Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Mormons and Science


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/71097

Science professors don't view evolution as an 'either-or' proposition

By Alicia Moulton - 9 Feb 2009

Most biology faculty and students do not have a problem reconciling faith with their study of evolution, and many even find it spiritually inspiring.

"Too often we assume a false dichotomy," said biology professor Jerry Johnson. "Yet one can accept evolution and still be a faithful follower of Christ."

Students study evolution every semester, whether in the senior capstone class Biology 420, evolutionary biology, or in Biology 100. Charles Darwin's theories are not a controversial side-topic for the sciences but a core, connecting theme.

Johnson and biology department chair Keith Crandall referred to a quote by geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky that "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution."

BYU biology professors Johnson, Crandall, Michael Whiting and Jack Sites said they have had positive experiences teaching evolution and few problems. They are careful to teach evolution so students' concerns are addressed, and they spend time in class discussing the issues. Professors resolve religious questions by referring students to the packet of LDS First Presidency statements on evolution. They said they pay close attention to feedback on student ratings and that many students say taking the class strengthened their testimonies.

"We spend time dispelling the myth that evolution and religion are incompatible," Johnson said. "We try to unburden students from the idea of either-or. That's baggage they don't have to carry."

"Faith-affirming" evolution

Johnson said his study of evolution has not diminished his faith, but has strengthened it by giving him a greater understanding of the creation.

"It gives me insight into the creator's mechanism," Johnson said. "I hope every student comes out of my class with a greater testimony of the creation God has made."

Whiting, who teaches a Book of Mormon class this semester as well as evolutionary biology, said he finds it much more impressive to view God creating species through the mechanism of evolution rather than individually.

"I find it very faith-affirming," Whiting said. "We learn about the nature of the creator."

Johnson said sometimes fitting together science and religion does create challenges, but students should not let this become a roadblock.

He gave an analogy of building a rock wall. When he finds a good rock, but it doesn't fit into the wall, instead of throwing it out, he sets it aside to see if it will fit later. Johnson said often in biology, religion and life, all the answers do not come immediately, but that does not mean we should discard good ideas, such as evolution.

"We need to be careful not to think that we understand everything, both from a science and religious perspective," Johnson said. "It's OK not to have all the answers."

Professors said it helped students to understand the view of the creation in LDS theology, which does not always align with traditional interpretations of the creation story in Genesis.

"The first thing is to realize we are not creationists the way the world understands it," Crandall said.

He said understanding this makes it easier to fit the two together.

Evolution at BYU

Professors do not avoid the topic of evolution at BYU or modify Darwin's theories in class.

"We're teaching a solid, rigorous evolution course," Johnson said.

Johnson said in national standardized exams, Biology 420 students score higher in evolution and ecology than the national averages.

Johnson and Sites completed their post-doctoral teaching at other universities before coming to BYU, and found that students of all faiths are interested in knowing how evolution fits in with their beliefs.

"You might be surprised to learn that I've had the exact same questions about evolution and religion asked of me everywhere I've taught," Johnson said.

Rather than finding greater conflicts at BYU, professors said there were greater opportunities.

"We have the best of both worlds," Whiting said. "We can teach in the light of the restored gospel. [When students have a] better understanding of evolution, they realize their faith isn't being challenged."

Johnson said evolution is his favorite class to teach and that he hopes every biology class will cover it. He said questions regarding evolution will come up wherever his students go after leaving BYU, and it is a benefit to be able to discuss these topics while they are here.

"I'd much rather have my students wrestle with hard questions here at BYU where they can be basked in [this] environment, than somewhere else," he said.

The distinction between science and religion

Most biology majors do not have a problem studying evolution and some tire of the religion-evolution debate.

"The constant debate wears you out after the first day," said Mike Streeter, a junior from Tucson, Ariz., majoring in physiology and developmental biology.

Many do not find a problem because they see science and religion as distinct spheres with their own unique functions.

"When we talk about evolution, it's just facts and what you can observe," said Aaron Fordham, a senior from Byron, Ill., majoring in biology. "I can view evolution as a very good mechanism to understand our natural surroundings and still have a testimony."

Fordham and other students said LDS First Presidency statements on evolution were helpful.

Caitlin Nichols, a sophomore from Orange, Calif., majoring in molecular biology, said she thinks it is important to learn about evolution as a science.

"I don't think science has to conflict with religion," Nichols said.

Sites said he is opposed to requiring public schools to teach religious views of the creation alongside evolution in science classes because religion is not science. He said religion has a separate place.

"Science can figure out the laws and how they work, but it can't ask 'where did the laws come from?'" he said. "Science is not equipped to do it. That's not its purpose."

He said if he put God as the one who orchestrated those laws, there is never any conflict.

Good from Darwin

While some may not know where Darwin fits in the rock wall, professors say his theories have many positive contributions.

"It's amazing to think of all the applications the theory of evolution has in daily life that we take for granted," Johnson said.

Among these are advances in medicine, agriculture, conservation, vaccine development and research to understand HIV and other diseases using knowledge of viral evolution.

"All these advances are firmly anchored in the theory of evolution," Johnson said. "To tout this as an evil thing is a paradox. I think it's the opposite. It is a blessing of knowledge that we know how evolution works."

Darwin's theories have not only benefited biology, but all the life sciences.

Geology professor Brooks Britt said Darwin's theories are integral to everything he teaches. Surrounded by an office with dinosaur bones and fossils, he studies and teaches what he calls "genealogy in deep time," the lineage and relationships of prehistoric species such as dinosaurs.

The concepts of evolution enable paleontologists to find how dinosaurs are related to birds, crocodiles and other species, through identifying common features on bones and fossils.

"This earth isn't static," Britt said. "Organisms have changed dramatically. [Evolution] is the glue that binds biology and paleontology together."

Whiting said much good comes from competent biologists who understand evolution. He said LDS biologists refuted claims that challenged the credibility of the Book of Mormon because they understood DNA signatures.

"I think that evolutionary biology has not only blessed humankind but the church and students," Whiting said.

Sites said the theories of Darwin and colleague Alfred Wallace are the landmark story of biology, followed only by the discovery of the DNA molecule in the 1950s.

"It's our story in biology," Sites said. "It has important lessons for us, so it ought to be taught."

Link to comment

http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/71097

Science professors don't view evolution as an 'either-or' proposition

SNIP

Sorry TSS, not good enough.

Even giving lip-service to evolutionary theory necessitates complete abandonment of supernatural faith-based belief.

In fact, I would prefer you not to speak Darwin's name as long you continue to hold your magic-based worldview.

Link to comment

B: It is hard to distinguish Magical Thinking in those models

You said this is false. I agree.

The problem is I never said that.

I said:

Given the insufficiency of most views of causation, ever since Kant and Hume, it is hard to distinguish what is "magical thinking" and what is not

Very different. It will be a good exercise for you to analyze the differences. Clue: the first statement says nothing about models. Causal modeling is highly sophisticated statistical modeling which wouldn't even acknowledge magical thinking as a variable.

Notice I also never acknowledged "magical thinking" or "magic" as the cause of anything. I do not believe in the "supernatural". I believe that revelation is a natural process we don't fully understand. I said that given the state of the arguments about causation, "it is hard to distinguish what is 'magical thinking' and what is not.

The statement was not about causation, but about how we THINK about causation, but I don't know if you understand the difference.

You said:

So in other words, any serious model of causation thats going to appear in journals and books, is going to have a method of dealing with spurious causation (pseudo processes or magical thinking).

You didn't understand the quotes. "Spurious causation" IS the problem, but that is not synonymous with "magical thinking". Even taking your side for a moment and agreeing that "magical thinking" is ONE TYPE of "spurious causation" (which is not what I am saying) the problem is much larger. The problem is that NO causation can be proven logically and never will. Statistically, perhaps it can be proven to a "reasonable" degree whatever that means in a given context. But logically, there are always other factors which might be the cause of anything. THAT is what "spurious causation" means.

If you had actually read the articles you would understand that. I don't think magical thinking is mentioned anywhere in any of those articles.

They are about other issues, the much larger issues in causation theory.

My original point was a simple one, and it still stands. The reality is that there is much about the world we don't understand. I suppose you don't understand that yet.

Although the

details are quite important and nothing if not controversial, it looks as if the Causal

Markov axiom might not hold in quantum mechanical systems. Why it should hold in

macroscopic systems when it might not hold for their constituents is a mystery.

Mystery is all around us, but you really need to learn some philosophy, because it appears that it is one big mystery to you.

Good. I'm pretty convinced you can't actually discuss Philosophy outside of soundbytes and look forward to actually seeing you deal with Casual Models in some kind of manner that isn't, "Read XXX [insert smilely here] "

Did you get your wish?

Link to comment
Pahoran,

In response to your acknowledgement and gratitude for how the vast majority of Mormons reject robust scientific findings, all I can say is this:

I rest my case.

-Analytics

"Analytics,"

as you perfectly well know, I made no such "acknowledgement" as you assert.

What was your "case" again? Something to do with your well-known love of manipulative word games?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

You said this is false. I agree.

The problem is I never said that.

You did say that, but you can't defend it, so you want to divorce it.

Very different. It will be a good exercise for you to analyze the differences. Clue: the first statement says nothing about models. Causal modeling is highly sophisticated statistical modeling which wouldn't even acknowledge magical thinking as a variable.

Your wikipedia link reads as follows:

A causal model is an abstract model that uses cause and effect logic to describe the behaviour of a system.

On just that definition alone, Aristotelian Causality fits the bill. I'm not setting any precedent by saying "Models of Causality" to mean any coherent system that purports to explain causality as demonstrated by this abstract;

This paper argues that Kant's model of causality cannot consist in one temporally determinate event causing another, as Hume had thought, since such a model is inconsistent with mutual interaction, to which Kant is committed in the Third Analogy. Rather causality occurs when one substance actively exercises its causal powers according to the unchanging grounds that constitute its nature so as to determine a change of state of another substance. Because this model invokes unchanging grounds, one can understand how Kant could have thought that causal laws could be justified. Further, because this model, along with the broader ontology it presupposes, is radically different from Hume's, Kant's Second Analogy cannot be understood as a refutation of Hume's position on Hume's own terms; instead, Kant must be proposing an alternative view that competes against Hume's thoroughgoing empiricist account.

I would think it would be fairly obvious to the reader that the phrase, "models of causality" is not the equivelent of the casual modeling found in statistics (i.e. regression analysis) and is a categorical mistake to equate the two.

Notice I also never acknowledged "magical thinking" or "magic" as the cause of anything. I do not believe in the "supernatural".

And you don't need to. When people acuse Mormons of magical thinking, the only definition that applies is mistakes in correlation and causation

The statement was not about causation, but about how we THINK about causation, but I don't know if you understand the difference

That is how I understood you. My point is, no matter what model or idea of causation you adhere to, there are methods of spoting/dealing with magical thinking (mistakes in correlation and causation)

You didn't understand the quotes. "Spurious causation" IS the problem, but that is not synonymous with "magical thinking".

Then you need to provide a definition of magical thinking that fits the context of your sentence that doesn't include mistakes in correlation and causation.

The problem is that NO causation can be proven logically and never will.

What does "proven logically" even mean? Are you talking about logical validity or some doxastic method of assigning a truth value to a logical proposition?

But logically, there are always other factors which might be the cause of anything. THAT is what "spurious causation" means

lol, I can't tell if I'm being trolled here or you are serious.

Did you get your wish?

No, but you met my expectations. You made a statement that is just plain wrong, but instead of just admitting it, you try to divorce yourself from it by avoiding any senseible definitions and trying to derail the discussion with really odd notions that statistical casual modeling is the same as the phrase "models of causality", painful red herrings about me not understanding that life has mystery and other antics.

Link to comment

You did say that, but you can't defend it, so you want to divorce it.

CFR. The word "model" never appears in the original quote.

Emphasis added:

On just that definition alone, Aristotelian Causality fits the bill. ...

I would think it would be fairly obvious to the reader that the phrase, "models of causality" is not the equivelent of the casual modeling found in statistics (i.e. regression analysis) and is a categorical mistake to equate the two. ...

And you don't need to. When people acuse Mormons of magical thinking, the only definition that applies is mistakes in correlation and causation...

That is how I understood you. My point is, no matter what model or idea of causation you adhere to, there are methods of spoting/dealing with magical thinking (mistakes in correlation and causation) ...

Then you need to provide a definition of magical thinking that fits the context of your sentence that doesn't include mistakes in correlation and causation....

What does "proven logically" even mean? Are you talking about logical validity or some doxastic method of assigning a truth value to a logical proposition?...

You made a statement that is just plain wrong, but instead of just admitting it, you try to divorce yourself from it by avoiding any senseible definitions and trying to derail the discussion with really odd notions that statistical casual modeling is the same as the phrase "models of causality", painful red herrings about me not understanding that life has mystery and other antics.

Given the insufficiency of most views of causation, ever since Kant and Hume, it is hard to distinguish what is "magical thinking" and what is not.

As usual, it tends to be all in the definitions of the terms.

We can debate these definitions til doomsday, it is a useless exercise. Causality cannot be logically proven. That was my purpose, and that has been amply shown.

I stand by my original post.

Link to comment

I would think it would be fairly obvious to the reader that the phrase, "models of causality" is not the equivelent of the casual modeling found in statistics (i.e. regression analysis) and is a categorical mistake to equate the two.

Yeah, let's take a poll on that one.

Link to comment

CFR. The word "model" never appears in the original quote.

What does CFR stand for?

We can debate these definitions til doomsday, it is a useless exercise.

It's an exercise in analysis, for example...

Causality cannot be logically proven.

I don't understand what "logically proven" here means. For example, do you mean the proof used to justify a Deductive argument? Or an argument that is just logically valid? Or something about the truth value of a logical statement? I don't know if I can agree to disagree to this, much less even express it in terms you'd find acceptable.

Yeah, let's take a poll on that one.

When the author of the abstract I provided, speaks of Kant's "model of causality", do you think he means a "highly sophisticated statistical modeling" ?

Link to comment

What does CFR stand for?

It means "call for reference" and it's used when there is a dispute over what was said.

If the reference cannot be produced, the statement must be retracted.

Link to comment

When the author of the abstract I provided, speaks of Kant's "model of causality", do you think he means a "highly sophisticated statistical modeling" ?

What does that have to do with anything?

Link to comment

It's an exercise in analysis, for example...

It would be a discussion or exercise about causation- which would have no conclusion. The issues have not been resolved for 2 thousand years, we are not going to resolve them here, and the topic itself is irrelevant to the purposes of the forum, and besides, it is not very interesting. The issue is unresolvable imo. It is a question of definitions, as are all philosophical problems. The subject of philosophy is how we think about things, and that means the issues are only logical and linguistic.

I don't understand what "logically proven" here means. For example, do you mean the proof used to justify a Deductive argument? Or an argument that is just logically valid? Or something about the truth value of a logical statement? I don't know if I can agree to disagree to this, much less even express it in terms you'd find acceptable.
It cannot be proven deductively and is ultimately an inductive problem, which is why statistical analysis is the only way you can even get close to an answer. There are always so many possible variables in any causation problem you can never prove with certainty WHAT exactly was the cause of anything.

You are in a wreck on a rainy day. What was the "cause"? Was it the rain, or that you were going too fast, or that you didn't brake soon enough, or that the other car was too close, or that you were on your phone? Or that you didn't have breakfast and were a little foggy? Or didn't get enough sleep last night? Was it because of the great movie that came on at bed time, but you decided to watch anyway? Was it your girlfriend's fault for jilting you on the phone just as you were supposed to be braking the car? Or was it your parent's fault for having a child in the first place?

If any of those things did not happen, the accident would not have happened. So what was the cause? Were they all the cause? Then what else? If you had left home a little later or a little earlier it would not have happened either. So was the cause what did not happen to prevent the crash?

It can go on forever.

Some of those are plausible some are not, but what was the cause? It is a question of definitons, of points of view, something to be decided by a jury of your peers rather arbitrarily ultimately.

There is always another possible cause for anything, and as we saw, even in physics it is sometimes just a plain "mystery". It is unknowable.

It all depends on your purposes and what you are trying to show, but it does not rely on anything that can be proven with certainty. Even using statistical models, you will never get to 100% absolute certainty. You can show in the above scenario, how much was contributed by each factor, but did you get all the factors? And you still don't have 100%

I got out of philosophy for a reason. I don't want to spend my life quibbling over words. I am only in it to defend what I see as the truth.

Link to comment

What does that have to do with anything?

I said:

B: It is hard to distinguish Magical Thinking in those models

You replied with:

The problem is I never said that. I said: Given the insufficiency of most views of causation, ever since Kant and Hume, it is hard to distinguish what is "magical thinking" and what is not

"It is hard to distinguish Magical Thinking in those models" -- logically entails -- "it is hard to distinguish what is "magical thinking" and what is not"

Any claim that I'm misrepresenting your views with a more concise statement is just a stillborn message board tactic.

You then said this:

Clue: the first statement says nothing about models.

I'm awestruck why you would even state this. All "views of causation" are models. To even confuse me further you go on...

Causal modeling is highly sophisticated statistical modeling which wouldn't even acknowledge magical thinking as a variable.

Why you even bothered to link Wikipedia here is lost on me, since it says:

A causal model is an abstract model that uses cause and effect logic to describe the behaviour of a system.

Which doesn't even come close to "highly sophisticated statistical modeling" What are you even trying to accomplish here? Trying to be charitable to your viewpoint, I thought maybe you meant that "model of casuality" was the same thing as "casual modeling" and showed you an abstract from a journal that talks about Kant's "model of casuality" in a sense that is obviously not a "highly sophisticated statistical modeling." Stunned at all of this I say:

I would think it would be fairly obvious to the reader that the phrase, "models of causality" is not the equivelent of the casual modeling found in statistics (i.e. regression analysis) and is a categorical mistake to equate the two.

And your riposte would be:

Yeah, let's take a poll on that one.

Confused how you missed all of this, I ask...

When the author of the abstract I provided, speaks of Kant's "model of causality", do you think he means a "highly sophisticated statistical modeling" ?

And your reply is:

What does that have to do with anything?

mega_shok.gif

My favorite non sequitur in this entire exchange is this...

We can debate these definitions til doomsday, it is a useless exercise. Causality cannot be logically proven. That was my purpose, and that has been amply shown.

LOL! We go from debating definitions is a useless exercise to causality cannot be logically proven in one breath right before you claim some sort of victory. Why you even bothered to post these walls of text, talking about the futility of philosophy and linguistics and how it doesn't interest you is beyond me and so far from the whole topic, it's not even in left field. This whole exchange is about one statement you made that is false...

Given the insufficiency of most views of causation, ever since Kant and Hume, it is hard to distinguish what is "magical thinking" and what is not.

The underlined part of this statement is false.

(A)- ...it is hard to distinguish what is "magical thinking" and what is not

(1)- The only definition of "magical thinking" that applies to Mormons is mistakes in correlation and causation

(2)- All modern models of casuality attempt to deal with mistakes in correlation and causation in some way

(3)- (A) is negated by way of (1) & (2)

Link to comment

Ok this is now a new thread, or at least I am responding only to you. You persist in your ambiguities and references to misunderstandings.

1-Define "magical thinking"

2- Make your point about Mormons and magical thinking as concisely as possible.

Link to comment

Ok this is now a new thread, or at least I am responding only to you. You persist in your ambiguities and references to misunderstandings.

This just kills me. At first I thought you were saying empty phrases as a way to tease long detailed posts out of me, but I've come to the conclusion you have some sort of handicap following any sort of deductive or inductive arguments in any fashion. I mean, you want to talk of ambiguities....

We can debate these definitions til doomsday, it is a useless exercise.

This is your pat answer to a lot of things and at first, I didn't take it seriously becuase I thought it might be part of some in crowd joke that I wasn't privy to. But you really think that comment means something and I'm just floored you don't see it as a useless tautology. All you've managed to say with your quibble of definitions is, " If things were defined differently, they would be different." That kind of response lacks any substance of serious thinking.

I got out of philosophy for a reason. I don't want to spend my life quibbling over words. I am only in it to defend what I see as the truth.

Thats your problem. You are trying to use something thats primarily used as a method of inquiry and use it to defend cherished beliefs at any costs. I think this is part of the reason you seem to scoff at any attempt to array an argument into a logical form with proofs.

1-Define "magical thinking"

I'd like to welcome you to the thread and to the discussion we've been having.

When it comes to models of causation, the only coherent way to understanding what is implied by magical thinking, is with the notion that it is a mistake in correlation and causation, or in other terms, pseudo processes.

And you don't need to. When people acuse Mormons of magical thinking, the only definition that applies is mistakes in correlation and causation

That is how I understood you. My point is, no matter what model or idea of causation you adhere to, there are methods of spoting/dealing with magical thinking (mistakes in correlation and causation)

(A)- ...it is hard to distinguish what is "magical thinking" and what is not

(1)- The only definition of "magical thinking" that applies to Mormons is mistakes in correlation and causation

(2)- All modern models of casuality attempt to deal with mistakes in correlation and causation in some way

(3)- (A) is negated by way of (1) & (2)

I also asked you this.....

Then you need to provide a definition of magical thinking that fits the context of your sentence that doesn't include mistakes in correlation and causation.

Not only have I defined it 4 times, I even invited you to wager your own. Did you plan to getting around this or were you going to continue to harp on things that don't even pertain to the topic?

2- Make your point about Mormons and magical thinking as concisely as possible.

...........

Take for example Joseph Smith placing two stones in a hat to receive some sort of spiritual ability to understand the gold plates and read them aloud, how could this fit into a coherent model of causation that could satisfy the criteria mentioned the articles above? Can you imagine trying to put that into a neuron or diagram model? There are plenty sticks in the Mormon metaphysical mud.

Link to comment
The only definition of "magical thinking" that applies to Mormons is mistakes in correlation and causation

I still don't know what that means.

You haven't answered my question, all you've done is hurl insults.

So you are saying that all instances of mistakes in correlation and causation are defined as "magical thinking"? Or are you saying that there is only one definition of magical thinking which applies to Mormons, and that definition = "mistakes in correlation and causation"?

It would be useful to define what constitutes a "mistake" in correlation and causation when there are many possible causes or correlations for any possible phenomenon as the articles you have posted have pointed out.

It seems that such mistakes are crucial to you position, so I would wonder how one would know if one has made such a "mistake"?

In the example I posted about the auto accident, what would be a "mistaken" cause or correlation?

Let's try to keep this simple and forget the insults, ok?

I am coming from a Pragmatic and Wittgensteinian perspective in which most alleged problems in philosophy are due to linguistic confusion. I think you do not come from that perspective. Please tell me what school of philosophy is most interesting to you, or which are your "favorite" philosophers; that may facilitate communication.

Link to comment
Take for example Joseph Smith placing two stones in a hat to receive some sort of spiritual ability to understand the gold plates and read them aloud, how could this fit into a coherent model of causation that could satisfy the criteria mentioned the articles above? Can you imagine trying to put that into a neuron or diagram model? There are plenty sticks in the Mormon metaphysical mud

I think such a "neuron model" would be very similar to such a model formed to account for dreams and visions, and combining that with the epistemology of William James as expressed in the "Varieties of Religious Experience", it would be very easy to fit it into a causal model, depending on precisely what you mean by that. Dreams and beliefs often cause actions-- in fact your posting here is caused by your belief that I am wrong.

Link to comment

"obscurantisme terroriste"?

We shall see!

It's humbling to know I have so many fans in gehenna.

If you have something to say, say it to my face, not behind my back. After all, you still have posting privileges here for a while.

Link to comment

Is belief in a God a characteristic of magical thinking?

It depends on your definitions

Link to comment

(A1) Evident correlation is the case that we have strong justification for believing that events X and Y happened at tN. Example being: X and Y both happened at t1,t3,t5 and t9

(A2) non-evident correlation is the case that there are certain factors that diminish the strength of justification. Examples being: X did happen at t1,t3 and t5 but Y only may happened at t3 and t5.

(A3) Probable causation is the case that we are able to draw strong inferences from a set of data and can give a reasonable explanation and defense of a probable cause for the correlation between events X and Y

(A4) Improbable causation is the case that we are only able to draw weak or dubious inferences from a set of data and cannot give a reasonable explanation and defense of probable cause for the correlation between events X and Y.

(A5) Magical thinking is when we engage unknowingly in improbable causation or use non-evident correlation and draw conclusions from weak inferences and /or dubious evidence. Part of the non causa pro causa (non-cause for cause) fallacy family.

(A6) There are various definitions of magical thinking, but only definitions that entail ~(A5) can be consistently applied to Mormons as a whole.

?

(P1) If we have evident correlation and probable causation then we are not guilty of magical thinking

(E & P) -- > -M

(P2) If we have evident correlation or probable causation but not both then we are guilty of magical thinking

(E v P) & -(E & P) -- > M

(P3) It is the case we have evident correlation.

E

(P4) It is the case we do not have probable causation

-P

(C1) Therefore, we are guilty of magical thinking

|- M

(P1) to (C1) is a valid deductive argument (proof furnished upon request)

If (A1) to (A6) are correct then (C1) logically follows from (P1) to (P4).

(A7) Any worldview no matter how primitive or sophisticated contain some measures to guard against (A2) and (A4) in the search for an accurate worldview that corresponds to reality.

(A8) if (A7) is true then the statement,

Link to comment

Is belief in a God a characteristic of magical thinking?

Excellent question, but we are curious on how you define "magic" as in magical thinking.

For example, some may consider certain events in quantum mechanics as "magic". Thus, a scientist studying QM may be engaged in magical thinking. Is string theory "magical thinking"? Dark matter?

Curious minds want to know.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...