On SETI, the Brain/Mind Problem and the Best Explanation of the Evidence
I'm carrying on an email exchange with an old friend who studied under Norman Geisler and did further Ph.D. work in philosophy. He had asked me about the SETI project and what it would take for me to accept that there might be extra-terrestrial life in the universe as a parallel to accepting the evidence that there might be a supernatural intelligent being, God. Here are my rambling thoughts on this:
I have not written about SETI in my book as an example of anything. I guess it's mere hypothetical since there is as of yet no evidence of ET's. But if we did have such evidence then we would have to calculate the probabilities and say something like, there is a 45% chance that ET's exist (or 75%, or even 90%) depending on the data. But there is a difference between evidence for ET's and a god, because said evidence would be within this universe. That is, the waves we experience would be physical evidence since that's what wave lengths represent. And from this evidence scientists (qua scientists) would never postulate a supernatural explanation or force or being as the best explanation for this evidence.
I don't know if you know James Sennett. A grad of LCC/LCS who wrote a couple books on Plantinga and other stuff. He experienced a crisis of doubt when he pondered the brain/mind problem. This problem is as serious of a problem as what theists have with the existence of massive intense suffering. Unless you can solve that problem for me I cannot take seriously any beliefs in gods, spirits, poltergeists, out of body experiences, or miracles performed in the physical world by a spiritual God.
On the one hand you claim to have a supernatural explanation of the evidence. On the other hand you have an insoluble philosophical problem. If I must accept the god of the gaps type of explanation of the evidence and along with it embrace an insoluble philosophical problem, then I must reject the the god of the gaps explanation as the best explanation of the evidence. For an insoluble philosophical problem carries with it much more weight, since one cannot kick against the goads of reason when I already have difficulties accepting the god hypothesis as an explanation in the first place.
Here's what you're doing (if I may presume to tell you). You have unexplained phenomena like noises in the night, or a complex universe. Then you postulate your particular God as the solution, the god of the gaps. But as I've said, any supernatural explanation will do once that type of explanation is allowed. On this you should see Gregory Dawes, Theism and Explanation, the second best atheist book of the past decade. *ahem*
My contention is that scientists, historians, psychologists, biologists, geologists, astronomers, physicians, chemists, meteorologists, and physicists must all assume a natural explanation for any and all phenomena. And since I reject faith as a way to cross the bridge from the sciences to some conclusion then you have no evidence for your beliefs. You have made an unjustifiable Kierkegaardian leap of faith. I don't know what you think of Kiekegaard but that's all you're left with. Is there a possibility that I'm wrong about this? Yes. But the probabilities are on my side. And even if I am wrong you can never claim to the kind of certainty that most believers do. You know what I'm talking about. Christians who claim to have no doubt are simply fooling themselves. The only thing we can claim not to doubt is our existence, and maybe not even that.
I have not written about SETI in my book as an example of anything. I guess it's mere hypothetical since there is as of yet no evidence of ET's. But if we did have such evidence then we would have to calculate the probabilities and say something like, there is a 45% chance that ET's exist (or 75%, or even 90%) depending on the data. But there is a difference between evidence for ET's and a god, because said evidence would be within this universe. That is, the waves we experience would be physical evidence since that's what wave lengths represent. And from this evidence scientists (qua scientists) would never postulate a supernatural explanation or force or being as the best explanation for this evidence.
I don't know if you know James Sennett. A grad of LCC/LCS who wrote a couple books on Plantinga and other stuff. He experienced a crisis of doubt when he pondered the brain/mind problem. This problem is as serious of a problem as what theists have with the existence of massive intense suffering. Unless you can solve that problem for me I cannot take seriously any beliefs in gods, spirits, poltergeists, out of body experiences, or miracles performed in the physical world by a spiritual God.
On the one hand you claim to have a supernatural explanation of the evidence. On the other hand you have an insoluble philosophical problem. If I must accept the god of the gaps type of explanation of the evidence and along with it embrace an insoluble philosophical problem, then I must reject the the god of the gaps explanation as the best explanation of the evidence. For an insoluble philosophical problem carries with it much more weight, since one cannot kick against the goads of reason when I already have difficulties accepting the god hypothesis as an explanation in the first place.
Here's what you're doing (if I may presume to tell you). You have unexplained phenomena like noises in the night, or a complex universe. Then you postulate your particular God as the solution, the god of the gaps. But as I've said, any supernatural explanation will do once that type of explanation is allowed. On this you should see Gregory Dawes, Theism and Explanation, the second best atheist book of the past decade. *ahem*
My contention is that scientists, historians, psychologists, biologists, geologists, astronomers, physicians, chemists, meteorologists, and physicists must all assume a natural explanation for any and all phenomena. And since I reject faith as a way to cross the bridge from the sciences to some conclusion then you have no evidence for your beliefs. You have made an unjustifiable Kierkegaardian leap of faith. I don't know what you think of Kiekegaard but that's all you're left with. Is there a possibility that I'm wrong about this? Yes. But the probabilities are on my side. And even if I am wrong you can never claim to the kind of certainty that most believers do. You know what I'm talking about. Christians who claim to have no doubt are simply fooling themselves. The only thing we can claim not to doubt is our existence, and maybe not even that.