Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

"Has science buried god?" Debate/Discussion in Brisbane on August 7th, 2013

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#21  Postby Shrunk » Aug 30, 2013 1:26 pm

Mick wrote: Suppose it is true that final causation and contingency cannot be tested. Presumably, you think falsifiability is necessary. Thus, it follows that science cannot deal with that stuff, but that doesn't imply its non-presence.

That said, the abandonment on final causation was not in light of some rebuttal. You have no scientific basis for affirming that. A familiarity with the history science will tell you that much. This was a switch in models. That said, there were plenty of teleological understandings of evolution, and nothing about evolution entails mechanical philosophy alone.


That's one of the defining differences between methodological naturalism and some other philosophical positions, namely parsimony. While teleology cannot be ruled out thru empirical means, presuming its existence offers no explanatory power beyond that available from a purely mechanical model of the process. Adding teleology to evolutionary theory is like adding fairies to to automotive mechanics; you can describe the workings of the internal combustion engine fully thru mechanical principles alone. Then, if you want to add at the end "But it only works because of the fairies. We can't detect them in any way, but if the fairies weren't there, the engine wouldn't work," no one can falsify your claim. But that would not make it any less superfluous.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#22  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 1:32 pm

Anyway, I watched this discussion. It's not a debate of the kind Craig normally does with multiple rounds of structured rebuttals. Just a more general moderator-guided back and forth.

I like Krauss a lot as an engaging public speaker, educator and popularizer of science. His public lectures are very engaging on the subject of physics and cosmology. But when it comes to his ability to deal with standard theistic crap on morality and the like, he sucks in my opinion. The only thing he did right here was when he exposed Craig's misrepresentations and bullshit in the beginning and pointed out how Craig relies on his audience's lack of training in the subject matters. I've been waiting for someone to call the shithead out on this for a while now, so it was satisfying to see. I can only hope it becomes a common event when Craig debates someone, that they take some time to expose how Craig does these kinds of misrepresentations and underhanded, less than charitable interpretations of his opponents positions often. I'm tired of seeing this charlatan being offered too much undeserved respect.

Anyway, that said, when it comes to defending the atheist viewpoints and responding to standard theistic bullshit on the topics of moral and ethical philosophy, Krauss is pretty crap I'm sorry to say. He spent way too much time being synthetically outraged over nutbaggery Craig's erected in the past about the whole caananites shit, and had laughable non-answers and strange misunderstandings when it came to the points made by Craig and the moderator. The simple fact is that there's much better atheistic answers to these things than whay Krauss came up with, and it was frustrating to listen to his messy rants of only tangential relevance.

This is exactly why I want to see Craig debate someone who has at least comparable expertise in dealing with theistic arguments. Krauss just sort of wings it at an amateurish level, but given his complete lack of experience and training debating this particular subject, he comes off ranting and confused. He rarely made a good point and when he did (like the thing about theological "theories" basically just constituting making shit up to make it fit), didn't know how to carry it effectively through Craig's smokescreens. That takes practice and preparation, none of which Krauss had apparently done.

I only really know of one or two people who has the experience and qualifications to effectively challenge Craig here, and Craig won't debate them. :roll:

On the subject of secular vs theistic morality and ethics, I'd love to see Craig vs Matt Dillahunty or even Richard Carrier.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#23  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 1:38 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:"This video is private"

http://vimeo.com/73280102#at=0
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#24  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 1:48 pm

Fuck, if Krauss had wanted to expose Craig's theistic morality as being reprehensible, he could have run a few clips of Craig talking about the "self destructive homosexual lifestyle" and all that crap. Talk about blowing his opportunity on irrelvant crap.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#25  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 2:48 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:In the article linked by Shrunk, the author says Krauss stated that science discovered no gods were responsible for the laws of nature. That is false. Final causation and contingency are not even considered by science, let alone its methodological naturalism excludes any such theistic explanations in the first place.


You seem to be saying science hasn't discovered gods because scientists aren't looking for them.
Neither final causation nor contingency can be tested. And, in fact, the former makes no sense in light of evolution since there is no end product. I'm sure it was more plausible when the world was fixed and static but we're, most of us, well beyond that.
So where to look next?



Here's what's odd. You said that final causation cannot be tested, and yet apyou also said that evolution has no "
End product" . But if final causation cannot be tested, you cannot say evolution has no 'end product', since that could be affirmed only if it were testable.

Nonsense. Evolution has no end product since it's not a concious process. There is no goal and hence no end product.



Even if that were true, you could only say that if it were indeed falsifiable.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#26  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 3:00 pm

Shrunk wrote: That's one of the defining differences between methodological naturalism and some other philosophical positions, namely parsimony. While teleology cannot be ruled out thru empirical means, presuming its existence offers no explanatory power beyond that available from a purely mechanical model of the process.


Modern science only looks for the mechanistic explanations. That final causation offers nothing in that respect is obvious. That is why scientists need not worry too much about final causes, it is not all too relevant to their project. It is also why I, nor many Catholics, feel threatened by science. It is only when scientists or laymen think that science offers a full explanation do we call foul.


Adding teleology to evolutionary theory is like adding fairies to to automotive mechanics; you can describe the workings of the internal combustion engine fully thru mechanical principles alone. Then, if you want to add at the end "But it only works because of the fairies. We can't detect them in any way, but if the fairies weren't there, the engine wouldn't work," no one can falsify your claim. But that would not make it any less superfluous.


We can agree to disagree here, but even if that were true, my point remains: if they are unfalsifiable, you can't say that there evolution does not involve final causes. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#27  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 3:07 pm

Rumraket wrote:Anyway, I watched this discussion. It's not a debate of the kind Craig normally does with multiple rounds of structured rebuttals. Just a more general moderator-guided back and forth.

I like Krauss a lot as an engaging public speaker, educator and popularizer of science. His public lectures are very engaging on the subject of physics and cosmology. But when it comes to his ability to deal with standard theistic crap on morality and the like, he sucks in my opinion. The only thing he did right here was when he exposed Craig's misrepresentations and bullshit in the beginning and pointed out how Craig relies on his audience's lack of training in the subject matters. I've been waiting for someone to call the shithead out on this for a while now, so it was satisfying to see. I can only hope it becomes a common event when Craig debates someone, that they take some time to expose how Craig does these kinds of misrepresentations and underhanded, less than charitable interpretations of his opponents positions often. I'm tired of seeing this charlatan being offered too much undeserved respect.

Anyway, that said, when it comes to defending the atheist viewpoints and responding to standard theistic bullshit on the topics of moral and ethical philosophy, Krauss is pretty crap I'm sorry to say. He spent way too much time being synthetically outraged over nutbaggery Craig's erected in the past about the whole caananites shit, and had laughable non-answers and strange misunderstandings when it came to the points made by Craig and the moderator. The simple fact is that there's much better atheistic answers to these things than whay Krauss came up with, and it was frustrating to listen to his messy rants of only tangential relevance.

This is exactly why I want to see Craig debate someone who has at least comparable expertise in dealing with theistic arguments. Krauss just sort of wings it at an amateurish level, but given his complete lack of experience and training debating this particular subject, he comes off ranting and confused. He rarely made a good point and when he did (like the thing about theological "theories" basically just constituting making shit up to make it fit), didn't know how to carry it effectively through Craig's smokescreens. That takes practice and preparation, none of which Krauss had apparently done.

I only really know of one or two people who has the experience and qualifications to effectively challenge Craig here, and Craig won't debate them. :roll:

On the subject of secular vs theistic morality and ethics, I'd love to see Craig vs Matt Dillahunty or even Richard Carrier.



Carrier argues like a Aristotelian with his ethics. He seems to be committed to the existence of kinds. Namely, that there really is a sort of thing called human beings; and there really is something that is good for us in virtue of the kind of thing we are. If I know Craig, he will jump on this sort of naturalism with the is-ought distinction, or he might even attack Carrier's brand of realism (Craig seems to be a nominalist), and he will certainly attack the idea that evolution has provided any basis for objective morality.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#28  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 3:08 pm

Mick wrote:
We can agree to disagree here, but even if that were true, my point remains: if they are unfalsifiable, you can't say that there evolution does not involve final causes. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.


Of course we can say that unless you propose the genetic code somehow crytalises at some point leading to no more mutation and variation.

Mmmm! This cake tastes good!

Wanna slice?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44264
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#29  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 3:15 pm

Mick wrote:
Shrunk wrote: That's one of the defining differences between methodological naturalism and some other philosophical positions, namely parsimony. While teleology cannot be ruled out thru empirical means, presuming its existence offers no explanatory power beyond that available from a purely mechanical model of the process.


Modern science only looks for the mechanistic explanations. That final causation offers nothing in that respect is obvious. That is why scientists need not worry too much about final causes, it is not all too relevant to their project. It is also why I, nor many Catholics, feel threatened by science. It is only when scientists or laymen think that science offers a full explanation do we call foul.

Well, it may not offer a full explanation of all the facts, but at least it offers one. And whatever it offers, has some kind of utility value.

Your metaphysical eructations are non-explanations, they don't tell us anything about how things work. They also can't be used to do anything. It's nothing but ad hoc rationalizations.

Mick wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Adding teleology to evolutionary theory is like adding fairies to to automotive mechanics; you can describe the workings of the internal combustion engine fully thru mechanical principles alone. Then, if you want to add at the end "But it only works because of the fairies. We can't detect them in any way, but if the fairies weren't there, the engine wouldn't work," no one can falsify your claim. But that would not make it any less superfluous.


We can agree to disagree here, but even if that were true, my point remains: if they are unfalsifiable, you can't say that there evolution does not involve final causes. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

We also can't falsify Carl Sagan's invisible dragon, but guess what that idea is worth? Your metamphysics seem to have this curiouos property of looking like it was deliberately designed to be untouchable by science. The kind of philosphy and theology you represent was created in response to the almost recurrent event that every time theists made empirical claims, they were eventually falsified. So theologians learned their lesson and came up with ever more vague and incomprehensible conceptions of god's plans, actions and will. Unfortunately for you, this also means you can't use it to do anything tangible with real-world impact. For example, no amount of philosophizing on your part will ever produce a workable vaccine.
Last edited by Rumraket on Aug 30, 2013 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#30  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 3:18 pm

Mick wrote:Carrier argues like a Aristotelian with his ethics. He seems to be committed to the existence of kinds. Namely, that there really is a sort of thing called human beings; and there really is something that is good for us in virtue of the kind of thing we are. If I know Craig, he will jump on this sort of naturalism with the is-ought distinction, or he might even attack Carrier's brand of realism (Craig seems to be a nominalist), and he will certainly attack the idea that evolution has provided any basis for objective morality.

I wouldn't expect Craig to just sit still and do nothing. The reason I'd want to see someone like Carrier debate the subject is that he's at least got experience debating it and has written books about it, unlike Krauss.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#31  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 3:21 pm

Thinking about it - final cause is falsifiable after all. All we need to do is show one instance of speciation. As, too, is the idea that no final cause exists, which would be shown wrong by all species crystallising and becoming fixed and immutable. So I take back what I said the previous page. I was wrong.

BTW - Cookie for guessing which theory has been falsified and therefore should be rejected
Last edited by Animavore on Aug 30, 2013 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44264
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#32  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 3:23 pm

Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:
We can agree to disagree here, but even if that were true, my point remains: if they are unfalsifiable, you can't say that there evolution does not involve final causes. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.


Of course we can say that unless you propose the genetic code somehow crytalises at some point leading to no more mutation and variation.

Mmmm! This cake tastes good!

Wanna slice?



No, again. It is self-defeating in principle. If final causes are untestable and unfalsifiable, then you cannot say there are none. Why? Because that would falsify them.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#33  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 3:25 pm

Animavore wrote:Thinking about it - final cause is falsifiable after all. All we need to do is show one instance of speciation. As, too, is the idea that no final cause exists, which would be shown by all species crystallising and becoming fixed and immutable. So I take back what I said the previous page. I was wrong.

BTW - Cookie for guessing which theory has been falsified and therefore should be rejected?

I could be mistaken, but final causation is different from end-goal?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#34  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 3:25 pm

Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:
We can agree to disagree here, but even if that were true, my point remains: if they are unfalsifiable, you can't say that there evolution does not involve final causes. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.


Of course we can say that unless you propose the genetic code somehow crytalises at some point leading to no more mutation and variation.

Mmmm! This cake tastes good!

Wanna slice?



No, again. It is self-defeating in principle. If final causes are untestable and unfalsifiable, then you cannot say there are none. Why? Because that would falsify them.


I've just admitted I was wrong and have shown that final causes can be and are falsified.
:thumbup:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44264
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#35  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Animavore wrote:Thinking about it - final cause is falsifiable after all. All we need to do is show one instance of speciation. As, too, is the idea that no final cause exists, which would be shown wrong by all species crystallising and becoming fixed and immutable. So I take back what I said the previous page. I was wrong.

BTW - Cookie for guessing which theory has been falsified and therefore should be rejected



You don't know much about final causation, do you? Exactly how much have you read on it?
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#36  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:
We can agree to disagree here, but even if that were true, my point remains: if they are unfalsifiable, you can't say that there evolution does not involve final causes. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.


Of course we can say that unless you propose the genetic code somehow crytalises at some point leading to no more mutation and variation.

Mmmm! This cake tastes good!

Wanna slice?



No, again. It is self-defeating in principle. If final causes are untestable and unfalsifiable, then you cannot say there are none. Why? Because that would falsify them.


I've just admitted I was wrong and have shown that final causes can be and are falsified.
:thumbup:



Well at least we agree you're wrong.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#37  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 3:27 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Animavore wrote:Thinking about it - final cause is falsifiable after all. All we need to do is show one instance of speciation. As, too, is the idea that no final cause exists, which would be shown by all species crystallising and becoming fixed and immutable. So I take back what I said the previous page. I was wrong.

BTW - Cookie for guessing which theory has been falsified and therefore should be rejected?

I could be mistaken, but final causation is different from end-goal?

I don't think so.
Final cause, or telos, is defined as the purpose, end, aim, or goal of something. Like the formal cause, this is a controversial type of cause in science. It is commonly claimed that Aristotle's conception of nature is teleological in the sense that he believed that Nature has goals apart from those that humans have. On the other hand, as will be discussed further below, it has also been claimed that Aristotle thought that a telos can be present without any form of deliberation, consciousness or intelligence. An example of a passage which is discussed in this context is Physics II.8 (from


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44264
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#38  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 3:27 pm

Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:Thinking about it - final cause is falsifiable after all. All we need to do is show one instance of speciation. As, too, is the idea that no final cause exists, which would be shown wrong by all species crystallising and becoming fixed and immutable. So I take back what I said the previous page. I was wrong.

BTW - Cookie for guessing which theory has been falsified and therefore should be rejected



You don't know much about final causation, do you? Exactly how much have you read on it?


This much http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44264
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#39  Postby Shrunk » Aug 30, 2013 3:29 pm

Mick wrote:Modern science only looks for the mechanistic explanations. That final causation offers nothing in that respect is obvious. That is why scientists need not worry too much about final causes, it is not all too relevant to their project. It is also why I, nor many Catholics, feel threatened by science. It is only when scientists or laymen think that science offers a full explanation do we call foul.


I guess that hinges on what one means by "full". And, moreover, what on expects of an "explanation". Fairies could "explain" a lot about how an automobile works, if one wishes them to.


Adding teleology to evolutionary theory is like adding fairies to to automotive mechanics; you can describe the workings of the internal combustion engine fully thru mechanical principles alone. Then, if you want to add at the end "But it only works because of the fairies. We can't detect them in any way, but if the fairies weren't there, the engine wouldn't work," no one can falsify your claim. But that would not make it any less superfluous.


We can agree to disagree here, but even if that were true, my point remains: if they are unfalsifiable, you can't say that there evolution does not involve final causes.


No, no more than you can say automotive engineering does not involve fairies. Both claims have exactly the same amount of evidentiary support and explanatory value. For some reason, however, no one seems to take seriously anyone who claims their car is run by fairies. Odd, that.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#40  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 3:34 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Mick wrote:Modern science only looks for the mechanistic explanations. That final causation offers nothing in that respect is obvious. That is why scientists need not worry too much about final causes, it is not all too relevant to their project. It is also why I, nor many Catholics, feel threatened by science. It is only when scientists or laymen think that science offers a full explanation do we call foul.


I guess that hinges on what one means by "full". And, moreover, what on expects of an "explanation". Fairies could "explain" a lot about how an automobile works, if one wishes them to.


Adding teleology to evolutionary theory is like adding fairies to to automotive mechanics; you can describe the workings of the internal combustion engine fully thru mechanical principles alone. Then, if you want to add at the end "But it only works because of the fairies. We can't detect them in any way, but if the fairies weren't there, the engine wouldn't work," no one can falsify your claim. But that would not make it any less superfluous.


We can agree to disagree here, but even if that were true, my point remains: if they are unfalsifiable, you can't say that there evolution does not involve final causes.


No, no more than you can say automotive engineering does not involve fairies. Both claims have exactly the same amount of evidentiary support and explanatory value. For some reason, however, no one seems to take seriously anyone who claims their car is run by fairies. Odd, that.


That depends if the fairy hypothesis is falsifiable or not.

Now whether someone take it seriously or not is another question. But as a matter of logic, you cannot entertain that the hypothesis is unfalsifiable and then go on to deeming it false. That is a classic mistake made by laymen atheists when dealing with creationism.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest