "trust the average person" when the average person makes an outlandish claim. Democracy is about letting people elect their own government, not assuming that the average person is necessarily extraordinarily competent when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence or witness testimony. Would Chesterton have insisted that we need "trust the peasant" when he walks into the operating room or the cockpit and takes over?
Those dogmatic scientists have looked into miracles and other claims of the paranormal. Over and over, it turns out that those events had completely rational explanations. Perhaps not every claimed paranormal event will be resolved definitively, but there certainly is a pattern.
We know that the average person is a poor eyewitness, and that eyewitness testimony is not reliable. We know that people lie, especially when there are motivations like profit, personal image, and religion. We know that pure democracies are subject to the whims of the moment and to mob rule, which is why the US's Founding Fathers chose to establish a republic with elected representatives, and not to decide every issue by popular vote.
And finally, we know that Chesterton is a good icon for the ID movement: bloated, pompous, science-ignorant, but full of misplaced confidence that he's "impartial" and that he can reason better than those stupid materialists.
35 comments:
Today also the peasant's testimony about a murder would be of much less value than DNA evidence.
We're talking about a time when distinctions between perceptions and reality were less clear. We're also talking about motivated reasoning in the present that yearns for believed in perceptions to reflect reality.
"miracle/murder" is a glaringly false analogy. We can know the latter took place -- there's the body, which can be seen by anyone in the vicinity, and will be taken to a morgue, where it will get a thorough forensic examination, and eventually be turned over to the victim's family for disposal according to their preferred rituals. And the result of that process may be that we discount the witness' testimony as to whether it was murder rather than accident or suicide, or if murder, who the perpetrator was. But whatever the outcome, we can at least agree that the real death of a real human occurred. But miracles, based on eyewitness testimony alone? We've got no reason to accept that the phenomenon occurred at all, let alone whether it was caused by Jesus or Allah or Vishnu or poltergeists or whatever.
I presume Chesterton is just as trusting in Hindu and Islamic miracles.
What if there's a report that a hundred thousand witnessed a miracle? At least that's something that has the potential of being investigated.
Given the time period, Chesterton picked 'peasant' really was a job title, with the implications of being an poor, uneducated manual worker who would have lived in a village all his life (i.e. had a very small worldview). At that time there were a lot of peasants in Britain. BUT they were full citizens, could vote and would be called to jury service. Their testimony was as valid and important as anyone else's. So I don't read this as such a pejorative but a argumentative technique to more strongly reinforce the argument.
Regardless of this, I disagree with Chesterton in that:
1) I choose to be skeptical of the peasant's evidence just as I would with anybody's evidence, be it for a murder or for a ghost. Indeed, in bearing testimony in court, the witness is cross-examined by the defence with the express purpose of exposing lying, exaggeration and error. To simply accept anyone's evidence without this test would be as huge as an injustice as the Salem witch trials. So why can't I cross-examine the peasant's evidence for a ghost?
2) I may choose to trust the peasant in the what he witnessed, but not what he interpreted. I trust his evidence that he heard a wind and felt a sudden coldness, but I do not trust his interpretation that he witnessed a ghost.
As such, I can both affirm democracy (and the legal system which Chesterton confused) but remain a materialist without dogmatic adherence to a ghost-free world.
The only thing I've read by Chesterton is "The Man Who Was Thursday" (I was intrigued by the title). It was okay, but not good enough to bother with anything else he wrote. If that quote is generally representative, then I don't seem to be missing much.
Given the time period, Chesterton picked 'peasant' really was a job title, with the implications of being an poor, uneducated manual worker who would have lived in a village all his life (i.e. had a very small worldview). At that time there were a lot of peasants in Britain. BUT they were full citizens, could vote and would be called to jury service. Their testimony was as valid and important as anyone else's. So I don't read this as such a pejorative but a argumentative technique to more strongly reinforce the argument.
Regardless of this, I disagree with Chesterton in that:
1) I choose to be skeptical of the peasant's evidence just as I would with anybody's evidence, be it for a murder or for a ghost. Indeed, in bearing testimony in court, the witness is cross-examined by the defence with the express purpose of exposing lying, exaggeration and error. To simply accept anyone's evidence without this test would be as huge as an injustice as the Salem witch trials. So why can't I cross-examine the peasant's evidence for a ghost?
2) I may choose to trust the peasant in the what he witnessed, but not what he interpreted. I trust his evidence that he heard a wind and felt a sudden coldness, but I do not trust his interpretation that he witnessed a ghost.
As such, I can both affirm democracy (and the legal system which Chesterton confused) but remain a materialist without dogmatic adherence to a ghost-free world.
"We know that people lie, especially when there are motivations like profit, personal image, and religion."
And having to make a major change in one's life.
What if there's a report that a hundred thousand witnessed a miracle?
You mean, a hundred thousand witnessed something, something that is claimed or interpreted as a miracle. Even if it is not mass hysteria, what they witnessed could be something perfectly ordinary, but interpreted wrongly -- such as "optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun".
Yes, I mean exactly what you said in your first sentence. The thing is, with 100,000 people, you're sure to have some intelligent skeptics among them.
The late Martin Gardner in his book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science commented the following about Chesterton. He seldom wrote about evolution and on those occasions when he did, he wrote nonsense.
"If you're an ID advocate, you have to swallow a lot of outlandish claims uncritically. I'm thinking about claims like "William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time". "
Umm, because one Texan philosopher professor exaggerates Dembski's stature, all ID advocates must "swallow" that claim "uncritically"? It seems that the one who is uncritically swallowing silliness like that is you.
Umm, because one Texan philosopher professor exaggerates Dembski's stature, all ID advocates must "swallow" that claim "uncritically"?
Hey, Gulpie, can you cite a single one of the top ID advocates who has criticized this claim about dembski, or indeed, any of the wild claims about the credentials and achievements of other ID advocates?
Dr. Jeff,
How many ID advocates have stated that they think Dembski is held in their minds to be in such elevated status?
And why not debate him and show you are far more accurate on evolution than he is?
What gives you the right to call yourself and expert in this field or otherwise issue judgements? Are you an expert in biology?
Oh, now you're talking about the top advocates. Goalshifter.
Besides, if Dembski were to disavow the comparison, he'd just be accused of false modesty. And I can imagine his cohorts hearing of this comparison and just saying "whatever" and forgetting about it, instead of focusing undue attention on it like you did.
And besides, you never did answer my question, but simply raised others.
I can't expect you to admit of hyperbole, can I, Jeffie?
Oh, now you're talking about the top advocates. Goalshifter.
Name me a single one, then.
you never did answer my question,
You can't possibly be serious. Read my post on credential inflation of ID advocates to see how this nonsense goes on all the time in the ID movement. Here's yet another example: here you can read that Jonathan Wells and Ann Gauger are "leading scientists and scholars".
And why not debate him and show you are far more accurate on evolution than he is?
You haven't read my paper in Synthese, have you?
What gives you the right to call yourself and expert in this field
Let's see, how about a published paper on the topic, and being asked to be an expert witness in the Dover trial? Would that have something to do with it?
How many ID advocates have stated that they think Dembski is held in their minds to be in such elevated status?
Pretty much all of them. I can see you are completely unfamiliar with the ID literature.
In a sense, the annoying thing about Chesterton and Lewis is not that they had a poor grasp of logic (they're not alone). The annoying thing is that they were reasonably competent writers: it's heartbreaking to see them waste it on nonexplanations.
What if there's a report that a hundred thousand witnessed a miracle?
Then the evidence comprises that single report.
Thanks, Jeff, for this post. The quote is a lovely example (i.e., a useful case of an awful example) bearing on the epistemology of testimony, on which topic I'm doing some work.
You're missing my point. My point is that I don't swallow that exaggerated claim uncritically. But it's not worth my time to write a blog about how the claim is exaggerated.
But it's not worth my time to write a blog about how the claim is exaggerated.
Yes, we know already that intellectual honesty is not a big concern of ID advocates. But it's always useful to have yet another example.
All your tangential remarks are not hiding the fact that you were wrong on one thing: an ID advocate, such as myself, does not have to swallow exaggerated claims about Dembski uncritically.
an ID advocate, such as myself, does not have to swallow exaggerated claims about Dembski uncritically.
If you're an ID advocate, then you've already demonstrated that you're a gullible fool who swallows things uncritically. And you can't even point to a single ID advocate who has criticized Dembski, despite his disgraceful antics and his demonstrably wrong claims. I'd say I'm right on the mark.
"then you've already demonstrated that you're a gullible fool who swallows things uncritically."
Witty, but it doesn't demonstrate that I swallow everything uncritically. Besides, and I think you're forgetting this, I don't swallow all the things you write on your blog uncritically.
Didn't Sal Cordova say he would throw himself on a grenade for Dembski? Or something to that effect. I'll try to find the actual quote.
Didn't Casey Luskin compare Dembski and his fellow DI scholars to the Fellowship of the Ring? With "materialists" as the vile orcs, I suppose that follows. So Dembski is who, Gsndalf?
Didn't David Berlinski call Dembski and I think Wells "impressively learned"? That's what they call you when you haven't achieved anything. I've never heard a great scientist called "impressively learned."
In "Signature in the Cell", didn't Stephen Meyer portray Doug Axe like he was Watson and Crick rolled into one? And Meyer insinuated Jack Szostak was a "crackpot." Year that shit book was published, Szostak won the Nobel Prize.
Hey Jeff, doesn't a real university pay you to teach a course in Kolmogorov information theory? What would you know.
I'll debate Dembski. Or any ID proponent named in this comment, plus Luskin and Behe and Klingleberry. If you know them, tell them Diogenes calls them chicken.
Diogenes, Google on "impressively learned" and determine if any of those people in fact haven't "achieved anything".
I corrected that quote in the credential inflation thread. It was George Gilder of the DI calling Dembski and Meyer "formidably learned." Sorry for the misquote.
I have never once heard any scientist called "formidably learned ". If you have, copy the quote here.
Impreza, do you believe Dembski or Meyer or Wells or anyone at the DI has achieved anything? If so, please be specific as to what they achieved.
I'm so glad you made your correction. Before I answer your question, have you bothered to Google on "formidably learned"? What did you find?
Helpful tip: add the word "Dawkins" to your Google search. (I'd paste the quote myself, but it's so much fun saying "I'm not your Google monkey.")
@Impreza,
I asked a simple question critically relevant to the topic you yourself raised. You evaded the question.
This increases the Bayesian inference that you are creationist.
I ask again:
Impreza, do you believe Dembski or Meyer or Wells or anyone at the DI has achieved anything? If so, please be specific as to what they achieved.
@Impreza,
"I'm not your Google monkey."
You make assertions that you did not back up with evidence.
Instead, you insist it is MY responsibility to find evidence to support your assertions.
This also increases the Bayesian inference that you are a creationist.
However, I admit that is just an increased likelihood, not proof. You may not be a creationist, but the Bayesian inference that you are an asshole is increasingly rapidly.
Nevertheless I did google "formidably learned" plus "Dawkins" as you imperiously demand I do for you.
I found that most of the hits describe New Anti-Atheists opposed to Dawkins as "formidably learned".
Because the New Anti-Atheists cannot support their religious beliefs with actual evidence, the evidence we are provided with is instead that the New Anti-Atheists are "formidably learned", therefore right.
For example, here David Hart, apparently a theologian, and New Anti-Atheist, is congratulated for his evidence-free attacks on Dawkins by someone called "Regmac":
"What [David] Hart does so well is to demonstrate the appalling ignorance of the New Atheists insofar as their "knowledge" of Christianity is concerned. If you are going to attack something, at least invest the time and effort to thoroughly understand the subject you wish to attack. But that's too much like work for today's atheists. As a result of their aversion to work, they come off looking like a bunch of vapid poseurs; as Hart delights in exposing their schoolboy grasp of Christianity. Let's title this one, "Little boys mad at God, encounter a formidably learned theologian and philosopher." :)"
["Regmac" praising David Hart]
Another example, Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, debates Dawkins and is called a "formidably learned" opponent at this site.
Karen Armstrong, an ex-nun who writes on religion, and who has attacked Dawkins, is called "formidably learned" at this site.
Gilbert White, an 18th-century clergyman, lived before Dawkins, but this article describes him as "formidably learned" and opposed to Dawkins: "But [Gilbert] White was no Dawkins."
There are several citations to DI fellow and IDiot George Gilder calling Dembski and Meyer "formidably learned" as we have seen.
I see Dawkins himself called "a formidably learned polymath" at this book review.
So you got me, Dawkins was called "formidably learned" once, while his opponents are very frequently called "formidably learned." But even the one example where Dawkins is called "formidably learned", is a review of a book of his full of evidence for evolution.
In contrast, Dawkins' opponents, the New Anti-Atheists, present no factually accurate criticisms of evolution; and they are not honest enough to admit that their "logical proofs" of God's existence of strings of multiple logical fallacies.
Consequently, the New Anti-Atheists must conceal the absence of evidence for their position by calling each other "formidably learned" over and over, as if this is a substitute for evidence. It is, if you are servilely crouched beneath servile prejudices, and dumb as dogshit.
"You make assertions that you did not back up with evidence"
You're 100% backwards. You wrote "I've never heard a great scientist called "impressively (or formidably) learned" and I just asked if you Googled it. I made no assertions up to that point. Go back and check the thread. You just didn't like the "imperious" way I asked.
"I asked a simple question critically relevant to the topic you yourself raised. You evaded the question. "
Yes, your simple question came right after my simple question. I was waiting for you to answer mine first. You didn't at first. But I assumed you weren't evading, though. I just thought you might be lazy.
"This also increases the Bayesian inference that you are a creationist. "
And this comment increases the Bayesian inference that you don't know how to distinguish between ID (not necessarily the Discovery type) and creationism. The asshole inference might be true. If it's true, so what?
I guess since you did all that research, I feel obligated to answer your question, "Impreza, do you believe Dembski or Meyer or Wells or anyone at the DI has achieved anything?"
Well, just like most published scientists, they all wrote stuff that, right or wrong in the end, got people thinking.
Post a Comment