Stephen Meyer and Ben Shapiro on the Problem of Mind — Transcript

Full transcript

1. 0:00For for a lot of folks like Dawkins,
2. 0:01it's not about the God of the gaps,
3. 0:02about the Darwinism of the gaps. The
4. 0:03idea that eventually we're going to
5. 0:04figure out that Darwinism still holds in
6. 0:06these circumstances where it appears not
7. 0:08to hold.
8. 0:09Is that accurate or does he have a
9. 0:10theory for how to fix this problem?
10. 0:12>> a Yeah, there's a very good explanation
11. 0:13for that in the sociology and philosophy
12. 0:16of science. Uh the assumption is we have
13. 0:18to have a materialistic explanation. We
14. 0:20can't allow creative intelligence or
15. 0:23agency or mind to We can't posit that as
16. 0:26as part of the explanation for how life
17. 0:28got here. And there's a rule that many
18. 0:30scientists take as normative. It's
19. 0:32called methodological naturalism. And it
20. 0:34says if you're going to be a scientist,
21. 0:35you have to explain everything by
22. 0:36reference to purely undirected material
23. 0:38processes. And if you deviate from that
24. 0:40in any way, you're not being scientific.
25. 0:42That's why I got called a
26. 0:42pseudo-scientist on the the Wikipedia
27. 0:45webpage. It was a little bit of an
28. 0:47upgrade cuz previously they had me down
29. 0:48as a theologian and I have have no no no
30. 0:50training in theology. But um in any
31. 0:53case, this methodological rule is
32. 0:55actually only as recent as the late 19th
33. 0:57century in science. The founders of
34. 0:58modern science, Newton, Boyle, Kepler,
35. 1:00they didn't adhere to this at all. They
36. 1:01saw design in science
37. 1:04Well, in the in the natural world and
38. 1:05they wrote about it in their science uh
39. 1:07in their in their science treaties. Um
40. 1:09for example, in the General Scholium to
41. 1:11the Principia, the
42. 1:13Newton's great work on gravitation, he's
43. 1:15got a terrific argument for design based
44. 1:17on the fine-tuning of the planetary
45. 1:19orbits. Um so, design arguments were
46. 1:22part of science from its foundation, but
47. 1:24they be
48. 1:25they became verboten in the late 19th
49. 1:27century after the the the Origin of
50. 1:29Species.
51. 1:30And there's a very curious thing about
52. 1:32this rule of methodological naturalism.
53. 1:34Uh if you're if you're investigating an
54. 1:36origin question or a causal origins
55. 1:39question, it's a rule that actually
56. 1:41limits the intellectual freedom of the
57. 1:43scientist. There's a lot of a lot of
58. 1:45areas of science where methodological
59. 1:46naturalism is innocuous. But if you're
60. 1:47asking the question, what caused life or
61. 1:50the information necessary to produce
62. 1:52life to arise, and you you recognize
63. 1:54that it could be an undirected material
64. 1:56process or it might have been a mind,
65. 1:58but then you decide in advance that
66. 1:59you're not going to consider any
67. 2:01evidence of mind, of course you're only
68. 2:03going to get materialistic explanations,
69. 2:05but the explanations may not be
70. 2:06adequate. I mean, imagine you go into
71. 2:08the uh
72. 2:09the the British Museum, you look at the
73. 2:10Rosetta Stone, you see all those
74. 2:12inscriptions in three different
75. 2:13languages, and you say, "Well,
76. 2:15uh I'd like to say it was a scribe, but
77. 2:17since I adhere to methodological
78. 2:18naturalism, I've got to say it was wind
79. 2:21and erosion or something like that." It
80. 2:23the the the rule actually limits
81. 2:25scientists from following the evidence
82. 2:27where it most naturally leads.
83. 2:28Information, based on our knowledge of
84. 2:30cause and effect, is a strong indicator
85. 2:32of activity of intelligence, and yet we
86. 2:34can't say that or consider that if we
87. 2:37accept methodological naturalism. And
88. 2:38that's what's going on. That's why the
89. 2:39the dialectic kind of goes in circles
90. 2:41where you'll get a new evolutionary
91. 2:42model every few years, and then they
92. 2:44circle back to the one that was
93. 2:45rejected, you know, 20 20 years ago, and
94. 2:47start the cycle all over again, because
95. 2:49they're we're really looking in the
96. 2:50wrong place. We're barking up the wrong
97. 2:51tree.
98. 2:51>> I mean, it does raise the question, if
99. 2:52you're a methodological naturalist and
100. 2:54all you believe is that undirected
101. 2:55processes are responsible for
102. 2:56everything, why you believe in such a
103. 2:58thing as objective truth, for example?
104. 3:00Because
105. 3:01>> or the reliability of the human mind, as
106. 3:02we were discussing before the interview.
107. 3:03>> Right. I mean, if the idea is that the
108. 3:05human mind is capable of grasping the
109. 3:07world around it, and there is such a
110. 3:08thing as objective truth that we can
111. 3:10grasp, then that would suggest that our
112. 3:11mind reflects the universe in some deep
113. 3:14profound way, as opposed to the sort of
114. 3:16evolutionary biology belief, which is
115. 3:18that we are just adaptable balls of
116. 3:19meat. And so, whatever we think about
117. 3:21the universe, maybe it's helpful in
118. 3:23terms of our adaptation, but it's not
119. 3:24necessarily true.
120. 3:25>> It's very very well put. This was the
121. 3:27the very thing that bothered Thomas
122. 3:28Nagel, the great philosopher of science
123. 3:30from NYU.
124. 3:32Um Na- Nagel got himself into a bit of
125. 3:33trouble. He wrote a a favorable review
126. 3:36of uh Signature in the Cell in the Times
127. 3:38Literary Supplement. And then there was
128. 3:39a huge blowback, including from a lot of
129. 3:41other fellow atheists. Nagel's an
130. 3:42atheist.
131. 3:43Um but Nagel uh accepted the the the
132. 3:47critical arguments in Signature in the
133. 3:50Cell, and began to get more critical of
134. 3:52Darwinism as well, not just chemical
135. 3:54evolutionary theory, but biological
136. 3:55evolutionary theory. And in 2012, he
137. 3:57doubled down by publishing his own book
138. 3:59with Oxford Press called Mind and
139. 4:01Cosmos: How the Neo-Darwinian
140. 4:03Materialist View of Reality Is Almost
141. 4:05Certainly False was the subtitle. And
142. 4:07his problem was the one that you just
143. 4:09articulated, that clearly we live in a
144. 4:10universe in which mind is a reality.
145. 4:13And if Neo-Darwinism can't account for
146. 4:15that, then it's missing something really
147. 4:17big. It's
148. 4:20an inadequate explanation for
149. 4:22something we observe all the time, which
150. 4:24is the activity of minds. I see it in
151. 4:26our conversation. I know I have a mind
152. 4:27by my own introspective experience. This
153. 4:30is a part of reality, too. And if the if
154. 4:32evolution can't account for that, and if
155. 4:34we exclude mind as an explanatory
156. 4:37principle, we're going to have an
157. 4:38impoverished understanding of the world
158. 4:40around us. And so, I think this is a
159. 4:42very very important aspect of the debate
160. 4:45is
161. 4:46is recognizing that mind is a reality.
162. 4:48>> Well, this actually is is one of the
163. 4:50fascinating sort of theories that that
164. 4:52Dawkins puts forth is essentially that
165. 4:54mind is a spandrel, that that mind is is
166. 4:56just something that we feel like we
167. 4:57have, but it actually does not exist in
168. 4:59the first place, which does raise the
169. 5:01question as to why he does what he does
170. 5:02for a living. I mean, if you're in the
171. 5:03business of explanation, why bother
172. 5:05operating along the spandrels?
173. 5:06>> It's extremely self-defeating. You're
174. 5:07absolutely right. But it's interesting
175. 5:09that
176. 5:09the Neo-Darwinists say that design in
177. 5:12life is an illusion. We have apparent
178. 5:15design, but not real design. First line
179. 5:17from the Blind Watchmaker on page one.
180. 5:19Biology is the study of complicated
181. 5:21things that give the appearance of
182. 5:22having been designed for a purpose.
183. 5:24But in the end at the end of the day,
184. 5:25Dawkins also has to say that mind
185. 5:27itself, purposive intelligence, is also
186. 5:30an illusion. That's an impoverished
187. 5:31worldview. We all know better than that.
188. 5:33>> Well, it it does raise questions, I
189. 5:35mean, far beyond that for civilization
190. 5:36as well, since we all have to live
191. 5:37together and and and reason together.
192. 5:39I've had this exact argument with Sam
193. 5:41Harris, who who trend who says he
194. 5:42believes in objective truth and reason.
195. 5:44And I keep saying to him, well, we're
196. 5:45wandering balls of meat with no purpose
197. 5:47in the universe. So, what is this reason
198. 5:49you're talking about? We're a bunch of
199. 5:50firing neurons over which we have no
200. 5:51control.
201. 5:52>> Well, yeah, two two points on that and I
202. 5:53think you've addressed them both and I
203. 5:54think you're addressing with the the the
204. 5:56the point you just made in your new
205. 5:57book, but uh our whole legal system is
206. 6:00based on notions of moral
207. 6:02responsibility, culpability before the
208. 6:04law. That presupposes our ability to
209. 6:06choose as free agents, that we're not
210. 6:07completely determined by undirected um
211. 6:10you know,
212. 6:11s- uh firings in our synapse.
213. 6:14Um you know, it was not just nature or
214. 6:16nurture. There's there's there's human
215. 6:17free will and moral responsibility. Our
216. 6:19whole legal system is based on that
217. 6:21idea. Um and secondly, there's the
218. 6:24there's we have this epidemic of teen
219. 6:25suicide in our country. And um I heard
220. 6:28something you did on on your show a
221. 6:30little while ago and I had a very
222. 6:31similar experience of kind of
223. 6:33existential
224. 6:34uh anxiety as a young person. It was
225. 6:37It was a fairly middle-class upbringing,
226. 6:39had no great deprivation, but I had this
227. 6:42recurring question, what's it going to
228. 6:43matter in 100 years? What What will any
229. 6:45human achievement ever matter? And this
230. 6:47question of uh of the purpose of human
231. 6:49existence, I think is gnawing at a lot
232. 6:51of people in our culture, especially
233. 6:52young people. Because o- only agents,
234. 6:55only personal agents can confer meaning
235. 6:57on something. Nothing can mean something
236. 6:59to a rock or to an atom. And we find
237. 7:01meaning in relationship to other
238. 7:03persons. And if at the end of the day
239. 7:05we're just going to have this heat death
240. 7:06of the universe and there's no mind
241. 7:08behind the universe, no personal agency
242. 7:11behind the universe, there's no
243. 7:12possibility of ultimate meaning. And a
244. 7:13lot of people sense that and it's very
245. 7:14deeply troubling. And we're really not
246. 7:16answering that question for a lot of
247. 7:17young people. And I think one of the the
248. 7:19philosophical implications of
249. 7:20intelligent design, which doesn't
250. 7:22attempt to prove the existence of God,
251. 7:23but it does imply that personal agency
252. 7:26is fundamental to the cosmos and it it
253. 7:28opens up the possibility that there
254. 7:30there could be a good answer to that
255. 7:31question of of meaning and purpose that
256. 7:33I think is gnawing at a lot of people.
257. 7:35>> So, let's talk about how intelligent
258. 7:36design should be taught in schools. As
259. 7:37we've mentioned, a lot of scientists
260. 7:39basically accept the the generalized
261. 7:41critiques of neo-Darwinism that that
262. 7:43you've expressed in in your books.
263. 7:44Is there a reason why we don't just say
264. 7:47we don't know? In other words, why why
265. 7:49don't we try and just teach it this way?
266. 7:51Here's the theory of neo-Darwinism. Here
267. 7:52all the flaws in the theory of
268. 7:54neo-Darwinism. It would be very
269. 7:55difficult for folks to try and kick that
270. 7:56out of school since you're not
271. 7:57mentioning God. Right. You're not
272. 7:59mentioning any intelligent designer at
273. 8:00all. Why not teach it that way and then
274. 8:02you're firmly within even the skeptics
275. 8:04view of what science ought to be.
276. 8:06>> That happens to be our science education
277. 8:07policy at the Discovery Institute. We
278. 8:09propose that students are allowed to
279. 8:11teach to learn about the strengths and
280. 8:14the weaknesses of
281. 8:16different scientific theories, including
282. 8:18Darwinian evolution. But there are many
283. 8:20a lot of a lot of a lot of people have a
284. 8:22stereotyped view of science, which is
285. 8:23really inaccurate. It's the you know,
286. 8:25the men in white coats and the you know,
287. 8:26they they it's just about the facts and
288. 8:28there's no
289. 8:29role for interpretation or debate or
290. 8:31argument. But science advances. There's
291. 8:33a wonderful
292. 8:35Italian philosopher of science named
293. 8:36Marcello Pera who says that science
294. 8:38advances as scientists argue about how
295. 8:41to interpret the evidence. And what
296. 8:43we've done is present a stereotyped view
297. 8:44of science to students where we just
298. 8:46tell them the answer.
299. 8:47And say that well, here are the facts
300. 8:49and and and the theory that explains it
301. 8:51and it's all a fait accompli. A much
302. 8:53better way to learn science is to learn
303. 8:55about the arguments that are ongoing.
304. 8:57Now, we have this complication in the
305. 8:58United States with our church-state
306. 9:00jurisprudence.
307. 9:01And we at Discovery think that at this
308. 9:03point at least, it's sort of
309. 9:06it's just borrowing trouble to try to
310. 9:08buck that. But what we certainly can do
311. 9:10without any problem with the the the
312. 9:14constitutional
313. 9:16a constitutional precedent is to allow
314. 9:18students to learn the the strengths of
315. 9:20Darwinian theory and also the scientific
316. 9:22weaknesses as we find them increasingly
317. 9:25in the peer-reviewed literature in
318. 9:27biology and evolutionary biology. I
319. 9:29testified before the Texas State Board
320. 9:31of Education several years ago for in
321. 9:34favor of a proposal to do exactly what
322. 9:35I'm describing.
323. 9:37And to teach the strengths and
324. 9:38weaknesses. And I submitted into
325. 9:39evidence about 100 peer-reviewed papers
326. 9:42of leading people in evolutionary
327. 9:44biology pointing out serious weaknesses
328. 9:46in the theory, especially around this
329. 9:47problem of the lack of creative power of
330. 9:49the mutation selection mechanism.
331. 9:51At that same hearing, well, prior to, my
332. 9:54opposite number at the National Center
333. 9:56for Science Education, a Darwin only
334. 9:58science education lobby,
335. 10:00uh said to the the the press, the Dallas
336. 10:02Morning News, "You can't apply the
337. 10:03strengths and weaknesses standard to
338. 10:05evolutionary theory because the theory
339. 10:06of evolution has no weaknesses." Well,
340. 10:08that's that's actually laughable when
341. 10:10you get into the scientific literature.
342. 10:12And students ought, just as a matter of
343. 10:13scientific literacy, to know about the
344. 10:15problems with the theory that the
345. 10:16scientists themselves are talking about.
346. 10:18So, that's what we've been advocating.