Monday, 21 November 2016
'Image' in scripture:The Watchtower Society's commentary.
IMAGE
Any representation or likeness of a person or thing.—Mt 22:20.
Whereas references to images in the Bible frequently relate to idolatry, this is not always the case. God, in creating man, said first, “Let us make man in our image [or, shadow, semblance], according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26, 27, ftn) Since God’s Son stated that his Father is “a Spirit,” this rules out any physical likeness between God and man. (Joh 4:24) Rather, man has qualities reflecting, or mirroring, those of his heavenly Maker, qualities that positively distinguish man from the animal creation. (See ADAM No. 1.) Though in the image of his Creator, man was not made to be an object of worship, or veneration.
Even as Adam’s own son Seth (born to him in his imperfection, however) was in Adam’s “likeness, in his image” (Ge 5:3), Adam’s likeness to God originally identified him as God’s earthly son. (Lu 3:38) Despite man’s fall to imperfection, the fact of mankind’s originally having been made in God’s image was cited after the Noachian Flood as the basis for the divine law authorizing humans to serve as executioners in putting murderers to death. (Ge 9:5, 6; see AVENGER OF BLOOD.) In Christian instructions concerning feminine head covering, Christian men were told they ought not to wear such a covering, since the man “is God’s image and glory,” while the woman is man’s glory.—1Co 11:7.
Has Jesus always reflected his Father’s likeness to the same degree?
God’s firstborn Son, who later became the man Jesus, is in his Father’s image. (2Co 4:4) Inasmuch as that Son was obviously the one to whom God spoke in saying, “Let us make man in our image,” this likeness of the Son to his Father, the Creator, existed from when the Son was created. (Ge 1:26; Joh 1:1-3; Col 1:15, 16) When on earth as a perfect man, he reflected his Father’s qualities and personality to the fullest extent possible within human limitations, so he could say that “he that has seen me has seen the Father also.” (Joh 14:9; 5:17, 19, 30, 36; 8:28, 38, 42) This likeness, however, was certainly heightened at the time of Jesus’ resurrection to spirit life and his being granted “all authority . . . in heaven and on the earth” by his Father, Jehovah God. (1Pe 3:18; Mt 28:18) Since God then exalted Jesus to “a superior position,” God’s Son now reflected his Father’s glory to an even greater degree than he had before leaving the heavens to come to earth. (Php 2:9; Heb 2:9) He is now “the exact representation of [God’s] very being.”—Heb 1:2-4.
All anointed members of the Christian congregation are foreordained by God to be “patterned after the image of his Son.” (Ro 8:29) Christ Jesus is their model not only in their life pattern, as they follow in his footsteps and imitate his course and ways, but also in their death and resurrection. (1Pe 2:21-24; 1Co 11:1; Ro 6:5) Having borne the earthly “image of the one made of dust [Adam],” as spirit creatures they thereafter bear “the image of the heavenly one [the last Adam, Christ Jesus].” (1Co 15:45, 49) During their earthly life, they are privileged to “reflect like mirrors the glory of Jehovah” that shines to them from God’s Son, being progressively transformed into the image conveyed by that glory-reflecting Son. (2Co 3:18; 4:6) God thereby creates in them a new personality, one that is a reflection, or image, of his own divine qualities.—Eph 4:24; Col 3:10.
Improper Use of Images. Whereas humans are to imitate and endeavor to mirror the qualities of their heavenly Father and model their lives after his Son, the veneration of physical images in worship is consistently condemned throughout the Scriptures. God’s detestation of such practice was clearly expressed in the Law given to Israel. Not only carved images but the making of the “form” of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the sea as an object of religious worship was prohibited. (Ex 20:4, 5; Le 26:1; Isa 42:8) Such objects might be made of any substance, in any form—wood, metal, stone; carved, cast, hammered, hewn; in the figure of humans, animals, birds, inanimate objects, or just symbolic forms—but none were approved by God for veneration. The making of them was a ‘ruinous act,’ the committing of evil in Jehovah’s eyes, a detestable and offensive thing bringing his curse upon those doing so. (De 4:16-19, 23-25; 27:15; Nu 33:52; Isa 40:19, 20; 44:12, 13; Eze 7:20) The decking of them with gold and silver would not make them less disgusting in God’s sight nor prevent their being defiled and discarded as “mere dirt!”—De 7:5, 25; Isa 30:22.
Such use of images is shown to be inexcusable before God, since it goes contrary to all reason and intelligence and betrays foolish, empty-headed reasoning as well as a refusal to acknowledge obvious facts. (Isa 44:14-20; Jer 10:14; Ro 1:20-23) The images would prove to be of no benefit; giving no knowledge, guidance, or protection; being speechless, helpless, and lifeless, an eventual cause for shame. (Isa 44:9-11; 45:20; 46:5-7; Hab 2:18-20) Jehovah’s prophetic declarations, accurately foretelling future events, thwarted any efforts of the unfaithful Israelites to attribute the outworking of such events to their idolatrous images.—Isa 48:3-7.
Despite God’s clear pronouncements, the Israelites and others foolishly attempted to combine the use of religious images with the worship of the true God, Jehovah. (Ex 32:1-8; 1Ki 12:26-28; 2Ki 17:41; 21:7) A woman in the time of the Judges even sanctified certain silver pieces to Jehovah and then used them in the making of a religious image. (Jg 17:3, 4; 18:14-20, 30, 31) Prior to Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonians, detestable religious images had been introduced into the temple area, and one such is described as a “symbol of jealousy,” evidently referring to the incitement of God’s jealousy by giving to an image the praise rightfully belonging to him.—Eze 8:3-12; Ex 20:5.
However, certain objects, formed in the image of plants, flowers, animals, and even cherubs, were made at Jehovah’s command and hence were proper. While serving as symbolic representations in connection with God’s worship, they themselves were given no veneration, or worship, as in the matter of prayer or sacrifice.—See IDOL, IDOLATRY.
Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream, the effect of which greatly disturbed him, producing insomnia. He apparently did not recall the full contents of the dream, for he demanded of his wise men and priests that they reveal both the dream and its interpretation. Despite their boasted ability as revealers of secret things, the Babylonian wise men were unable to fulfill the royal request. This brought upon them the decree of death, and the lives of Daniel and his companions were likewise endangered. By divine help Daniel was able to reveal not only the dream but also its meaning. Daniel’s expression of praise and thanksgiving upon receiving the revelation draws attention to Jehovah God as the Source of wisdom and might and as the one who is “changing times and seasons, removing kings and setting up kings.” (Da 2:1-23) The dream was clearly the result of God’s doing and served to illustrate in a prophetic way God’s irresistible dominion over earth’s affairs.
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was of an immense image, in human form. The body parts were of metal; from top to bottom, they were made of progressively less valuable but harder metals, beginning with gold and terminating with iron; the feet and toes, however, had clay mixed with the iron. The entire image was crushed to powder by a stone cut out of a mountain, the stone thereafter filling the entire earth.—Da 2:31-35.
What is the meaning of the parts of the dream image seen by Nebuchadnezzar?
The image obviously relates to domination of the earth and Jehovah God’s purpose regarding such domination. This is made clear in Daniel’s inspired interpretation. The golden head represented Nebuchadnezzar, the one who, by divine permission, had gained power as the dominant world ruler and, more importantly, had overthrown the typical kingdom of Judah. However, in saying, “You yourself are the head of gold,” it does not seem that Daniel restricted the head’s significance to Nebuchadnezzar alone. Since the other body parts represented kingdoms, the head evidently represented the dynasty of Babylonian kings from Nebuchadnezzar down till Babylon’s fall in the time of King Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar.—Da 2:37, 38.
The kingdom represented by the silver breasts and arms would therefore be the Medo-Persian power, which overthrew Babylon in 539 B.C.E. It was “inferior” to the Babylonian dynasty but not in the sense of having a smaller area of dominion or of having less strength militarily or economically. Babylon’s superiority may therefore relate to its having been the overthrower of the typical kingdom of God at Jerusalem, a distinction not held by Medo-Persia. The Medo-Persian dynasty of world rulers ended with Darius III (Codommanus), whose forces were thoroughly defeated by Alexander the Macedonian in 331 B.C.E. Greece is thus the power depicted by the image’s belly and thighs of copper.—Da 2:39.
The Grecian, or Hellenic, dominion continued, though in divided form, until it was finally absorbed by the rising power of Rome. The Roman World Power thus appears in the image symbolized by the baser but harder metal, iron, found in the legs of the great image. Rome’s strength to break and crush opposing kingdoms, indicated in the prophecy, is well known in history. (Da 2:40) Yet Rome alone cannot fulfill the requirements of being represented by the image’s legs and feet, for the rule of the Roman Empire did not see the completion of the prophetic dream, namely, the coming of the symbolic stone cut out of the mountain as well as its crushing the entire image and thereafter filling the entire earth.
Thus, the expressions of some Bible commentators are much like those of M. F. Unger, who says: “Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, as unravelled by Daniel, describes the course and end of ‘the times of the Gentiles’ (Luke 21:24; Rev. 16:19); that is, of the Gentile world power to be destroyed at the Second Coming of Christ.” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1965, p. 516) Daniel himself said to Nebuchadnezzar that the dream had to do with “what is to occur in the final part of the days” (Da 2:28), and since the symbolic stone is shown to represent the Kingdom of God, it may be expected that the domination pictured by the iron legs and feet of the image would extend down to the time of the establishment of that Kingdom and till the time it takes action to “crush and put an end to all these kingdoms.”—Da 2:44.
History shows that, although the Roman Empire enjoyed an extension of life in the form of the Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic nation, it eventually gave way to the rising power of its onetime imperial subject, Britain. Because of their close affinity and general unity of action, Britain and the United States today are often referred to as the Anglo-American World Power, the present dominant power in world history.
The mixture of iron and clay in the feet of the great image graphically illustrates the condition due to be manifest in the final expression of political world domination. Clay is elsewhere used metaphorically in the Scriptures to stand for fleshly men, made of the dust of the earth. (Job 10:9; Isa 29:16; Ro 9:20, 21) Daniel’s interpretation thus appears to equate the clay with “the offspring of mankind,” the mixing in of which produces fragility in that which is symbolized by the image’s feet and toes. This points to a weakening and a lack of cohesion in the ironlike strength of the final form of world domination by earthly kingdoms. (Da 2:41-43) The common man would wield greater influence in affairs of government.
The golden image later set up by Nebuchadnezzar on the Plain of Dura is not directly related to the immense image of the dream. In view of its dimensions—60 cubits (27 m; 88 ft) high and only 6 cubits (2.7 m; 8.8 ft) broad (or a ratio of ten to one)—it does not seem likely to have been a statue in human form, unless it had a very high pedestal, one that was higher than the human statue itself. The human form has a ratio of only four to one as to height and breadth. So the image may have been more symbolic in nature, perhaps like the obelisks of ancient Egypt.—Da 3:1.
The Image of the Wild Beast. After a vision of a seven-headed wild beast that rises out of the sea, the apostle John saw the vision of a two-horned beast ascending out of the earth, speaking like a dragon and telling those who dwell on the earth “to make an image to the [seven-headed] wild beast.” (Re 13:1, 2, 11-14) Beasts are consistently used in the Bible as symbols of political governments. The image of the seven-headed wild beast must therefore be some agency reflecting the characteristics and will of the globe-dominating political system represented by the seven-headed wild beast. Logically, it should also have seven heads and ten horns like the wild beast out of the sea that it represents. It is of interest to note, then, that another seven-headed beast, distinct from the wild beast out of the sea, is described at Revelation chapter 17. Its significance, as well as that of both the seven-headed wild beast and the two-horned beast, is considered under BEASTS, SYMBOLIC.
After its first mention in Revelation chapter 13, the image of the beast is regularly referred to along with the wild beast, particularly in connection with the worship of that wild beast and the receiving of its mark. The image of the beast shares in these things.—Re 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4; see MARK, II.
Any representation or likeness of a person or thing.—Mt 22:20.
Whereas references to images in the Bible frequently relate to idolatry, this is not always the case. God, in creating man, said first, “Let us make man in our image [or, shadow, semblance], according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26, 27, ftn) Since God’s Son stated that his Father is “a Spirit,” this rules out any physical likeness between God and man. (Joh 4:24) Rather, man has qualities reflecting, or mirroring, those of his heavenly Maker, qualities that positively distinguish man from the animal creation. (See ADAM No. 1.) Though in the image of his Creator, man was not made to be an object of worship, or veneration.
Even as Adam’s own son Seth (born to him in his imperfection, however) was in Adam’s “likeness, in his image” (Ge 5:3), Adam’s likeness to God originally identified him as God’s earthly son. (Lu 3:38) Despite man’s fall to imperfection, the fact of mankind’s originally having been made in God’s image was cited after the Noachian Flood as the basis for the divine law authorizing humans to serve as executioners in putting murderers to death. (Ge 9:5, 6; see AVENGER OF BLOOD.) In Christian instructions concerning feminine head covering, Christian men were told they ought not to wear such a covering, since the man “is God’s image and glory,” while the woman is man’s glory.—1Co 11:7.
Has Jesus always reflected his Father’s likeness to the same degree?
God’s firstborn Son, who later became the man Jesus, is in his Father’s image. (2Co 4:4) Inasmuch as that Son was obviously the one to whom God spoke in saying, “Let us make man in our image,” this likeness of the Son to his Father, the Creator, existed from when the Son was created. (Ge 1:26; Joh 1:1-3; Col 1:15, 16) When on earth as a perfect man, he reflected his Father’s qualities and personality to the fullest extent possible within human limitations, so he could say that “he that has seen me has seen the Father also.” (Joh 14:9; 5:17, 19, 30, 36; 8:28, 38, 42) This likeness, however, was certainly heightened at the time of Jesus’ resurrection to spirit life and his being granted “all authority . . . in heaven and on the earth” by his Father, Jehovah God. (1Pe 3:18; Mt 28:18) Since God then exalted Jesus to “a superior position,” God’s Son now reflected his Father’s glory to an even greater degree than he had before leaving the heavens to come to earth. (Php 2:9; Heb 2:9) He is now “the exact representation of [God’s] very being.”—Heb 1:2-4.
All anointed members of the Christian congregation are foreordained by God to be “patterned after the image of his Son.” (Ro 8:29) Christ Jesus is their model not only in their life pattern, as they follow in his footsteps and imitate his course and ways, but also in their death and resurrection. (1Pe 2:21-24; 1Co 11:1; Ro 6:5) Having borne the earthly “image of the one made of dust [Adam],” as spirit creatures they thereafter bear “the image of the heavenly one [the last Adam, Christ Jesus].” (1Co 15:45, 49) During their earthly life, they are privileged to “reflect like mirrors the glory of Jehovah” that shines to them from God’s Son, being progressively transformed into the image conveyed by that glory-reflecting Son. (2Co 3:18; 4:6) God thereby creates in them a new personality, one that is a reflection, or image, of his own divine qualities.—Eph 4:24; Col 3:10.
Improper Use of Images. Whereas humans are to imitate and endeavor to mirror the qualities of their heavenly Father and model their lives after his Son, the veneration of physical images in worship is consistently condemned throughout the Scriptures. God’s detestation of such practice was clearly expressed in the Law given to Israel. Not only carved images but the making of the “form” of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the sea as an object of religious worship was prohibited. (Ex 20:4, 5; Le 26:1; Isa 42:8) Such objects might be made of any substance, in any form—wood, metal, stone; carved, cast, hammered, hewn; in the figure of humans, animals, birds, inanimate objects, or just symbolic forms—but none were approved by God for veneration. The making of them was a ‘ruinous act,’ the committing of evil in Jehovah’s eyes, a detestable and offensive thing bringing his curse upon those doing so. (De 4:16-19, 23-25; 27:15; Nu 33:52; Isa 40:19, 20; 44:12, 13; Eze 7:20) The decking of them with gold and silver would not make them less disgusting in God’s sight nor prevent their being defiled and discarded as “mere dirt!”—De 7:5, 25; Isa 30:22.
Such use of images is shown to be inexcusable before God, since it goes contrary to all reason and intelligence and betrays foolish, empty-headed reasoning as well as a refusal to acknowledge obvious facts. (Isa 44:14-20; Jer 10:14; Ro 1:20-23) The images would prove to be of no benefit; giving no knowledge, guidance, or protection; being speechless, helpless, and lifeless, an eventual cause for shame. (Isa 44:9-11; 45:20; 46:5-7; Hab 2:18-20) Jehovah’s prophetic declarations, accurately foretelling future events, thwarted any efforts of the unfaithful Israelites to attribute the outworking of such events to their idolatrous images.—Isa 48:3-7.
Despite God’s clear pronouncements, the Israelites and others foolishly attempted to combine the use of religious images with the worship of the true God, Jehovah. (Ex 32:1-8; 1Ki 12:26-28; 2Ki 17:41; 21:7) A woman in the time of the Judges even sanctified certain silver pieces to Jehovah and then used them in the making of a religious image. (Jg 17:3, 4; 18:14-20, 30, 31) Prior to Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonians, detestable religious images had been introduced into the temple area, and one such is described as a “symbol of jealousy,” evidently referring to the incitement of God’s jealousy by giving to an image the praise rightfully belonging to him.—Eze 8:3-12; Ex 20:5.
However, certain objects, formed in the image of plants, flowers, animals, and even cherubs, were made at Jehovah’s command and hence were proper. While serving as symbolic representations in connection with God’s worship, they themselves were given no veneration, or worship, as in the matter of prayer or sacrifice.—See IDOL, IDOLATRY.
Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream, the effect of which greatly disturbed him, producing insomnia. He apparently did not recall the full contents of the dream, for he demanded of his wise men and priests that they reveal both the dream and its interpretation. Despite their boasted ability as revealers of secret things, the Babylonian wise men were unable to fulfill the royal request. This brought upon them the decree of death, and the lives of Daniel and his companions were likewise endangered. By divine help Daniel was able to reveal not only the dream but also its meaning. Daniel’s expression of praise and thanksgiving upon receiving the revelation draws attention to Jehovah God as the Source of wisdom and might and as the one who is “changing times and seasons, removing kings and setting up kings.” (Da 2:1-23) The dream was clearly the result of God’s doing and served to illustrate in a prophetic way God’s irresistible dominion over earth’s affairs.
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was of an immense image, in human form. The body parts were of metal; from top to bottom, they were made of progressively less valuable but harder metals, beginning with gold and terminating with iron; the feet and toes, however, had clay mixed with the iron. The entire image was crushed to powder by a stone cut out of a mountain, the stone thereafter filling the entire earth.—Da 2:31-35.
What is the meaning of the parts of the dream image seen by Nebuchadnezzar?
The image obviously relates to domination of the earth and Jehovah God’s purpose regarding such domination. This is made clear in Daniel’s inspired interpretation. The golden head represented Nebuchadnezzar, the one who, by divine permission, had gained power as the dominant world ruler and, more importantly, had overthrown the typical kingdom of Judah. However, in saying, “You yourself are the head of gold,” it does not seem that Daniel restricted the head’s significance to Nebuchadnezzar alone. Since the other body parts represented kingdoms, the head evidently represented the dynasty of Babylonian kings from Nebuchadnezzar down till Babylon’s fall in the time of King Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar.—Da 2:37, 38.
The kingdom represented by the silver breasts and arms would therefore be the Medo-Persian power, which overthrew Babylon in 539 B.C.E. It was “inferior” to the Babylonian dynasty but not in the sense of having a smaller area of dominion or of having less strength militarily or economically. Babylon’s superiority may therefore relate to its having been the overthrower of the typical kingdom of God at Jerusalem, a distinction not held by Medo-Persia. The Medo-Persian dynasty of world rulers ended with Darius III (Codommanus), whose forces were thoroughly defeated by Alexander the Macedonian in 331 B.C.E. Greece is thus the power depicted by the image’s belly and thighs of copper.—Da 2:39.
The Grecian, or Hellenic, dominion continued, though in divided form, until it was finally absorbed by the rising power of Rome. The Roman World Power thus appears in the image symbolized by the baser but harder metal, iron, found in the legs of the great image. Rome’s strength to break and crush opposing kingdoms, indicated in the prophecy, is well known in history. (Da 2:40) Yet Rome alone cannot fulfill the requirements of being represented by the image’s legs and feet, for the rule of the Roman Empire did not see the completion of the prophetic dream, namely, the coming of the symbolic stone cut out of the mountain as well as its crushing the entire image and thereafter filling the entire earth.
Thus, the expressions of some Bible commentators are much like those of M. F. Unger, who says: “Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, as unravelled by Daniel, describes the course and end of ‘the times of the Gentiles’ (Luke 21:24; Rev. 16:19); that is, of the Gentile world power to be destroyed at the Second Coming of Christ.” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1965, p. 516) Daniel himself said to Nebuchadnezzar that the dream had to do with “what is to occur in the final part of the days” (Da 2:28), and since the symbolic stone is shown to represent the Kingdom of God, it may be expected that the domination pictured by the iron legs and feet of the image would extend down to the time of the establishment of that Kingdom and till the time it takes action to “crush and put an end to all these kingdoms.”—Da 2:44.
History shows that, although the Roman Empire enjoyed an extension of life in the form of the Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic nation, it eventually gave way to the rising power of its onetime imperial subject, Britain. Because of their close affinity and general unity of action, Britain and the United States today are often referred to as the Anglo-American World Power, the present dominant power in world history.
The mixture of iron and clay in the feet of the great image graphically illustrates the condition due to be manifest in the final expression of political world domination. Clay is elsewhere used metaphorically in the Scriptures to stand for fleshly men, made of the dust of the earth. (Job 10:9; Isa 29:16; Ro 9:20, 21) Daniel’s interpretation thus appears to equate the clay with “the offspring of mankind,” the mixing in of which produces fragility in that which is symbolized by the image’s feet and toes. This points to a weakening and a lack of cohesion in the ironlike strength of the final form of world domination by earthly kingdoms. (Da 2:41-43) The common man would wield greater influence in affairs of government.
The golden image later set up by Nebuchadnezzar on the Plain of Dura is not directly related to the immense image of the dream. In view of its dimensions—60 cubits (27 m; 88 ft) high and only 6 cubits (2.7 m; 8.8 ft) broad (or a ratio of ten to one)—it does not seem likely to have been a statue in human form, unless it had a very high pedestal, one that was higher than the human statue itself. The human form has a ratio of only four to one as to height and breadth. So the image may have been more symbolic in nature, perhaps like the obelisks of ancient Egypt.—Da 3:1.
The Image of the Wild Beast. After a vision of a seven-headed wild beast that rises out of the sea, the apostle John saw the vision of a two-horned beast ascending out of the earth, speaking like a dragon and telling those who dwell on the earth “to make an image to the [seven-headed] wild beast.” (Re 13:1, 2, 11-14) Beasts are consistently used in the Bible as symbols of political governments. The image of the seven-headed wild beast must therefore be some agency reflecting the characteristics and will of the globe-dominating political system represented by the seven-headed wild beast. Logically, it should also have seven heads and ten horns like the wild beast out of the sea that it represents. It is of interest to note, then, that another seven-headed beast, distinct from the wild beast out of the sea, is described at Revelation chapter 17. Its significance, as well as that of both the seven-headed wild beast and the two-horned beast, is considered under BEASTS, SYMBOLIC.
After its first mention in Revelation chapter 13, the image of the beast is regularly referred to along with the wild beast, particularly in connection with the worship of that wild beast and the receiving of its mark. The image of the beast shares in these things.—Re 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4; see MARK, II.
On Darwinism in Nazi Germany.
Was Darwinism Banned from Nazi Germany?
Richard Weikart
My new book, Hitler's Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich , is out today, so I know I am going to hear a refrain I've heard before when my earlier books were published: Darwinism (they will say) not only did not serve as an important component of Nazi ideology, but Darwinism was banned from Nazi Germany.
This notion that Darwinism was banned in Nazi Germany is pretty widespread on blogs, especially those by atheists and freethinkers. For instance, a blog called Skeptical Science states emphatically: "Fact: Darwin's books were banned in Nazi Germany, not endorsed." A blogger on Patheos claimed that "the Nazis burned copies of the Origin of Species." The famous atheist Christopher Hitchens once responded to a question about the link between Darwinism and Nazism by replying, "Darwin's thought was not taught in Germany. Darwinism was derided in Germany, along with every other form of unbelief." University of Chicago historian Robert Richards in his book, Was Hitler a Darwinian? agrees that Darwinism was persona non grata in Nazi Germany.
If we want to know whether Darwinism was taught or banned in Nazi Germany, the logical place to start would be to look at the schools and universities. The Nazis were zealous about controlling the educational institutions, so they could inculcate their ideology into the minds of the youth.
What was in the official Nazi biology curriculum and the textbooks? As it turns out, the Nazi Ministry of Education published curricular guidelines in 1938, and the biology curriculum mandated extensive teaching about evolution. Further, the National Socialist Teachers' League developed a biology curriculum in 1936-37. Of the ten major topics covered in the higher grades, one was biological evolution and another was human evolution. I have examined numerous biology textbooks published in Nazi Germany, which were approved by the Nazi Ministry of Education, and they uniformly taught Darwinian evolution, devoting considerable attention to it in the higher grades.
What about the universities? Were Darwinian biologists and anthropologists demoted or promoted there? Most biologists and anthropologists at German universities embraced Darwinism before the Nazis came to power, but the Nazi regime continued to appoint Darwinists to biology and anthropology professorships. Karl Astel, whom the Nazis appointed professor of human genetics and later promoted to rector (equivalent of president) of the University of Jena, was an avid Darwinist. He was also an SS officer who wanted to turn the University of Jena into a fully Nazified university. In order to accomplish this goal, he received Himmler's help in recruiting the biologist and SS officer Gerhard Heberer as a professor of human evolution at the University of Jena. Nazis appointed many other Darwinian biologists and anthropologists to professorships, too.
If we examine the Nazi press, we find that the official Nazi newspaper, magazines, and journals occasionally published articles favorable to Darwinism. Der Biologe, the official journal for biology teachers, was taken over by the SS and regularly published articles promoting Darwinism and bashing creationism. One of these articles was by Konrad Lorenz, a later Nobel Prize winner, who argued that Darwinism was a firm basis for Nazi racial ideology. Articles against Darwinism were nowhere to be found in the Nazi press.
Where, then, did this myth of the Nazis banning Darwin arise? As with many myths, there is a small element of truth, but it was wrenched from its context and blown out of proportion. In 1935 a minor official overseeing the libraries of Saxony published an article in a journal for librarians, in which he recommended banning certain categories of books. One category was: "Works of worldview or biological character whose content is the superficial scientific enlightenment of a primitive Darwinism and monism (Haeckel and those emulating him, as well as Ostwald)." Note that the target was "primitive Darwinism and monism," not Darwinism per se. Also, the only two authors mentioned were Ernst Haeckel and Wilhelm Ostwald, not Darwin nor any of the myriad of other Darwinists who continued to publish pro-Darwinian science books and articles throughout the Nazi period.
Worse yet for those who base their argument on this supposed "ban," there is no evidence that this ban ever took place, despite this one article (by a low-level functionary in a relatively obscure journal). Indeed, other articles published later in the same journal approvingly reviewed books with heavy doses of Darwinism, so clearly Darwinism was not banned.
Not even Haeckel was banned in Nazi Germany. Indeed, some books lauding Haeckel were published in Germany during the Nazi period and received positive reviews in the Nazi press. In 1943, twenty-nine books by Haeckel published by five different publishers were still in print, including his two most important works, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (Natural History of Creation) and Welträtsel (Riddle of the Universe). Also, in 1941 Heberer and Astel formed the Ernst Haeckel Society and recruited professors from all over Germany to join. Before doing this, they asked the Nazi Gauleiter (district leader) Fritz Sauckel to be the honorary head. He consulted Martin Bormann and Alfred Rosenberg, both of whom gave him the green light. Apparently these high-ranking Nazis did not get the memo that Haeckel was banned.
Now, none of this proves that Hitler's ideology relied on Darwinism. For that evidence, you should read my new book, Hitler's Religion, which provides plenty of evidence that Hitler's worldview was Darwinian. But the myth of the Nazis banning Darwin does show how desperate the counterarguments of my critics are.
Richard Weikart is professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, and author most recently of Hitler's Religion and The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life.
Richard Weikart
My new book, Hitler's Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich , is out today, so I know I am going to hear a refrain I've heard before when my earlier books were published: Darwinism (they will say) not only did not serve as an important component of Nazi ideology, but Darwinism was banned from Nazi Germany.
This notion that Darwinism was banned in Nazi Germany is pretty widespread on blogs, especially those by atheists and freethinkers. For instance, a blog called Skeptical Science states emphatically: "Fact: Darwin's books were banned in Nazi Germany, not endorsed." A blogger on Patheos claimed that "the Nazis burned copies of the Origin of Species." The famous atheist Christopher Hitchens once responded to a question about the link between Darwinism and Nazism by replying, "Darwin's thought was not taught in Germany. Darwinism was derided in Germany, along with every other form of unbelief." University of Chicago historian Robert Richards in his book, Was Hitler a Darwinian? agrees that Darwinism was persona non grata in Nazi Germany.
If we want to know whether Darwinism was taught or banned in Nazi Germany, the logical place to start would be to look at the schools and universities. The Nazis were zealous about controlling the educational institutions, so they could inculcate their ideology into the minds of the youth.
What was in the official Nazi biology curriculum and the textbooks? As it turns out, the Nazi Ministry of Education published curricular guidelines in 1938, and the biology curriculum mandated extensive teaching about evolution. Further, the National Socialist Teachers' League developed a biology curriculum in 1936-37. Of the ten major topics covered in the higher grades, one was biological evolution and another was human evolution. I have examined numerous biology textbooks published in Nazi Germany, which were approved by the Nazi Ministry of Education, and they uniformly taught Darwinian evolution, devoting considerable attention to it in the higher grades.
What about the universities? Were Darwinian biologists and anthropologists demoted or promoted there? Most biologists and anthropologists at German universities embraced Darwinism before the Nazis came to power, but the Nazi regime continued to appoint Darwinists to biology and anthropology professorships. Karl Astel, whom the Nazis appointed professor of human genetics and later promoted to rector (equivalent of president) of the University of Jena, was an avid Darwinist. He was also an SS officer who wanted to turn the University of Jena into a fully Nazified university. In order to accomplish this goal, he received Himmler's help in recruiting the biologist and SS officer Gerhard Heberer as a professor of human evolution at the University of Jena. Nazis appointed many other Darwinian biologists and anthropologists to professorships, too.
If we examine the Nazi press, we find that the official Nazi newspaper, magazines, and journals occasionally published articles favorable to Darwinism. Der Biologe, the official journal for biology teachers, was taken over by the SS and regularly published articles promoting Darwinism and bashing creationism. One of these articles was by Konrad Lorenz, a later Nobel Prize winner, who argued that Darwinism was a firm basis for Nazi racial ideology. Articles against Darwinism were nowhere to be found in the Nazi press.
Where, then, did this myth of the Nazis banning Darwin arise? As with many myths, there is a small element of truth, but it was wrenched from its context and blown out of proportion. In 1935 a minor official overseeing the libraries of Saxony published an article in a journal for librarians, in which he recommended banning certain categories of books. One category was: "Works of worldview or biological character whose content is the superficial scientific enlightenment of a primitive Darwinism and monism (Haeckel and those emulating him, as well as Ostwald)." Note that the target was "primitive Darwinism and monism," not Darwinism per se. Also, the only two authors mentioned were Ernst Haeckel and Wilhelm Ostwald, not Darwin nor any of the myriad of other Darwinists who continued to publish pro-Darwinian science books and articles throughout the Nazi period.
Worse yet for those who base their argument on this supposed "ban," there is no evidence that this ban ever took place, despite this one article (by a low-level functionary in a relatively obscure journal). Indeed, other articles published later in the same journal approvingly reviewed books with heavy doses of Darwinism, so clearly Darwinism was not banned.
Not even Haeckel was banned in Nazi Germany. Indeed, some books lauding Haeckel were published in Germany during the Nazi period and received positive reviews in the Nazi press. In 1943, twenty-nine books by Haeckel published by five different publishers were still in print, including his two most important works, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (Natural History of Creation) and Welträtsel (Riddle of the Universe). Also, in 1941 Heberer and Astel formed the Ernst Haeckel Society and recruited professors from all over Germany to join. Before doing this, they asked the Nazi Gauleiter (district leader) Fritz Sauckel to be the honorary head. He consulted Martin Bormann and Alfred Rosenberg, both of whom gave him the green light. Apparently these high-ranking Nazis did not get the memo that Haeckel was banned.
Now, none of this proves that Hitler's ideology relied on Darwinism. For that evidence, you should read my new book, Hitler's Religion, which provides plenty of evidence that Hitler's worldview was Darwinian. But the myth of the Nazis banning Darwin does show how desperate the counterarguments of my critics are.
Richard Weikart is professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, and author most recently of Hitler's Religion and The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life.
Irreducible complexity v. Darwin.
Irreducible Complexity -- A Simple Idea with Far-Ranging Consequences, Deadly to Darwinism
David Klinghoffer
Biochemist Michael Behe's observation that many evolutionary innovations are "irreducibly complex" is a simple idea, conveyed effectively in just 2 minutes and 38 seconds in the video above. But its challenge to Darwinian explanations of life's wonders is severe, and one to which evolutionary advocates have found no convincing answer.
This month we celebrate Dr. Behe's work and the 20th anniversary of his path-breaking book Darwin's Black Box. That work is the subject of a new hour-long documentary, Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines, written and directed by John West. It's available now on DVD and Blu-ray. Get yours now!
David Klinghoffer
Biochemist Michael Behe's observation that many evolutionary innovations are "irreducibly complex" is a simple idea, conveyed effectively in just 2 minutes and 38 seconds in the video above. But its challenge to Darwinian explanations of life's wonders is severe, and one to which evolutionary advocates have found no convincing answer.
This month we celebrate Dr. Behe's work and the 20th anniversary of his path-breaking book Darwin's Black Box. That work is the subject of a new hour-long documentary, Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines, written and directed by John West. It's available now on DVD and Blu-ray. Get yours now!
'Spectator' hails Michael Denton's bomb throwing re:Darwinism.
London Spectator Hails Denton's Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis as a "Best Book" of 2016
David Klinghoffer
Wow, congratulations to Discovery Institute biologist Michael Denton! He has won richly deserved praise in the London Spectator. In a feature highlighting "The best and worst books of 2016," with choices from a panel of contributors, the distinguished literary critic A.N. Wilson selects Denton's Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis as his best nonfiction work of the year:
Michael Denton's Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Discovery Institute Press, £16.80). A sequel to his 1985 book -- Evolution: A Theory in Crisis -- this takes us up to date with the dazzling developments of life sciences over the past 30 years. Denton is a sceptic about Darwin's theory of evolution on purely scientific grounds. It is hard to see how anyone reading his book could not be persuaded. Palaeontology provides abundant evidence of evolution within species, but none of one species morphing into another. Denton is fascinatingly clear in his exposition of the science of genetics, and how it destroys the Darwinian position. A truly great book.
Cover with border small.jpgReviews don't come better than this. "A truly great book" -- agreed. "Fascinatingly clear" -- indeed. "Destroys the Darwinian position" -- correct.
Wilson, a biographer and novelist, is himself a dazzlingly accomplished writer and thinker. His recognition of Denton doesn't come as a complete shock, since he has voiced his evolution doubts in the past. But Dr. Denton and Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis have helped advance him toward a resolution of the Darwin question. He was previously impressed by another terrific book by a friend of ours, James Le Fanu. Wilson said in a 2009 interview in the New Statesman:
I think the jury is out about whether the theory of natural selection as defined by neo-Darwinians is true, and whether serious scientific doubts, as expressed in a new book Why Us? by James Le Fanu, deserve to be taken seriously. For example, does the discovery of the complex structure of DNA and the growth in knowledge in genetics require a rethink of Darwinian "gradualism"? But these are scientific rather than religious questions.
Seven years later, it seems the jury is no longer out for Wilson. When it comes to whether neo-Darwinism has been falsified by the scientific evidence, "It is hard to see how anyone reading [Denton's] book could not be persuaded." If you haven't read Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis, now's the time. There is also much more about Denton's thought, including excellent videos and documentary features, at the Privileged Species website.
David Klinghoffer
Wow, congratulations to Discovery Institute biologist Michael Denton! He has won richly deserved praise in the London Spectator. In a feature highlighting "The best and worst books of 2016," with choices from a panel of contributors, the distinguished literary critic A.N. Wilson selects Denton's Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis as his best nonfiction work of the year:
Michael Denton's Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Discovery Institute Press, £16.80). A sequel to his 1985 book -- Evolution: A Theory in Crisis -- this takes us up to date with the dazzling developments of life sciences over the past 30 years. Denton is a sceptic about Darwin's theory of evolution on purely scientific grounds. It is hard to see how anyone reading his book could not be persuaded. Palaeontology provides abundant evidence of evolution within species, but none of one species morphing into another. Denton is fascinatingly clear in his exposition of the science of genetics, and how it destroys the Darwinian position. A truly great book.
Cover with border small.jpgReviews don't come better than this. "A truly great book" -- agreed. "Fascinatingly clear" -- indeed. "Destroys the Darwinian position" -- correct.
Wilson, a biographer and novelist, is himself a dazzlingly accomplished writer and thinker. His recognition of Denton doesn't come as a complete shock, since he has voiced his evolution doubts in the past. But Dr. Denton and Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis have helped advance him toward a resolution of the Darwin question. He was previously impressed by another terrific book by a friend of ours, James Le Fanu. Wilson said in a 2009 interview in the New Statesman:
I think the jury is out about whether the theory of natural selection as defined by neo-Darwinians is true, and whether serious scientific doubts, as expressed in a new book Why Us? by James Le Fanu, deserve to be taken seriously. For example, does the discovery of the complex structure of DNA and the growth in knowledge in genetics require a rethink of Darwinian "gradualism"? But these are scientific rather than religious questions.
Seven years later, it seems the jury is no longer out for Wilson. When it comes to whether neo-Darwinism has been falsified by the scientific evidence, "It is hard to see how anyone reading [Denton's] book could not be persuaded." If you haven't read Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis, now's the time. There is also much more about Denton's thought, including excellent videos and documentary features, at the Privileged Species website.
Sunday, 20 November 2016
On skepticism and pretensions of skepticism.
I Told You So
David Berlinski
From the introduction to The Deniable Darwin:
My own view, repeated in virtually all of my essays, is that the sense of skepticism engendered by the sciences would be far more appropriately directed toward the sciences than toward anything else. It is not a view that has engendered wide-spread approval. The sciences require no criticism, many scientists say, because the sciences comprise a uniquely self-critical institution, with questionable theories and theoreticians passing constantly before stern appellate review. Judgment is unrelenting. And impartial. Individual scientists may make mistakes, but like the Communist Party under Lenin, science is infallible because its judgments are collective. Critics are not only unwelcome, they are unneeded. The biologist Paul Gross has made himself the master of this attitude and invokes it on every conceivable occasion.
Now no one doubts that scientists are sometimes critical of themselves. Among astrophysicists, backbiting often leads to backstabbing. The bloodletting that ensues is on occasion salutary. But the process of peer review by which grants are funded and papers assigned to scientific journals, is, by its very nature, an undertaking in which a court reviews its own decisions and generally finds them good. It serves the useful purpose of settling various scores, but it does not -- and it cannot -- achieve the ends that criticism is intended to serve.
If the scientific critic finds himself needed wherever he goes, like a hanging judge he finds himself unwelcome wherever he appears, all the more reason, it seems to me, that he really should get around as much as possible.
I told you so.
David Berlinski
From the introduction to The Deniable Darwin:
My own view, repeated in virtually all of my essays, is that the sense of skepticism engendered by the sciences would be far more appropriately directed toward the sciences than toward anything else. It is not a view that has engendered wide-spread approval. The sciences require no criticism, many scientists say, because the sciences comprise a uniquely self-critical institution, with questionable theories and theoreticians passing constantly before stern appellate review. Judgment is unrelenting. And impartial. Individual scientists may make mistakes, but like the Communist Party under Lenin, science is infallible because its judgments are collective. Critics are not only unwelcome, they are unneeded. The biologist Paul Gross has made himself the master of this attitude and invokes it on every conceivable occasion.
Now no one doubts that scientists are sometimes critical of themselves. Among astrophysicists, backbiting often leads to backstabbing. The bloodletting that ensues is on occasion salutary. But the process of peer review by which grants are funded and papers assigned to scientific journals, is, by its very nature, an undertaking in which a court reviews its own decisions and generally finds them good. It serves the useful purpose of settling various scores, but it does not -- and it cannot -- achieve the ends that criticism is intended to serve.
If the scientific critic finds himself needed wherever he goes, like a hanging judge he finds himself unwelcome wherever he appears, all the more reason, it seems to me, that he really should get around as much as possible.
I told you so.
On distinguishing the hypothetically possible from the plausible.
New Peer-Reviewed Paper Demolishes Fallacious Objection: "Aren't There Vast Eons of Time for Evolution?"
Casey Luskin
When debating intelligent design (ID), there are countless times I've heard the old objection, "But aren't there millions of years for Darwinian evolution?" Perhaps there are, but that doesn't mean the Darwinian mechanism has sufficient opportunities to produce the observed complexity found in life. Darwin put forward a falsifiable theory, stating that his mechanism must work by "numerous successive slight modifications." Michael Behe took Darwin at his word, and argued in Darwin's Black Box that irreducible complexity refuted Darwinian evolution because there exist complex structures that cannot be built in such a stepwise manner. Darwin's latter day defenders responded to Behe by effectively putting Darwinism into an unfalsifiable position: they put forth wildly speculative and unlikely appeals to indirect evolution. Largely based upon "exaptation," these scenarios required that complex biological systems be built by spontaneously "co-opting" or borrowing multiple parts within the cell to suddenly to perform wholly different functions in an entirely new system. The only evidence for such speculative scenarios is typically "protein homology," or sequence similarity between one part and another. The mere remote possibility of such a story is said to salvage evolution from falsification by Behe's arguments.
But is "mere possibility" sufficient justification to assert "scientific plausibility"? A new peer-reviewed article in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling asks just this question. The abstract states:
Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes." A method of objectively measuring the plausibility of any chance hypothesis (The Universal Plausibility Metric [UPM]) is presented. A numerical inequality is also provided whereby any chance hypothesis can be definitively falsified when its UPM metric of ξ is < 1 (The Universal Plausibility Principle [UPP]). Both UPM and UPP pre-exist and are independent of any experimental design and data set.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).)
It's not just prominent proponents of intelligent design who are publishing peer-reviewed articles that support ID arguments. Other scientists are doing the same--and this article by Abel in fact cites to the work of Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer and William Dembski, eloquently explaining why the progress of science depends on our rejecting falsified theories and not retaining highly unlikely explanations:
But at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science. Falsification is critical to narrowing down the list of serious possibilities. Almost all hypotheses are possible. Few of them wind up being helpful and scientific ally productive. Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability. More attention to the concept of "infeasibility" has been suggested. Millions of dollars in astrobiology grant money have been wasted on scenarios that are possible, but plausibly bankrupt. The question for scientific methodology should not be, "Is this scenario possible?" The question should be, "Is this possibility a plausible scientific hypothesis?" One chance in 10200 is theoretically possible, but given maximum cosmic probabilistic resources, such a possibility is hardly plausible. With funding resources rapidly drying up, science needs a foundational principle by which to falsify a myriad of theoretical possibilities that are not worthy of serious scientific consideration and modeling.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).
The willingness of modern evolutionists to tolerate highly unlikely explanations in order to avoid the design inference has always reminded me of the great scene from "Dumb and Dumber" when Jim Carrey, who plays a socially awkward buffoon named "Lloyd," asks his secret crush Mary about the odds that she will return his love. As the exchange goes:
LLOYD: I'm gonna ask you something flat out and I want you to answer me honestly: What do you think the chances are of a girl like you and a guy like me ending up together?
MARY: Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean we hardly--
LLOYD: --I asked you to be honest, Mary.
MARY: But Lloyd, I really can't--
LLOYD: --Come on, give it to me straight. I drove a long way to see you, the least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
MARY: Not good.
LLOYD: You mean not good, like one out of a hundred?
MARY; I'd say more like one out of a million.
LLOYD: So you're telling me there's a chance?
Only an illogical emotional infatuation for Mary kept Lloyd hoping she would return his love. But if Lloyd understood how the world works, he would have realized Mary just told him that his chances of ending up with her are effectively zero, short of a miracle. Lloyd's hopes of getting the girl should have been falsified.
Michael Behe responded to his critics by noting that like Lloyd, they need to learn when it's time to acknowledge they're not gonna get the girl. He thus writes:
[O]ne needs to relax Darwin's criterion from this: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." to something like this:
If a complex organ exists which seems very unlikely to have been produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and if no experiments have shown that it or comparable structures can be so produced, then maybe we are barking up the wrong tree. So, LET'S BREAK SOME RULES!
Of course people will differ on the point at which they decide to break rules. But at least with the realistic criterion there could be evidence against the unfalsifiable. At least then people like Doolittle and Miller would run a risk when they cite an experiment that shows the opposite of what they had thought. At least then science would have a way to escape from the rut of unfalsifiability and think new thoughts.
(Michael Behe, "Answering Scientific Criticisms of Intelligent Design," Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, Vol 9:146-147 (Ignatius Press, 2000))
Behe's arguments are echoed by Abel's new paper:
The same standard should apply in falsifying ridiculously implausible life-origin assertions. Combinatorial imaginings and hypothetical scenarios can be endlessly argued simply on the grounds that they are theoretically possible. But there is a point beyond which arguing the plausibility of an absurdly low probability becomes operationally counterproductive. That point can actually be quantified for universal application to all fields of science, not just astrobiology. Quantification of a UPM and application of the UPP inequality test to that specific UPM provides for definitive, unequivocal falsification of scientifically unhelpful and functionally useless hypotheses. When the UPP is violated, declaring falsification of that highly implausible notion is just as justified as the firm commitment we make to any mathematical axiom or physical "law" of motion.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).
Abel then calculates the universal probability bounds wherein we are able to "falsify not just highly improbable, but ridiculously implausible scenarios." According to Abel's calculations, the probability bounds for various environments are as follows:
cΩu = Universe = 1013 reactions/sec X 1017 secs X 1078 atoms = 10108
cΩg = Galaxy = 1013 X 1017 X 1066 = 1096
cΩs = Solar System = 1013 X 1017 X 1055 = 1085
cΩe = Earth = 1013 X 1017 X 1040 = 1070
Thus, even though there are billions of years available in the universe, that does not imply that there are unlimited probabilistic resources. By calculating the maximum number of chemical reactions given the available time, Abel ably calculates the probabilistic resources. He concludes:
The application of The Universal Plausibility Principle (UPP) precludes the inclusion in scientific literature of wild metaphysical conjectures that conveniently ignore or illegitimately inflate probabilistic resources to beyond the limits of observational science. The UPM and UPP together prevent rapidly shrinking funding and labor resources from being wasted on preposterous notions that have no legitimate place in science. At best, notions with ξ < 1 should be considered not only operationally falsified hypotheses, but bad metaphysics on a plane equivalent to blind faith and superstition.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).
Such clarity of thought will undoubtedly be bitterly opposed by the evolutionary scientific community.
Casey Luskin
When debating intelligent design (ID), there are countless times I've heard the old objection, "But aren't there millions of years for Darwinian evolution?" Perhaps there are, but that doesn't mean the Darwinian mechanism has sufficient opportunities to produce the observed complexity found in life. Darwin put forward a falsifiable theory, stating that his mechanism must work by "numerous successive slight modifications." Michael Behe took Darwin at his word, and argued in Darwin's Black Box that irreducible complexity refuted Darwinian evolution because there exist complex structures that cannot be built in such a stepwise manner. Darwin's latter day defenders responded to Behe by effectively putting Darwinism into an unfalsifiable position: they put forth wildly speculative and unlikely appeals to indirect evolution. Largely based upon "exaptation," these scenarios required that complex biological systems be built by spontaneously "co-opting" or borrowing multiple parts within the cell to suddenly to perform wholly different functions in an entirely new system. The only evidence for such speculative scenarios is typically "protein homology," or sequence similarity between one part and another. The mere remote possibility of such a story is said to salvage evolution from falsification by Behe's arguments.
But is "mere possibility" sufficient justification to assert "scientific plausibility"? A new peer-reviewed article in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling asks just this question. The abstract states:
Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes." A method of objectively measuring the plausibility of any chance hypothesis (The Universal Plausibility Metric [UPM]) is presented. A numerical inequality is also provided whereby any chance hypothesis can be definitively falsified when its UPM metric of ξ is < 1 (The Universal Plausibility Principle [UPP]). Both UPM and UPP pre-exist and are independent of any experimental design and data set.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).)
It's not just prominent proponents of intelligent design who are publishing peer-reviewed articles that support ID arguments. Other scientists are doing the same--and this article by Abel in fact cites to the work of Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer and William Dembski, eloquently explaining why the progress of science depends on our rejecting falsified theories and not retaining highly unlikely explanations:
But at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science. Falsification is critical to narrowing down the list of serious possibilities. Almost all hypotheses are possible. Few of them wind up being helpful and scientific ally productive. Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability. More attention to the concept of "infeasibility" has been suggested. Millions of dollars in astrobiology grant money have been wasted on scenarios that are possible, but plausibly bankrupt. The question for scientific methodology should not be, "Is this scenario possible?" The question should be, "Is this possibility a plausible scientific hypothesis?" One chance in 10200 is theoretically possible, but given maximum cosmic probabilistic resources, such a possibility is hardly plausible. With funding resources rapidly drying up, science needs a foundational principle by which to falsify a myriad of theoretical possibilities that are not worthy of serious scientific consideration and modeling.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).
The willingness of modern evolutionists to tolerate highly unlikely explanations in order to avoid the design inference has always reminded me of the great scene from "Dumb and Dumber" when Jim Carrey, who plays a socially awkward buffoon named "Lloyd," asks his secret crush Mary about the odds that she will return his love. As the exchange goes:
LLOYD: I'm gonna ask you something flat out and I want you to answer me honestly: What do you think the chances are of a girl like you and a guy like me ending up together?
MARY: Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean we hardly--
LLOYD: --I asked you to be honest, Mary.
MARY: But Lloyd, I really can't--
LLOYD: --Come on, give it to me straight. I drove a long way to see you, the least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
MARY: Not good.
LLOYD: You mean not good, like one out of a hundred?
MARY; I'd say more like one out of a million.
LLOYD: So you're telling me there's a chance?
Only an illogical emotional infatuation for Mary kept Lloyd hoping she would return his love. But if Lloyd understood how the world works, he would have realized Mary just told him that his chances of ending up with her are effectively zero, short of a miracle. Lloyd's hopes of getting the girl should have been falsified.
Michael Behe responded to his critics by noting that like Lloyd, they need to learn when it's time to acknowledge they're not gonna get the girl. He thus writes:
[O]ne needs to relax Darwin's criterion from this: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." to something like this:
If a complex organ exists which seems very unlikely to have been produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and if no experiments have shown that it or comparable structures can be so produced, then maybe we are barking up the wrong tree. So, LET'S BREAK SOME RULES!
Of course people will differ on the point at which they decide to break rules. But at least with the realistic criterion there could be evidence against the unfalsifiable. At least then people like Doolittle and Miller would run a risk when they cite an experiment that shows the opposite of what they had thought. At least then science would have a way to escape from the rut of unfalsifiability and think new thoughts.
(Michael Behe, "Answering Scientific Criticisms of Intelligent Design," Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, Vol 9:146-147 (Ignatius Press, 2000))
Behe's arguments are echoed by Abel's new paper:
The same standard should apply in falsifying ridiculously implausible life-origin assertions. Combinatorial imaginings and hypothetical scenarios can be endlessly argued simply on the grounds that they are theoretically possible. But there is a point beyond which arguing the plausibility of an absurdly low probability becomes operationally counterproductive. That point can actually be quantified for universal application to all fields of science, not just astrobiology. Quantification of a UPM and application of the UPP inequality test to that specific UPM provides for definitive, unequivocal falsification of scientifically unhelpful and functionally useless hypotheses. When the UPP is violated, declaring falsification of that highly implausible notion is just as justified as the firm commitment we make to any mathematical axiom or physical "law" of motion.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).
Abel then calculates the universal probability bounds wherein we are able to "falsify not just highly improbable, but ridiculously implausible scenarios." According to Abel's calculations, the probability bounds for various environments are as follows:
cΩu = Universe = 1013 reactions/sec X 1017 secs X 1078 atoms = 10108
cΩg = Galaxy = 1013 X 1017 X 1066 = 1096
cΩs = Solar System = 1013 X 1017 X 1055 = 1085
cΩe = Earth = 1013 X 1017 X 1040 = 1070
Thus, even though there are billions of years available in the universe, that does not imply that there are unlimited probabilistic resources. By calculating the maximum number of chemical reactions given the available time, Abel ably calculates the probabilistic resources. He concludes:
The application of The Universal Plausibility Principle (UPP) precludes the inclusion in scientific literature of wild metaphysical conjectures that conveniently ignore or illegitimately inflate probabilistic resources to beyond the limits of observational science. The UPM and UPP together prevent rapidly shrinking funding and labor resources from being wasted on preposterous notions that have no legitimate place in science. At best, notions with ξ < 1 should be considered not only operationally falsified hypotheses, but bad metaphysics on a plane equivalent to blind faith and superstition.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).
Such clarity of thought will undoubtedly be bitterly opposed by the evolutionary scientific community.
The case for mind re:The Origin of Life
Information Runs The Show -- The Understatement of the Century!
Jonathan M.
An interesting paper published in Nature by . Evgenia et al. documents the ability of the DNA double helix to exist in a functional alternative form for 1% of the time, called an "excited state." What does this mean for neo-Darwinism?
What is particularly remarkable is that the base-pairs present in these alternative forms show the ability to break apart and come together again to form stable structures which are non-characteristic of Watson-Crick base-pairing (called "Hoogsteen base pairs"). While these Hoogsteen base pairs have been observed before in instances where DNA has been subjected to damage or bound to drugs, this is the first time where such Hoogsteen base pairs have been observed under normal circumstances.
The authors report in the paper's abstract,
Sequence-directed variations in the canonical DNA double helix structure that retain Watson-Crick base-pairing have important roles in DNA recognition, topology and nucleosome positioning. By using nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation dispersion spectroscopy in concert with steered molecular dynamics simulations, we have observed transient sequence-specific excursions away from Watson-Crick base-pairing at CA and TA steps inside canonical duplex DNA towards low-populated and short-lived A�T and G�C Hoogsteen base pairs. The observation of Hoogsteen base pairs in DNA duplexes specifically bound to transcription factors and in damaged DNA sites implies that the DNA double helix intrinsically codes for excited state Hoogsteen base pairs as a means of expanding its structural complexity beyond that which can be achieved based on Watson-Crick base-pairing. The methods presented here provide a new route for characterizing transient low-populated nucleic acid structures, which we predict will be abundant in the genome and constitute a second transient layer of the genetic code. [Emphasis mine]
The researchers used NMR to study the structure of the alternative form, and they concluded that the observed chemical shifts were characteristic of a structural orientation in which particular base-pairs are flipped 180 degrees to form a "Hoogsteen base pair." This was further corroborated by computer modelling.
As the papers' authors suggest, those results may imply that the DNA molecule is responsible for coding for excited state Hoogsteen base pairs as a means by which it can expand its structural complexity beyond that which it is able to achieve through classical Watson-Crick base-pairing.
If this prediction is correct, then it succeeds in adding a whole additional layer to the information enigma. This, of course, raises the pertinent issue of whether this discovery sits more comfortably with a neo-Darwinian paradigm or with an ID paradigm. Since neo-Darwinism, to date, may be considered to be demonstrably impotent to account for that specific property of living systems -- namely, information -- I would be inclined to significantly favour the latter.
Jonathan M.
An interesting paper published in Nature by . Evgenia et al. documents the ability of the DNA double helix to exist in a functional alternative form for 1% of the time, called an "excited state." What does this mean for neo-Darwinism?
What is particularly remarkable is that the base-pairs present in these alternative forms show the ability to break apart and come together again to form stable structures which are non-characteristic of Watson-Crick base-pairing (called "Hoogsteen base pairs"). While these Hoogsteen base pairs have been observed before in instances where DNA has been subjected to damage or bound to drugs, this is the first time where such Hoogsteen base pairs have been observed under normal circumstances.
The authors report in the paper's abstract,
Sequence-directed variations in the canonical DNA double helix structure that retain Watson-Crick base-pairing have important roles in DNA recognition, topology and nucleosome positioning. By using nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation dispersion spectroscopy in concert with steered molecular dynamics simulations, we have observed transient sequence-specific excursions away from Watson-Crick base-pairing at CA and TA steps inside canonical duplex DNA towards low-populated and short-lived A�T and G�C Hoogsteen base pairs. The observation of Hoogsteen base pairs in DNA duplexes specifically bound to transcription factors and in damaged DNA sites implies that the DNA double helix intrinsically codes for excited state Hoogsteen base pairs as a means of expanding its structural complexity beyond that which can be achieved based on Watson-Crick base-pairing. The methods presented here provide a new route for characterizing transient low-populated nucleic acid structures, which we predict will be abundant in the genome and constitute a second transient layer of the genetic code. [Emphasis mine]
The researchers used NMR to study the structure of the alternative form, and they concluded that the observed chemical shifts were characteristic of a structural orientation in which particular base-pairs are flipped 180 degrees to form a "Hoogsteen base pair." This was further corroborated by computer modelling.
As the papers' authors suggest, those results may imply that the DNA molecule is responsible for coding for excited state Hoogsteen base pairs as a means by which it can expand its structural complexity beyond that which it is able to achieve through classical Watson-Crick base-pairing.
If this prediction is correct, then it succeeds in adding a whole additional layer to the information enigma. This, of course, raises the pertinent issue of whether this discovery sits more comfortably with a neo-Darwinian paradigm or with an ID paradigm. Since neo-Darwinism, to date, may be considered to be demonstrably impotent to account for that specific property of living systems -- namely, information -- I would be inclined to significantly favour the latter.
See no evil,hear no evil,speak no evil.
Who Is James Le Fanu? Part V: Darwin's Three Monkeys
David Klinghoffer
Anyone who raises doubts about evolution in public discussions with non-scientists knows the automatic response you always get from the Three Monkeys crowd. Hands wrapped tightly over eyes, ears, and mouth, they chant: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil -- about Darwin!
That's not exactly how it comes out. People will say things more like: But science has spoken! Scientists say! Science wins! Which sounds reasonable at first, until you reflect that it's a little like a Roman Catholic fending off some challenge to his faith by pointing out that 98 percent of Catholic priests agree with Catholic doctrine, and who knows more about Catholicism than Catholic priests? So it must be true. (Or substitute rabbis and Jewish doctrine, pastors and Protestant belief, etc.) As James Le Fanu smartly notes in his new book Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves (Pantheon), there is a similar circularity to the "Scientists say!" case for Darwinian dogma:
The commitment to Darwin's materialist explanation of the living world would, in time, become a qualification requirement for all who aspired to pursue a career in biology -- where to express doubt (at least publicly) was tantamount to confessing to being of unsound (or at least unscientific) mind.
I've been writing this week in praise of Dr. Le Fanu's extremely lucid, readable, and unapologetic narration of Darwinism's increasingly obvious failure to account for the evidence of science, with an emphasis on recent advances in our knowledge about the brain and the genome. Then why is the meaning of these advances ignored, greeted with a great, booming silence?
Scientists themselves, apart from being qualified for the priesthood on the condition of their voicing no doubts about Darwin, are caught in a conflict of interest. Their professional standing is predicated on explaining a purely physical reality:
Scientists cannot acknowledge the possibility of there being a 'dual' nature of reality, with both a material and a non-material realm, for that would be to subvert their exclusive claims to understand how the world 'works.' Hence the silence. Scientists cannot 'see' the significance of the findings of the recent past because they cannot stand outside their materialist view and conceive of forms of understanding different from those in which they have been trained....
The dual nature of reality has, in short, been censored, written out of the script as being of historical interest only, a relic of the superstitious ways of thinking of the distant past.
So you find that the case against Darwin is made by a brave band of professional scientist dissenters, a vocal minority in the scholarly community, but more so by those outside the academic scientific cathedral. Like James Le Fanu, a physician and peer-reviewed writer of medical journal essays, but not the picture of a lab-coated scientist that the Three Monkeys insist on hearing from.
The loss is all of ours. Le Fanu describes the cost of Darwinism: "We have lost that sense of living in an enchanted world" that was taken for granted 150 years ago. As Richard Dawkins himself puts it, in his world there is "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good -- nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Or as Isaiah Berlin bizarrely remarked, "As for the meaning of life, I do not believe it has any -- and [that] is a source of great comfort."
The situation is not irreversible, though: "It cannot be long before a proper appreciation of the true significance of the findings of the recent past begins to sow doubts in inquisitive minds." If as many people read Le Fanu's book as it deserves, the time of that hoped for outcome will have been advanced at least a little.
David Klinghoffer
Anyone who raises doubts about evolution in public discussions with non-scientists knows the automatic response you always get from the Three Monkeys crowd. Hands wrapped tightly over eyes, ears, and mouth, they chant: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil -- about Darwin!
That's not exactly how it comes out. People will say things more like: But science has spoken! Scientists say! Science wins! Which sounds reasonable at first, until you reflect that it's a little like a Roman Catholic fending off some challenge to his faith by pointing out that 98 percent of Catholic priests agree with Catholic doctrine, and who knows more about Catholicism than Catholic priests? So it must be true. (Or substitute rabbis and Jewish doctrine, pastors and Protestant belief, etc.) As James Le Fanu smartly notes in his new book Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves (Pantheon), there is a similar circularity to the "Scientists say!" case for Darwinian dogma:
The commitment to Darwin's materialist explanation of the living world would, in time, become a qualification requirement for all who aspired to pursue a career in biology -- where to express doubt (at least publicly) was tantamount to confessing to being of unsound (or at least unscientific) mind.
I've been writing this week in praise of Dr. Le Fanu's extremely lucid, readable, and unapologetic narration of Darwinism's increasingly obvious failure to account for the evidence of science, with an emphasis on recent advances in our knowledge about the brain and the genome. Then why is the meaning of these advances ignored, greeted with a great, booming silence?
Scientists themselves, apart from being qualified for the priesthood on the condition of their voicing no doubts about Darwin, are caught in a conflict of interest. Their professional standing is predicated on explaining a purely physical reality:
Scientists cannot acknowledge the possibility of there being a 'dual' nature of reality, with both a material and a non-material realm, for that would be to subvert their exclusive claims to understand how the world 'works.' Hence the silence. Scientists cannot 'see' the significance of the findings of the recent past because they cannot stand outside their materialist view and conceive of forms of understanding different from those in which they have been trained....
The dual nature of reality has, in short, been censored, written out of the script as being of historical interest only, a relic of the superstitious ways of thinking of the distant past.
So you find that the case against Darwin is made by a brave band of professional scientist dissenters, a vocal minority in the scholarly community, but more so by those outside the academic scientific cathedral. Like James Le Fanu, a physician and peer-reviewed writer of medical journal essays, but not the picture of a lab-coated scientist that the Three Monkeys insist on hearing from.
The loss is all of ours. Le Fanu describes the cost of Darwinism: "We have lost that sense of living in an enchanted world" that was taken for granted 150 years ago. As Richard Dawkins himself puts it, in his world there is "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good -- nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Or as Isaiah Berlin bizarrely remarked, "As for the meaning of life, I do not believe it has any -- and [that] is a source of great comfort."
The situation is not irreversible, though: "It cannot be long before a proper appreciation of the true significance of the findings of the recent past begins to sow doubts in inquisitive minds." If as many people read Le Fanu's book as it deserves, the time of that hoped for outcome will have been advanced at least a little.
Saturday, 19 November 2016
Our brotherhood:The Watchtower Society's commentary.
Why Does God Have an Organization?
1. Why did God organize ancient Israel?
God organized descendants of the patriarch Abraham into a nation and gave them a body of laws. He called the nation “Israel” and made it the custodian of true worship and of his word. (Psalm 147:19, 20) So people of all nations could benefit from Israel.—Read Genesis 22:18.
God chose the Israelites to be his witnesses. Their ancient history provides a demonstration of how people benefit by obeying God’s laws. (Deuteronomy 4:6) Thus, through the Israelites, others could get to know the true God.—Read Isaiah 43:10, 12.
2. Why are true Christians organized?
In time, Israel lost God’s favor, and Jehovah replaced that nation with the Christian congregation. (Matthew 21:43; 23:37, 38) Now, in place of the Israelites, true Christians serve as Jehovah’s witnesses.—Read Acts 15:14, 17.
Jesus organized his followers to preach and make disciples in all nations. (Matthew 10:7, 11; 24:14; 28:19, 20) This work is reaching its climax now, in the conclusion of the present system of things. For the first time in history, Jehovah has united millions from all nations in true worship. (Revelation 7:9, 10) True Christians are organized to encourage and help one another. Worldwide, they enjoy the same program of Bible instruction at their meetings.—Read Hebrews 10:24, 25.
3. How did the modern-day organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses begin?
In the 1870’s a small group of Bible students began rediscovering long-lost Bible truths. They knew that Jesus had organized the Christian congregation to preach, so they began an international Kingdom-preaching campaign. In 1931 they adopted the name Jehovah’s Witnesses.—Read Acts 1:8; 2:1, 4; 5:42.
4. How are Jehovah’s Witnesses organized?
In the first century, the Christian congregations in many lands benefited from a central governing body that recognized Jesus as the Head of the congregation. (Acts 16:4, 5) Similarly today, Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide benefit from a Governing Body of experienced elders. It oversees branch offices of Jehovah’s Witnesses that translate, print, and distribute Bible-study material in over 600 languages. Thus the Governing Body can provide Scriptural encouragement and direction for over 100,000 congregations worldwide. In each congregation, qualified men serve as elders, or overseers. These men lovingly care for God’s flock.—Read 1 Peter 5:2, 3.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are organized to preach the good news and make disciples. Like the apostles, we preach from house to house. (Acts 20:20) We also offer to study the Bible with sincere lovers of truth. But Jehovah’s Witnesses are not just an organization. We are a family with a loving Father. We are brothers and sisters who care for one another. (2 Thessalonians 1:3) Since Jehovah’s people are organized to please God and to help others, they form the happiest family on earth.—Read Psalm 33:12; Acts 20:35.
1. Why did God organize ancient Israel?
God organized descendants of the patriarch Abraham into a nation and gave them a body of laws. He called the nation “Israel” and made it the custodian of true worship and of his word. (Psalm 147:19, 20) So people of all nations could benefit from Israel.—Read Genesis 22:18.
God chose the Israelites to be his witnesses. Their ancient history provides a demonstration of how people benefit by obeying God’s laws. (Deuteronomy 4:6) Thus, through the Israelites, others could get to know the true God.—Read Isaiah 43:10, 12.
2. Why are true Christians organized?
In time, Israel lost God’s favor, and Jehovah replaced that nation with the Christian congregation. (Matthew 21:43; 23:37, 38) Now, in place of the Israelites, true Christians serve as Jehovah’s witnesses.—Read Acts 15:14, 17.
Jesus organized his followers to preach and make disciples in all nations. (Matthew 10:7, 11; 24:14; 28:19, 20) This work is reaching its climax now, in the conclusion of the present system of things. For the first time in history, Jehovah has united millions from all nations in true worship. (Revelation 7:9, 10) True Christians are organized to encourage and help one another. Worldwide, they enjoy the same program of Bible instruction at their meetings.—Read Hebrews 10:24, 25.
3. How did the modern-day organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses begin?
In the 1870’s a small group of Bible students began rediscovering long-lost Bible truths. They knew that Jesus had organized the Christian congregation to preach, so they began an international Kingdom-preaching campaign. In 1931 they adopted the name Jehovah’s Witnesses.—Read Acts 1:8; 2:1, 4; 5:42.
4. How are Jehovah’s Witnesses organized?
In the first century, the Christian congregations in many lands benefited from a central governing body that recognized Jesus as the Head of the congregation. (Acts 16:4, 5) Similarly today, Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide benefit from a Governing Body of experienced elders. It oversees branch offices of Jehovah’s Witnesses that translate, print, and distribute Bible-study material in over 600 languages. Thus the Governing Body can provide Scriptural encouragement and direction for over 100,000 congregations worldwide. In each congregation, qualified men serve as elders, or overseers. These men lovingly care for God’s flock.—Read 1 Peter 5:2, 3.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are organized to preach the good news and make disciples. Like the apostles, we preach from house to house. (Acts 20:20) We also offer to study the Bible with sincere lovers of truth. But Jehovah’s Witnesses are not just an organization. We are a family with a loving Father. We are brothers and sisters who care for one another. (2 Thessalonians 1:3) Since Jehovah’s people are organized to please God and to help others, they form the happiest family on earth.—Read Psalm 33:12; Acts 20:35.
Sowing to the spirit.:The Watchtower Society's commentary.
How We Can Cultivate Virtue
MODERN-DAY dictionaries define “virtue” as “moral excellence; goodness.” It is “right action and thinking; goodness of character.” Lexicographer Marvin R. Vincent says that the original classical sense of the Greek word rendered “virtue” denotes “excellence of any kind.” Not surprisingly, then, such qualities as prudence, courage, self-discipline, fairness, compassion, perseverance, honesty, humility, and loyalty have been hailed as virtues at one time or another. Virtue has also been defined as “conformity to a standard of right.”
To whose standard of excellence, goodness, and right should we conform? “According to the dominant school of moral philosophy,” said Newsweek magazine, “the skepticism engendered by the Enlightenment has reduced all ideas of right and wrong to matters of personal taste, emotional preference or cultural choice.” But is mere taste or preference a satisfactory way of determining right and wrong? No. For us to cultivate virtue, we need a reliable standard of good and bad
The Only True Source of Moral Standards
There is only one true Source for standards of morality
The command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and bad set before Adam and Eve a choice
Get Fully Acquainted With God’s Standards
Since Jehovah God has determined the standards of good and bad and has revealed them in the Bible, should we not get fully acquainted with them? The apostle Paul wrote: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”
For example, consider the misunderstanding that Kunihito, mentioned in the preceding article, faced when displaying modesty as his culture viewed it. A closer look at Scriptural standards later helped him to take a more balanced approach. The Bible certainly encourages modesty, and it counsels against overconfidence and presumptuousness. (Proverbs 11:2; Micah 6:8) Yet, when outlining the qualifications for “an office of overseer,” the apostle Paul spoke of “reaching out” for that privilege. (1 Timothy 3:1) This “reaching out” is to be done not only without being boastful or presumptuous but also without needlessly putting oneself down.
What does the Bible say about moral excellence in the business arena? Employing questionable methods or cutting corners on government regulations and tax laws is a common practice in today’s business world. Regardless of what others do, however, the Bible standard is that we are “to conduct ourselves honestly in all things.” (Hebrews 13:18) Hence, we cultivate virtue by being honest and fair with employers, employees, customers, and secular governments. (Deuteronomy 25:13-16; Romans 13:1; Titus 2:9, 10) Honesty certainly promotes trust and goodwill. And putting agreements in writing often prevents misunderstandings and complexities that may arise because of “unforeseen occurrence.”
The matter of dress and grooming is another area in which we need to cultivate virtue. Clothing choices vary according to culture, and pressure may be strong to keep up with the latest styles and trends. But why should we follow every fad or fashion that comes along? The Bible admonishes us to “quit being fashioned after this system of things.” (Romans 12:2) Rather than make up rules, the apostle Paul wrote under inspiration: “I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God.” (1 Timothy 2:9, 10) This basic standard applies to men and women alike. Of course, there is room for delightful variety in style as a result of cultural preference or personal taste.
The Bible also identifies immoral practices that God explicitly condemns. At 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, we read the warning: “What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.” This scripture helped Maria, mentioned earlier, to see that according to the standard of moral excellence set out by the Creator, her involvement with Juan was wrong and she must put an end to it if she would have God’s approval. Clearly, to cultivate virtue, we need to get thoroughly familiar with Jehovah’s standards.
Learn With the Heart
Virtue is not a passive avoidance of what is bad. It has moral power. A virtuous person has goodness. “Virtue,” says one professor, “needs to be learned with the heart as well as the head.” Cultivating virtue, then, entails more than a thorough acquaintance with God’s Word. It calls for meditation on what is written there so that our hearts get filled with gratitude for Jehovah and we are moved to apply Scriptural principles in our lives.
“How I do love your law!” exclaimed the psalmist. “All day long it is my concern.” (Psalm 119:97) And King David wrote: “I have remembered days of long ago; I have meditated on all your [God’s] activity; I willingly kept myself concerned with the work of your own hands.” (Psalm 143:5) We too should make prayerful meditation an integral part of our study of the Bible and Bible-based publications.
True, making time for diligent study accompanied by meditation can be a challenge. But the pursuit of virtue requires that we buy out the time from other activities. (Ephesians 5:15, 16) Aaron, age 24, buys out such time every day by waking up 30 minutes earlier than he once did. He relates: “At first, I just read the Bible for the entire half hour. Only recently have I come to realize the importance of meditation. So now I use about half of that time to dwell upon what I have just read. This has been truly rewarding.” Meditation can be done at other times. In a melody to Jehovah, David sang: “During the night watches I meditate on you.” (Psalm 63:6) And the Bible relates: “Isaac was out walking in order to meditate in the field at about the falling of evening.”
Meditation is invaluable in cultivating virtue, for it helps us to feel the way Jehovah feels and to make his views our views. Maria, for example, knew that God prohibits fornication. But to ‘abhor what is wicked and cling to what is good,’ she needed to meditate on key Bible texts. (Romans 12:9) She was helped to see the need to make changes after reading Colossians 3:5, which urges us to ‘deaden our body members as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness.’ Maria had to ask herself: ‘What kind of sexual appetite must I deaden? What should I avoid that might arouse unclean desires? Are there changes I need to make in the way I treat those of the opposite sex?’
Meditation includes considering the result of an action. Paul urges Christians to abstain from fornication and to exercise self-control so that “no one go to the point of harming and encroach upon the rights of his brother.” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-7) Good questions to ponder are: ‘What damage would I do to myself, my family, or others by committing this act? How would I be affected spiritually, emotionally, and physically? How have things turned out for others who have violated God’s law in the past?’ Such contemplation made Maria stronger at heart, and it can do the same for us.
Learn From Examples
Can virtue be taught in a classroom? This question is one that has perplexed thinkers for millenniums. The Greek philosopher Plato leaned toward thinking that it can. Aristotle, on the other hand, reasoned that virtue is gained through practice. A journalist summed up the debate on the issue this way: “In short, an ethics of virtue cannot be learned alone. Nor can it be taught from textbooks. Good character comes from living in communities . . . where virtue is encouraged and rewarded.” But where would we find truly virtuous individuals? While most cultures offer some examples of virtue, at least in their mythological heroes and stories, the Bible contains abundant true examples.
The most outstanding example of virtue is Jehovah. He always acts in a virtuous way and does what is righteous and good. We can cultivate virtue by becoming “imitators of God.” (Ephesians 5:1) And God’s Son, Jesus Christ, ‘left us a model for us to follow his steps closely.’ (1 Peter 2:21) Moreover, the Bible contains accounts of many faithful individuals, such as Abraham, Sarah, Joseph, Ruth, Job, and Daniel and his three Hebrew companions. Not to be overlooked are the examples of virtue among modern-day servants of Jehovah.
We Can Succeed
Can we really succeed in doing what is virtuous in God’s eyes? Having inherited imperfection, at times there may rage within us a fierce battle between the mind and the flesh
The apostle Paul exhorted his readers to “continue considering” virtue and other praiseworthy things. Doing this is sure to result in God’s blessing. (Philippians 4:8, 9) With Jehovah’s help, we can succeed in cultivating virtue.
Is mind or matter the nearer/better bridge re:those gaps?
Materialism of the Gaps
Michael Egnor
I must say that I've never understood the rhetorical force of the 'God of the Gaps' argument. The God of the Gaps sneer is invoked to imply the inexorability of materialism as a complete explanation in natural science. Any critique of materialist dogma in science from a design or immaterial perspective is derided as a 'God of the Gaps' argument. But the real issue is the gaps, which are plentiful and very wide.
Dr. Novella is fond of the God of the Gaps sneer, in the form of "Dualism of the Gaps." I have not met a materialist as supremely confident of the complete explanatory power of materialism as he is. It's ironic, as Dr. Novella claims the appellation "skeptic," yet he shows no skepticism for his own materialist dogma. Profound skepticism for the views of opponents, combined with complacent credulity for one's own views, is the stuff of ideological advocacy, not skepticism.
Dr. Novella responded recently to my post in which I clarified my views on the mind-brain problem. He accuses me of using a 'Dualism of the Gaps' argument. I've merely pointed out that the salient characteristics of the mind, such as intentionality, qualia, free will, incorrigibility, restricted access, continuity of self through time, and unity of consciousness (the 'binding problem') seem to be impossible to explain materialistically. Materialistic explanations for subjective mental states are not impossible merely because we lack experiments or evidence. Materialistic explanations for the mind are impossible within the framework of materialism itself, because mental properties are not physical properties. Nothing about matter as understood in our current scientific paradigm invokes subjective mental experience. The essential qualities on the mind are immaterial. Invocation of immaterial causation that incorporates subjectivity seems necessary for a satisfactory explanation of the mind.
Dr. Novella argues:
My "dualism of the gaps" point, however, is that lack of complete knowledge does not justify inserting a magical answer. Our lack of complete knowledge about life does not justify inventing a vital life force to explain it, our incomplete knowledge of evolution does not justify inventing an intelligent designer who miracled life into existence, and our current state of neuroscience does not require inserting a non-corporeal mind separate from the brain.. Further - you cannot logically justify a positive claim based upon a lack of information. Where is the evidence for a vital force, or an intelligent designer, or the ghost in the machine? There isn't any, such claims are based entirely on perceived gaps in knowledge.
But we don't 'lack knowledge' about the mind. We have a rich knowledge of the mind. Much of philosophy, art, literature, psychology, politics, and history are essentially knowledge of the human mind. It's fair to say that most of what mankind knows is knowledge about the mind. By any measure, we probably know much more about the mind than we do about the natural world.
And we certainly don't 'lack knowledge' about the brain. We have made astonishing strides over the past century in understanding neuroscience, from the molecular level to the functioning of the nervous system as a whole. We can image the brain functionally in real time with considerable precision. We can record brain waves with relative ease from the whole brain, and we can do surgery that enables us to record electrical activity in regions of the brain a few cubic millimeters in volume. We know an enormous amount about the brain.
Yet we know nothing -- nothing -- about how subjective experience could arise from matter alone. We certainly know a lot about correlations. But about causation -- how matter even could cause subjective mental states -- we know nothing. We don't even have a scientific paradigm by which we could even imagine what such an answer could be like. Subjective mental states share no properties whatsoever with matter. The 'explanatory gap' -- our inability to explain the subjective in terms of the objective -- is as wide as ever. It's infinitely wide. We don't even know where to begin to answer the question 'how does subjectivity arise in association with matter' from a materialistic standpoint.
Dr. Novella is wrong to attribute the inference to dualism to an argument from ignorance. The exact opposite is true. The reason that immaterial causation is invoked to explain the mind is because we know so much about the mind and about the brain, and it's evident to most people (that is, people who aren't dogmatic materialists) that the mind isn't material. It isn't an argument from ignorance. It's an argument from deep knowledge -- deep knowledge of the mind and of the brain. The invocation of immaterial causation for aspects of mental states is the result of our deep knowledge of the difference between mind and matter.
Perhaps it was more understandable several centuries ago for the philosophically naive to hold to a confident assurance that science would ultimately explain the mind purely in terms of the material brain. Neuroscience has rendered that view no longer tenable. The explanatory gap is real, and our evolving knowledge of neuroscience only makes the futility of materialist attempts to close the explanatory gap even more clear. This is not, pace Dr. Novella, infering a positive conclusion from negative evidence. This is coming to accept the obvious; neuroscience has failed to show how subjective experience arises from objective matter. In this, materialist neuorscientists are a bit late. Philosophers have pointed out the fundamentally different ontologies of mind and matter for several millenia, and it's time for materialistic neuroscientists to admit the obvious. The inference to immaterial causation is an honest effort to address the questions inherent to the mind-brain problem.The inference to materialism is an effort to evade the questions; materialism is an effort to explain the gap away.
And Dr. Novella's reference to "magic" is ironic. It is materialism that invokes "magic" in the mind-brain problem. Materialists insist that meaning and subjective experience arise spontaneously from amalgams of carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, although a rigorous scientific description of brain physiology can be done without any reference to subjective experience. There's no 'science' there; the inference to subjective experience is epiphenomenal on materialistic science, which inherently lacks reference to subjective states. By denying the real problems raised by the subjective nature of mental states, materialism invokes magical explanations for the mind. The materialist argument is essentially this: 'materialism is the complete explanation for the mind, and if you ask questions, you're a neuroscience denialist'.
Dr. Novella asserts:
...it is clearly established, in my opinion, that the brain causes mind. The gap in our knowledge is in how the brain causes mind. I am open to any hypothesis that is scientifically testable and is compatible with existing established scientific knowledge...To put it another way - Egnor would have you believe that any scientific hypothesis is the same as a "god of the gaps" argument, but they are not. A hypothesis is testable. A"god of the gaps" argument simply inserts a final and untestable answer into a current gap in our scientific knowledge.
Dr. Novella insists that the only question that remains is how the brain causes the mind. And he implicitly restricts the explanations to his dogmatic philosophical materialism, which he confuses with the scientific method, which is the method by which natural effects are studied. Yet natural effects in science need not have natural causes; Big Bang theory, which posits the creation of all matter and time ex-nihilo, explains material effects (matter, time, and natural laws) using an immaterial cause (creation ex-nihilo).
There is no philosophical, logical, or empirical basis to insist that materialism, or any monistic understanding of nature, is the necessary explanatory framework in natural science. Science is the inference to best explanation for the natural world, and, in keeping with contemporary evidence and scientific gestalt, materialism is no longer in ascendency in the scientific world. Its scientific heyday was in the 18thand 19th centuries, in which Laplace famously bragged that given all of the current physical information about the world he could know the future with certainty. In the 19th century, Darwin proposed to explain all of the complexity of life as a product of material chance and necessity. Yet the 20th century has not been kind to materialist complacency. Quantum mechanics, in many of its interpretations, invokes an observer in order to collapse a waveform. Relativistic cosmology invokes creation ex-nihilo and multiverses. The origin of life problem is essentially intractable, an inference that is supported, rather than weakened, by the panoply of wild guesses as to how it could have happened. Random genetic variation and 'survival of survivors' is grossly inadequate to explain the genetic code and intracellular molecular nanotechnology. The inference that brain matter entirely explains the immaterial aspects of mental states isn't even logically coherent, let alone scientifically verified. The 20th century, materialist denial notwithstanding, has been a catastrophe for strict materialism.
It's mere dogma on Dr. Novella's part-- and historically ignorant dogma, at that-- to assert that materialism explains everything, and to insist that we just wait patiently for the next materialistic revelation.
Materialism explains what it can. As a method -- the invocation of material and efficient causatio n-- it has been quite successful, particularly in classical physics and chemistry as they were developed in the 18th and 19th century. But the 20th century has been very hard on materialism -- creation of the universe ex-nihilo, the observer effect in quantum mechanics, the origin of life, the origin of biological information, the cause of the immaterial mind -- all seem to belie materialist reduction.
There's much that materialism can't explain. Some philosophers and scientists believe that the problem may lie with the artificial restrictions that dogmatic materialism imposes on natural science. Perhaps the natural phenomena on which materialism flounders, such as the Big Bang, the origin of life, the overwhelming evidence for intricate intelligent design in molecular biology, and the immaterial aspects of mental states, are better understood using all four Aristotelian causes -- formal and final causes, as well as material and efficient causes. Perhaps design and teleology play a role in natural science.
To the dogmatic materialist, teleology in nature is a very dangerous inference, because it's incompatible with atheism, which is the materialists' religion. Acceptance of the obvious evidence for design and teleology in nature would force materialists to rethink their worldview, which never comes easy, especially for fundamentalists.
The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It's notable that many of the leading neuroscientists -- Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet -- were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence.
Michael Egnor
I must say that I've never understood the rhetorical force of the 'God of the Gaps' argument. The God of the Gaps sneer is invoked to imply the inexorability of materialism as a complete explanation in natural science. Any critique of materialist dogma in science from a design or immaterial perspective is derided as a 'God of the Gaps' argument. But the real issue is the gaps, which are plentiful and very wide.
Dr. Novella is fond of the God of the Gaps sneer, in the form of "Dualism of the Gaps." I have not met a materialist as supremely confident of the complete explanatory power of materialism as he is. It's ironic, as Dr. Novella claims the appellation "skeptic," yet he shows no skepticism for his own materialist dogma. Profound skepticism for the views of opponents, combined with complacent credulity for one's own views, is the stuff of ideological advocacy, not skepticism.
Dr. Novella responded recently to my post in which I clarified my views on the mind-brain problem. He accuses me of using a 'Dualism of the Gaps' argument. I've merely pointed out that the salient characteristics of the mind, such as intentionality, qualia, free will, incorrigibility, restricted access, continuity of self through time, and unity of consciousness (the 'binding problem') seem to be impossible to explain materialistically. Materialistic explanations for subjective mental states are not impossible merely because we lack experiments or evidence. Materialistic explanations for the mind are impossible within the framework of materialism itself, because mental properties are not physical properties. Nothing about matter as understood in our current scientific paradigm invokes subjective mental experience. The essential qualities on the mind are immaterial. Invocation of immaterial causation that incorporates subjectivity seems necessary for a satisfactory explanation of the mind.
Dr. Novella argues:
My "dualism of the gaps" point, however, is that lack of complete knowledge does not justify inserting a magical answer. Our lack of complete knowledge about life does not justify inventing a vital life force to explain it, our incomplete knowledge of evolution does not justify inventing an intelligent designer who miracled life into existence, and our current state of neuroscience does not require inserting a non-corporeal mind separate from the brain.. Further - you cannot logically justify a positive claim based upon a lack of information. Where is the evidence for a vital force, or an intelligent designer, or the ghost in the machine? There isn't any, such claims are based entirely on perceived gaps in knowledge.
But we don't 'lack knowledge' about the mind. We have a rich knowledge of the mind. Much of philosophy, art, literature, psychology, politics, and history are essentially knowledge of the human mind. It's fair to say that most of what mankind knows is knowledge about the mind. By any measure, we probably know much more about the mind than we do about the natural world.
And we certainly don't 'lack knowledge' about the brain. We have made astonishing strides over the past century in understanding neuroscience, from the molecular level to the functioning of the nervous system as a whole. We can image the brain functionally in real time with considerable precision. We can record brain waves with relative ease from the whole brain, and we can do surgery that enables us to record electrical activity in regions of the brain a few cubic millimeters in volume. We know an enormous amount about the brain.
Yet we know nothing -- nothing -- about how subjective experience could arise from matter alone. We certainly know a lot about correlations. But about causation -- how matter even could cause subjective mental states -- we know nothing. We don't even have a scientific paradigm by which we could even imagine what such an answer could be like. Subjective mental states share no properties whatsoever with matter. The 'explanatory gap' -- our inability to explain the subjective in terms of the objective -- is as wide as ever. It's infinitely wide. We don't even know where to begin to answer the question 'how does subjectivity arise in association with matter' from a materialistic standpoint.
Dr. Novella is wrong to attribute the inference to dualism to an argument from ignorance. The exact opposite is true. The reason that immaterial causation is invoked to explain the mind is because we know so much about the mind and about the brain, and it's evident to most people (that is, people who aren't dogmatic materialists) that the mind isn't material. It isn't an argument from ignorance. It's an argument from deep knowledge -- deep knowledge of the mind and of the brain. The invocation of immaterial causation for aspects of mental states is the result of our deep knowledge of the difference between mind and matter.
Perhaps it was more understandable several centuries ago for the philosophically naive to hold to a confident assurance that science would ultimately explain the mind purely in terms of the material brain. Neuroscience has rendered that view no longer tenable. The explanatory gap is real, and our evolving knowledge of neuroscience only makes the futility of materialist attempts to close the explanatory gap even more clear. This is not, pace Dr. Novella, infering a positive conclusion from negative evidence. This is coming to accept the obvious; neuroscience has failed to show how subjective experience arises from objective matter. In this, materialist neuorscientists are a bit late. Philosophers have pointed out the fundamentally different ontologies of mind and matter for several millenia, and it's time for materialistic neuroscientists to admit the obvious. The inference to immaterial causation is an honest effort to address the questions inherent to the mind-brain problem.The inference to materialism is an effort to evade the questions; materialism is an effort to explain the gap away.
And Dr. Novella's reference to "magic" is ironic. It is materialism that invokes "magic" in the mind-brain problem. Materialists insist that meaning and subjective experience arise spontaneously from amalgams of carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, although a rigorous scientific description of brain physiology can be done without any reference to subjective experience. There's no 'science' there; the inference to subjective experience is epiphenomenal on materialistic science, which inherently lacks reference to subjective states. By denying the real problems raised by the subjective nature of mental states, materialism invokes magical explanations for the mind. The materialist argument is essentially this: 'materialism is the complete explanation for the mind, and if you ask questions, you're a neuroscience denialist'.
Dr. Novella asserts:
...it is clearly established, in my opinion, that the brain causes mind. The gap in our knowledge is in how the brain causes mind. I am open to any hypothesis that is scientifically testable and is compatible with existing established scientific knowledge...To put it another way - Egnor would have you believe that any scientific hypothesis is the same as a "god of the gaps" argument, but they are not. A hypothesis is testable. A"god of the gaps" argument simply inserts a final and untestable answer into a current gap in our scientific knowledge.
Dr. Novella insists that the only question that remains is how the brain causes the mind. And he implicitly restricts the explanations to his dogmatic philosophical materialism, which he confuses with the scientific method, which is the method by which natural effects are studied. Yet natural effects in science need not have natural causes; Big Bang theory, which posits the creation of all matter and time ex-nihilo, explains material effects (matter, time, and natural laws) using an immaterial cause (creation ex-nihilo).
There is no philosophical, logical, or empirical basis to insist that materialism, or any monistic understanding of nature, is the necessary explanatory framework in natural science. Science is the inference to best explanation for the natural world, and, in keeping with contemporary evidence and scientific gestalt, materialism is no longer in ascendency in the scientific world. Its scientific heyday was in the 18thand 19th centuries, in which Laplace famously bragged that given all of the current physical information about the world he could know the future with certainty. In the 19th century, Darwin proposed to explain all of the complexity of life as a product of material chance and necessity. Yet the 20th century has not been kind to materialist complacency. Quantum mechanics, in many of its interpretations, invokes an observer in order to collapse a waveform. Relativistic cosmology invokes creation ex-nihilo and multiverses. The origin of life problem is essentially intractable, an inference that is supported, rather than weakened, by the panoply of wild guesses as to how it could have happened. Random genetic variation and 'survival of survivors' is grossly inadequate to explain the genetic code and intracellular molecular nanotechnology. The inference that brain matter entirely explains the immaterial aspects of mental states isn't even logically coherent, let alone scientifically verified. The 20th century, materialist denial notwithstanding, has been a catastrophe for strict materialism.
It's mere dogma on Dr. Novella's part-- and historically ignorant dogma, at that-- to assert that materialism explains everything, and to insist that we just wait patiently for the next materialistic revelation.
Materialism explains what it can. As a method -- the invocation of material and efficient causatio n-- it has been quite successful, particularly in classical physics and chemistry as they were developed in the 18th and 19th century. But the 20th century has been very hard on materialism -- creation of the universe ex-nihilo, the observer effect in quantum mechanics, the origin of life, the origin of biological information, the cause of the immaterial mind -- all seem to belie materialist reduction.
There's much that materialism can't explain. Some philosophers and scientists believe that the problem may lie with the artificial restrictions that dogmatic materialism imposes on natural science. Perhaps the natural phenomena on which materialism flounders, such as the Big Bang, the origin of life, the overwhelming evidence for intricate intelligent design in molecular biology, and the immaterial aspects of mental states, are better understood using all four Aristotelian causes -- formal and final causes, as well as material and efficient causes. Perhaps design and teleology play a role in natural science.
To the dogmatic materialist, teleology in nature is a very dangerous inference, because it's incompatible with atheism, which is the materialists' religion. Acceptance of the obvious evidence for design and teleology in nature would force materialists to rethink their worldview, which never comes easy, especially for fundamentalists.
The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It's notable that many of the leading neuroscientists -- Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet -- were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)