Personal causation

By -
Suppose someone asks me, "Why are all your paintings in the corner of the living room?"

If I respond, "I put them there because I am intending to paint the walls," few people would think that I am claiming to have done something magical that violated the laws of physics. Rather, the laws of physics were an integral part of my being able to do what I did: if physical objects did not reliably follow such laws, I would have no idea how to act in regards to them in achieving my goals.

But when someone says something like, "It is a blessing that I recovered from my illness: God must've been looking after me," many people do assume that there is an assertion of some violation of natural law involved. This is a very strange double standard. (I take the point I am making here to be much the same one Bob Murphy has made a number of times in his posts concerning miracles.)

Comments

  1. Ken B11:33 PM

    There's a difference between a blessing and a miracle, and likewise a difference between expressing your belief that you have been the recipient of your god's mercy and asserting you are proof that your atheist interlocutor is thus refuted.
    These are ways your argument differs from Murphy's.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more