Creationism Thought Experiments
Current Affairs, Origins, Religion, Science September 16th, 2008There has been several creationism news articles recently. Instead of the usual analysis, I present four thought experiments that relate indirectly to the issues.
Thought experiment:
You have won a lottery (by random draw of a winner). There are three explanations for your winning:
1) It was part of God’s plan for you to win.
2) You were the only one to enter the lottery so winning was inevitable.
3) Many tickets were distributed and you won by chance.
If you don’t know how many tickets were distributed, is it possible to decide which possibility is correct?
Thought experiment:
You see a rock archway in a sea cliff. If any part of the arch was removed, the structure would collapse. The rock archway could have been formed by:
1) Being created in its current form.
2) Created by erosion to form its current shape.
If you are uncertain about the truth of 2, can you infer 1?
Thought experiment:
You see an illusion in which the magician appears to vanish and reappear. You might conclude one of the following:
1) The magician can really vanish and reappear at will.
2) The magician has performed an illusion and you do not know the method.
If you are uncertain about the truth of 2, can you infer 1?
Thought experiment:
If belief X causes life to be full of unhappiness, reckless behavior, materialistic concerns or immorality, is it
1) false
2) true
3) unknown as to is truth or falsity.
If we are unclear as to the religious instinct, it is stated thus:
There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn. St Augustine
Further reading: Who are the British creationists?
Anti Citizen One
In other news, India’s use of brain scans in courts dismays critics
PS. I have been thinking about these ideas for a while but it seems they are half remembered examples from Dawkins.
PPS “Nitimur in vetitum, semper cupimusque negata” (Ovid), we strive after the forbidden.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I was going to comment more specifically on the current controversies surrounding the comments of Professor Reiss who advocated the “discussion” of creationism in science classes and proposed that “banging on” about evolution was counter-productive.
Critical in understanding his comments are a few technical terms (easily accessible to those who choose to read thoroughly). He describes creationism as a “cultural world view” and evolution as a “scientific theory”.
Also he was misquoted as calling for creationism to be “taught” – which was a long way from his actual declaration that if the question is raised by a pupil it should be discussed openly.
“He insisted he was not calling for creationism to be taught in schools.
He also stressed the belief had no ‘scientific validity’.
However, banning all discussion of an ‘alternative world view’ at a time of growing religious fundamentalism could backfire, he said. ”
It is interesting to note that as well as being a biologist (and supporter of evolution) Professor Reiss is a minister in the Church of England. It is also interesting to note that upon his appointment noted Chemistry Professor Harry Kroto described it as “dangerous”! Subnote Professor Kroto is described by certain newspapers as a “militant atheist” – I perhaps in order to avoid offence would prefer the term “professional atheist”.
The Royal Society (perhaps uncomfortable at open controversy in the ranks) accepted his resignation from spokesperson on education. Yet significantly they opined their support for Professor Reiss’s views.
“‘If a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not.’”
It seems to me as does most discussion about creationism at the moment to be a matter of manufactured controversialism by both sides of the debate.
Now for the important bit.
Creationism is not a scientific theory – not just because it is not supported by any tangible evidence as on the contrary evolution may be said to be supported by evidence – but because it’s origins and modus operandi is that of a non-scientific language game.
Creationism is a belief system – an ideology or a philosophical ideal – based on an interpretation of scripture as the literal and revealed “word” of God. It is ipso facto and indeed a priori for creationists an objective fact – and is in no need of scientific support. It transcends scientific knowledge or the need for scientific knowledge (the quote from Augustine perhaps best illustrates this antiquated attitude).
Creationism is not based on an epistemic framework or methodology such as the empirical sciences.
A creationist will usually hold the belief of creationism prior to the availibility of any evidence to support it, in spite of the availability of any evidence to disprove it, and in stubborn refusal to accept any attempt to admonish it.
A creationist holds the belief in place irrespective of evidence. In this sense it is an article of faith and in this sense it is phenomenon that can be classified as psychological.
If a creationist says “I believe in creationism” – it is a statement that has no conditional attachment to epistemic methods such as empiricism. It is an utterance rather than a proposition. It has the same epistemic value as saying “ouch”.
The empirical sciences who advocate evolution as a viable explanation for the origins of our species and who are systematically collating an ever growing library of evidence to support the theory – operate according to an epistemic method.
Belief and Knowledge are not the same thing.
Belief may or may not be “factually” true.
But the key to the entire debate is as to which framework and rules we ascribe “factual truth” as belonging to.
It is in this respect that the debate is a non-debate.
Neither the creationist who is unwilling to give up on the notion of biblical literalism, nor the scientist who is unwilling to abandon the scientific method can ever reach a consensus of opinion. Primarily because the starting point for their propositions are entirely different and the basis for what constitutes a “fact” or more importantly a meaningful and valuable “fact” are radically different.
So what to do?
Well in my humble opinion Professor Reiss’s statement was not particular controversial. Creationism is a cultural world view and beliefs do not rely on facts (they may be undermined, adapted, abandoned but a belief does not arise out of a fact). Therefore he is right in saying that a complete silence or indifference to this world view in scientific discussions may be counter-productive.
If a pupil who holds a creationist viewpoint challenges the scientific viewpoint of the world then that pupil should not be silenced, ostracised or overtly criticised for their holding such a view. But that pupil should be instructed as to what constitutes a scientific theory and worldview and as to why evolution is one and creationism is not one.
I think it is is incredibly sad that Professor Reiss was forced to resign. And I think the only thing that is dangerous is the ‘absolutism’ or ‘tyranny’ of stifling debate.
Gonzalo Munevar – student and successor to Paul Feyerabend criticised the latters “three cheers for the creationists” insofar as he felt it to be an encroachment upon the language game of science. However he felt Feyerabend to have not elucidated his argument fully enough for it to be commonly understood or acceptable.
He states
“Done right it would be a rout in favor of evolution. And we would have American students actually understand biology for the first time in the history of the country. Unfortunately, most Americans, even scientists outside of biology, have little understanding of evolution. The fundamentalists should be careful about what they pray for, since if it is done properly it would give them fits. And they would have only themselves to blame. They often have no idea what the theory actually says.”
On language games I would say only this. To exclude non-scientific language games from science lessons would be to ring-fence and protect and isolate a language game – turning it into an island of discourse.
Such an action would violate the familial relationship that exists to varying degrees between different language games. Thus for example – creationism though by no means scientific presents a statement about the origins of the world. Likewise science has much to say on the same subject. The familial relationship between the two language games is their similar concern for an account of “origin” – the task for the philosopher is to discern between different types of proposition and to highlight the acceptability of belief whilst also showing pseudo-empirical and psuedo-epistemic propositions for what they are.
————
Nice thought experiments – only problem with them is the implicit language game involved in inference.
If I inferred direct creation (i.e. experiment 2) from the inability to discern whether erosion had taken place – I would be breaking any number of rules of logic and scientific practise.
The outcome of these experiments and the insight they offer depend on the use and value of inference and logic.