Writing the previous post I quoted a variation on a well-known principle in science and law: “Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in spiritu”. The last word of this variation is different from the original, which is as follows: Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu”.
I quoted it because of the primary reaction I assumed to have motivated Dr. Ronald Plasterk to polemise against Mrs. Verhoeven, the Minister of Education, when she considered to promote Intelligent Design in schools. The question is: can we know something that we didn't first observe with our senses? Plasterk is an atheist biologist, and is opposed against anything that looks like a divine interference in natural processes. When a Minister of Education says something sympathetic about Intelligent Design, the adrenaline in Plasterk’s body will get a push.
I quoted it because of the primary reaction I assumed to have motivated Dr. Ronald Plasterk to polemise against Mrs. Verhoeven, the Minister of Education, when she considered to promote Intelligent Design in schools. The question is: can we know something that we didn't first observe with our senses? Plasterk is an atheist biologist, and is opposed against anything that looks like a divine interference in natural processes. When a Minister of Education says something sympathetic about Intelligent Design, the adrenaline in Plasterk’s body will get a push.
On the other hand, Dr. Plasterk is (at least I assume he is) an empiricist. The empiricist’s principle is that “nothing can be in our intellect (our thinking) that we didn’t first have observed with our senses”. See this website for further explanation. So he is smart, and thinks of his career, he has to deal with people with whom he has experiences, and covers up his spiritual emotions with rationalist arguments, and says that “the state must not interfere with religious education in schools”, thus following the very rational principle of separation of State and Church. In this argument he won, and Mrs. Verhoeven had to withdraw her considerations.
I recently I saw a debate between a Jewish rabbi and another rational “evolutionist” brain-surgeon (an atheist of course) whose name I regretfully forgot, who mentioned the word “spirit” as a real human characteristic. I was almost flabbergasted and turned the sound louder with the zapper. But to my disappointment he located this spirit in a certain brain area, and identified it with that area. The rabbi could only argue that this wasn’t true and how could we feel that God was with us if He hadn’t … and stuff. I wish I was there to discuss, but I was only a TV watcher.
I think the professor wasn’t able to understand something beyond “nothing can be in our intellect (our thinking) that we didn’t first have observed with our senses”, or, better, “nothing exists that we cannot observe with our senses”. Even John Locke (see website) acknowledged, that we are limited by our senses, implying that it is very well possible that things exist we cannot observe. That’s one. Two: suppose that only those things exist that we can observe, how come that they exist, and how come that we exist, observing them? That’s where the atheist stops, avoiding this question as “irrational”, just like the rabbi reasoning in a circle.
Does God exist and did (does) He create?
Rabbi: Yes, because the Scriptures say so, and I feel His presence.
Atheist: No, because nobody can see him, and I don’t feel his presence.
Rabbi: It is impossible that so complex organisms can originate from random genetic variation processes.
Atheist: Yes, it is, and these processes are not random, but follow comprehensible, observable algorithms.
Rabbi: See, I got you! There must be an Intelligence who ordered the gene mutation to follow these algorithms!
Atheist: Come on, rabbi, this confirms that nature is alorithming itself!
I sympathise with the rabbi, but the brain-surgeon made me doubt. Let me follow my spirit, and not my senses. As John Locke says: senses are good for day-to-day life. By the way, TV can be very educational. I saw part of an interview with one of the big restaurant-entrepreneurs in HOlland, Mr. Gerrit van der Valk. He is renown because he can hardly read ("let alone English", as he said) but has a phenomenal entrepreneurial instinct and charisma. He was asked: what is the most important lesson you learnt from your father? He replied: keep your ears and eyes open, and your mouth shut. Also Jesus recommends us: "he who has ears, let him hear". I am certain (no doubt about this with me) that Jesus intended to say "listen to the voice of the Spirit". No matter whether this can be done by a lump of brain and chemical processes, or by an invisible ghost-phenomenon, maybe it's both.
3 comments:
I'ver recently received a book about Intelligent Design for which I will be writing a review. I haven't yet formed an opinion about whether it is actually based on science or is religion masquerading as science. That, of course, is the big question behind all the controversy.
As you know, my view is that God created everything, including evolutionary processes. I just don't know yet whether Intelligent Design describes God's activity more accurately than other evolutionary theories. I've still got lots of learning to do.
Evie, so do I. But I'm afraid there is a lot of confusion and that many ID-ers have different views. My opinion was always that evolution is undebatable, but that its "engine", the genes-mutations leading to more adaptation of a species, could not be a series of random events. Now I learnt that it doesn't seem to be random, but a logically explainable series of algorithmic events. I think I'm just beginning to understand what mostly atheist biology-scientists mean, and that from a scientific viewpoint they are right. But I maintain that this is not a "proof"that there is no God, and I still believe that man as a moral being is a carrier of God's intentions, morality, as atheists believe, cannot be derived from man alone. I look forward to your book review. What I appreciate is that you make no distinction between "literature" and "reading stuff", both are valuable, people can choose for themselves and I think you do it for them.
Erik, Douglas Hofstadter's book Godel, Escher, Bach is just for you. One of the points he makes is that meaning (or patterns) actually tends to appear.
I find it hilarious that you, a Dutchman, are apparently more conservative (if perhaps only slightly) than me, an American. A Southern American.
Post a Comment