Let's analyze "Defeaters: The Problem of Science" - a sermon by Joe Coffey

[jcoffey]

johnson, i don't think i am taking quite as big a leap as you suggest. there may be more evidence for the accuracy and integrity of the bible than you know. i think the question of living a lie is a good one. if there is no god and no real purpose to existence except one you impose upon your own life, is that living the truth. If my purpose for life radically imposes itself on yours what happens then? why be civil? if we say we should all be civil just because then is that living a lie. I can't quite remember the terminology but there is something about living as if there are overarching values of love and justice even though we know there is not and nature is red in tooth and claw. I am not explaining this well so i will stop here.

Joe, thank the Lord on High that you are here to represent the truth. This website is shared by those who believe and those who don't. Please explain how science is wrong to believe in and without Jesus, people will burn for eternity.

[jcoffey]

president camacho, you are an angry elf (sorry- i like movies and have bizarre taste). actually there may be a better and more logical explanation for hell then you might think. if there is a god then it makes sense for him to be just since we have a sense of justice which is love equally distributed. now if hitler or stalin come before a just god to receive justice what does that look like? the question then becomes a sliding scale which is tough because it means someone could miss heaven by a single sin. now that idea of the way you get to heaven is not in the bible but most people assume it is. what if someone does not want to be in heaven? do they have to kneel in heaven or can they rule in hell? questions for another time but the question of hell is a good one but maybe more interesting and nuanced than people suppose.

[Interbane]

Coffey:

Did the evidence of science make you a naturalist or has science helped confirm that position?

Did science force me to become a naturalist? I started out a Shingletonist, that was where I was born. As I grew and explored more of my world, I turned into a Michiganist. Once learning about the wider world, I became something more, which I guess has evolved into philosophical Naturalism. This is all the world, all of reality. Whatever is more has always been to me nothing but make-believe. There is no need to hypothesize anything more. For those who wish to hypothesize one step further, what's stopping them from going further? You have Super-naturalism. What about Super-duper naturalism? What of the GOD that God worships?

The question is really about what is most reasonable as a criterion for demarcation between reality and fantasy. Do we draw the line at only what we see with our eyes? No, because then I'd still only be an Americanist, barring second hand viewing of television. Do we draw the line at only the physical? No, because we can each name many non-physical things which we consider unquestionably real.

The stopping point are those things which are undetectable. The thetans of Scientology, the angels of Christianity, the Karma of Buddhism(I think?), the teapot of Russel, Invisible flying purple dragons. In other words, things which there is sufficient evidence for. These are the things which should populate our worldviews. There is no reason to go beyond these things.

Science deals with the majority of things I believe in, because it deals with everything it possibly can which is detectable and objective. There is also a great deal of philosophy that is fundamental to my worldview, which deals with the epistemic and subjective. My emotions color both of these, but do not command them. There are times when emotions command me, but such residue of my evolutionary heritage is inevitable as a way to act in a competetive animalistic environment, including the love of my child as a bond to protect him. Emotions, as such, are in my worldview, and help to shape my worldview, but are ultimately at the mercy of logic and reasoning.

I understand that emotions are evolved within us to help us "survive" rather than to "understand", so therefore are fallible. If I based my perception of my house on emotion, I would still have the sinking sense of evil at the tiger picture that scared me one night. That fear was real, let me tell you. But it was fear that is a survival response, and the truth is that the picture isn't actually evil, or bad, or dangerous. The same is true when you say you love god. The love may indeed be as real as the love for your wife, but that does not mean there is an object which is loved.

We must maintain discipline in what the demarcations for our worldview are. There is no reason to believe in things which are undetectable. However, the largest problem in the past are those people who claim to have detected something, when there was really nothing there. We humans are big fibbers, great storytellers, and sometimes even believe our stories. We must police ourselves with standards in the detection of phenomena. Those standards are the standards of science, and have been developed by the best minds in the world over the last couple of centuries(perhaps since Bacon). They are pragmatic and flexible and allow for checks and balances, though there are still faults. But for all it's faults, science is the best method we have to police ourselves against false observation; detecting something which isn't actually there.

To stray from these procedures which the greatest of human minds have devised(and the fruits of which have catapulted humanity into the future of today) is basically to say; "I don't want my worldview to be policed". Indeed, it reeks of ulterior motive.


Also, to mention scientists who were theists is not to invoke a logical argument. Unless the arguments themselves are considered, mentioning them is tangential. Such references to the people who 'hold' ideas, rather than the ideas themselves, come in various forms of fallacies. If you say an idea is supported because a doctor or a scientist believed it is to commit the argumentum ad baculum(I think) fallacy. To say that it's supported because a lot of people believe it is to commit the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Conversely, to say that an idea is false because of the person is also a fallacy, ad hominem.

Ideas themselves must be discussed, not the attributes of the people that hold them. That "Naturalism-Plus" people are the ones who originally used Naturalism is not discussing the ideas. It is discussing the people who hold said ideas, and is fallacious.

As I've said, the age of the universe and the Earth are of utmost importance. What is the use of discussing the millions or billions of tangential points in the discussion when one single piece of disconfirming evidence can rend the entire worldview asunder? Every ounce of your focus should be on the disconfirming evidence. Newton's laws were used for a long time, and were thought to be perfectly accurate. Indeed, his laws have so much going for them, they are still used even today! But in the end, for all the 'pros' for a worldview(or in this case, a theory), a single piece of disconfirming evidence is all it takes. It is not a balance. You can't say, "well, I have a thousand pieces of well reasoned information, and a ton of confirming evidence, but only three pieces of disconfirming evidence. So my theory has more pros than cons, thus it is acceptable." That doesn't work. A single piece of disconfirming evidence(in this case, the collection of evidence for the age of the Earth) is all it takes. It should be the center of discussion, because if the evidence is sound, the YEC worldview unravels.

If instead the defending worldview is OEC(ID), then the theory of evolution is sufficient to unravel the worldview.

[stahrwe]

Coffey:

Did the evidence of science make you a naturalist or has science helped confirm that position?

Did science force me to become a naturalist? I started out a Shingletonist, that was where I was born. As I grew and explored more of my world, I turned into a Michiganist. Once learning about the wider world, I became something more, which I guess has evolved into philosophical Naturalism. This is all the world, all of reality. Whatever is more has always been to me nothing but make-believe. There is no need to hypothesize anything more. For those who wish to hypothesize one step further, what's stopping them from going further? You have Super-naturalism. What about Super-duper naturalism? What of the GOD that God worships?

Were you not paying attention during our discussion of the Omnipotence of God? The attributes of God are such that He is unique and supreme. Another point, one which we have not explored in depth is that there is not a heiarachy of gods either.

[Interbane]

Were you not paying attention during our discussion of the Omnipotence of God? The attributes of God are such that He is unique and supreme. Another point, one which we have not explored in depth is that there is not a heiarachy of gods either.

I'm sure I read all you had to say in that thread. But I don't for a second consider any of it reasonable. Who says God has such attributes? Who says there isn't a hierarchy of gods? What evidence do they have to support these claims? You have nothing but faith based dogma to support your claims here. That doesn't suffice.

[Chris OConnor]

Dexter, I'm so glad you've joined our community. You're a fantastic writer and critical thinker. I was thoroughly impressed with your dissection of the video.

Interbane, as usual you stepped up to the plate and produced a masterpiece. You've mentioned much of what I have been planning to say so I'm going to try to veer away from the areas upon which you guys have already touched.

And johnson1010....DAMN! That was an AMAZING post, as DWill said, and I have to wonder if you have any intentions of ever writing a book or getting published. Or are you already published? Thank you so much for taking the time to analyze the video in such depth. I really appreciate it. And I have to believe Joe Coffey has some level of appreciation for the effort too.

[Chris OConnor]

It is not very satisfying, to realize that you are an animal, not a foundational pillar of existence. To know that six hundred years after you are dead, nobody will have any idea you were ever alive, or if they do, they will only know you through proxy.

Wow, well said. No thinking human being can escape the fear of being relatively insignificant to the world and universe. Think of all the billions of people that have come and gone with little to no evidence indicating they ever were here. What is their legacy? How many lives did they touch and does any of that really matter in the long run? We're all one day going to die and return to the earth where we will become new life.

No wonder people believe in loving gods and afterlife's. Heck, I'm done with this atheism crap thanks to you johnson. Thanks a lot!

---

Stahrwe, that was some interesting info on the granite road dating back to 600 BC. I had no idea such infrastructure and technology existed way back then.

[Chris OConnor]

I just spent the past few hours watching the video again and then reading everyone's posts in this thread. Tomorrow I'll post some comments about...

* the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
* William Dembski and specified complexity
* quote mining George Wald
* naturalists and the "missing link"
* Gould's NOMA and PE

Joe, I really appreciate your willingness to talk with us.

And on that note I am off to bed as the NyQuil is starting to knock me out.

[stahrwe]

I don't find Johnson1010's post as compelling and erudite as some. I am sure that is a surprise to no one but honestly he is just posting the atheist talking points and not staying focused on the instructions for this thread which were:

I'm asking you guys to take the time to watch the video carefully and help me list where Joe goes wrong, namely the scientific inaccuracies and inductive logical fallacies. When you post please include the spot in the video so other people can quickly reference the error. Just say, "At 2:12 Joe says..." Include the time stamp please!

I must conclude that Johnson1010 was unable to find any scientific inaccuracies or inductive fallacies. Moreover, other than the minor one I pointed out I haven't seen any specific points of error cited in this discussion.

PS
Chris, I hope you and your wife are feeling better.

[johnson1010]

I appreciate that, Chris.

I have actually written a book, which i am in the process of editing, and i have strong concepts for at least two aditional books.

My avatar is actually an illustration i created in connection that book, intended to be the first book in a series.

Interbane read the first draft, and he can tell you if it was garbage.

I havent had a chance to watch the rest of Mr. Coffey's video, so i cannot comment on what is there, but i did not find any real science, or even claims about science, to counter in the part i reviewed.

He invented a new label so that he could avoid calling what he was advocating supernaturalism and made statements about the religious affiliation of some past scientists. These include some suppositions about the motives of these scientists, flavored in the context by which he would like to use them to motivate his listeners.

I found there were some misconceptions underlying his statements which were not directly addressed by his speach, so i brought them to the surface to be examined and to understand the context in which he is speaking.

I do plan to watch the rest when i get some time.