| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 07:29:29 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
http://imagoveritatis.myatts.net/comments.php?id=24_0_1_0_C
Don't Believe It
I ran into a blog that claims to be based on "reason" alone and it
turned out to be, predictably, run by an Objectivist (with a capital
"O" that means a disciple of Ayn Rand). Objectivism is a form of
atheism, though they tend to focus much more on the positive aspects of
their system rather than getting hung up on the God thing, unlike the
folks over at infidels.org. Anyway, that prompted to me to pull off the
shelf one of the many books that I have bought and put away for future
reading, (whenever that is - heh, heh) and before I knew it I was well
into it. The book is John Robbins' Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand and the
Close of Her System, available here.
Well, the book is a masterpiece, and though I don't follow every detail
of Gordon Clark's philosophy which figures heavily in Robbins'
argument, by the end of the chapter on epistemology he has reduced
Rand's system to a pile of rubble that is hopelessly beyond salvaging.
In fact, one cannot but conclude, after reading this analysis, that
Rand's system, rather than being founded upon reason, is profoundly
irrational. It surely requires a blind leap of faith to grasp. I won't
repeat the arguments here; the reader is encouraged to get the book and
see.
So, in that vein, I have been scrounging around the web to see what
else there is in the blogosphere (hey I'm getting into this new lingo!)
when I came across this piece from Tertius, who complains about
atheists who pretend that they do not have a world view, but rather
that they simply lack a belief in God. He calls this atheism lite -
well put I think - because it IS a cop out, as he shows. I have run
across this kind of thing, of course and after analyzing atheism I came
up with at least four positive philosophical assertions that
necessariliy follow from the denial of the existence of God, which are
discussed on page 10 of my conversations with atheists and which I will
quote here:
So when the atheist denies or says he does not believe in a God, he is
necessarily making a number of positive world view presuppositions
about the nature of the universe. What are some of these? At least the
following:
1) The universe is self-sufficient in its existence and operations. It
is autonomous and not dependent upon another external entity, but
functions based on the laws of nature which determine its character.
2) The principles of knowledge or interpretation of the universe are
contained within and derived from the universe itself. There is no need
for a revelation or interpretation of the universe from a vantage point
outside of the universe. Since there is no outside the universe,
according to the atheist, no such revelation could exist in any case.
Therefore, the ultimate reference point for predication and
interpretation is a principle such as logic, sense perception,
intuition, all of which must exist in the universe, and which were
derived ultimately from human reason. The human mind is autonomous and
is adequate to discover truth on its own, using its own methods. All
truth claims must pass the test of human reason. There is no higher
authority.
3) Right and wrong are relative terms that describe social norms
developed by humankind to enhance its survival and pleasure. There is
no absolute right and wrong and in the end, it is the autonomous human
mind that legislates morality.
4) There is no discernible purpose to history or in the operations and
existence of the universe. The universe is the ultimate reality and it
is impersonal and unconcerned about us or our fate. It is simply there
and appears to be what it is largely as a result of chance. The human
future is undetermined, since there is no divine plan governing it. The
meaning of life is what we make of it based on the decisions of our
autonomous wills, and there is no final meaning in the end.
Each of these four notions corresponds to an interpretation of the four
areas that define a world view: ontology (the nature of reality or
being), epistemology (the theory of how we have and justify knowledge),
ethics (the theory of the ultimate good and of moral action), and
teleology (the theory of the purpose of it all). Thus, we see that the
denial of belief in God necessarily implies a basic set of world view
assumptions (axioms or presuppositions) that form a positive
interpretation of the state of affairs.
So the atheist really has no excuse and nowhere to hide. The assertion
that atheism is just a denial is merely a smokescreen to avoid having
to mount a defense of his position. But that emperor is stark naked.
The atheist who wants any intellectual respect is both philosophically
and morally obligated to defend his beliefs as a system, and that means
defending the above assertions. And that puts his whole system up for
discussion. Once we open that door then it is only a matter of time
before the inherent irrationality of atheism reveals itself and the
atheist has to look squarely in the face that fact that his whole
system is built on a leap of faith, and a blind one at that.
.
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
14 Oct 2005 08:17:15 PM |
|
|
Goober <go.away@nowhere.com> said:
No. You're confusing several different arguments. There is
nothing essential to arguments for ID to the effect that
everything *needs* a designer. Not at all. ID arguments are
inference to the best explanation arguments. The basic strategy
is that a very significant measure of form to function fit is
noted in the natural world and an intelligent designer is
proposed as the best explanation for that.
The question is whether or not this is science.
A fit of "form to function" is easily explicable through a kind of natural
selection -- if the form doesn't work, it gets eliminated, only a fit
between form and function would survive.
But certainly one could posit some kind of 'designer' as being responsible.
It could be a god-entity, or the space-time universe could be a kind of
playground of some kind of spiritual other level of reality where we come to
learn lessons and/or have fun. Then the intelligent designer could be us --
or parts of us -- who live outside this realm of space-time, and limit
ourselves for whatever reason we want.
The very nature of this reality (think about it -- electrons, photons and
quarks, combining in different ways, with atoms having electrons ten times
as far from the nucleaus as our planet is from the sun meaning most of
everything including our bodies is empty space -- it's a bizarro world...add
in quantum mechanics, the implications of relativity, the way QED and QCD
operates...well, at that reductionist level, it seems less clockwork, then a
mystery).
So yeah, one can speculate a lot. But I don't see how it could be science.
Any "intelligent designer" would have to be outside of space-time, and
science cannot function in such a realm. It could be as wbarwell claimed
that something outside space-time is impossible. Or perhaps one can imagine
such a thing. But it ain't science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
15 Oct 2005 02:48:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:17:15 GMT, "Scott Erb"
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
The question is whether or not this is science.
Its not the question because the ID guys don't know what science is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
14 Oct 2005 11:41:18 PM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
Goober <go.away@nowhere.com> said:
No. You're confusing several different arguments. There is
nothing essential to arguments for ID to the effect that
everything *needs* a designer. Not at all. ID arguments are
inference to the best explanation arguments. The basic strategy
is that a very significant measure of form to function fit is
noted in the natural world and an intelligent designer is
proposed as the best explanation for that.
The question is whether or not this is science.
A fit of "form to function" is easily explicable through a kind of natural
selection -- if the form doesn't work, it gets eliminated, only a fit
between form and function would survive.
With perhaps some caution over the word 'easily', I wouldn't disagree. I
think Darwinian evolutionary theory is a very powerful theory.
But certainly one could posit some kind of 'designer' as being responsible.
It could be a god-entity, or the space-time universe could be a kind of
playground of some kind of spiritual other level of reality where we come to
learn lessons and/or have fun. Then the intelligent designer could be us --
or parts of us -- who live outside this realm of space-time, and limit
ourselves for whatever reason we want.
The very nature of this reality (think about it -- electrons, photons and
quarks, combining in different ways, with atoms having electrons ten times
as far from the nucleaus as our planet is from the sun meaning most of
everything including our bodies is empty space -- it's a bizarro world...add
in quantum mechanics, the implications of relativity, the way QED and QCD
operates...well, at that reductionist level, it seems less clockwork, then a
mystery).
So yeah, one can speculate a lot. But I don't see how it could be science.
Any "intelligent designer" would have to be outside of space-time, and
science cannot function in such a realm. It could be as wbarwell claimed
that something outside space-time is impossible. Or perhaps one can imagine
such a thing. But it ain't science.
In my opinion whether or not it is 'science' really is not the question.
The question is which is the best explanation on offer - pure and
simple. Whether the best explanation qualifies as 'scientific' (by
whatever standards you wish to invoke for counting as such) seems to me
to be beside the point. If you are only wishing to accept hypotheses
that conform to a particular 'scientific' methodology, you risk begging
the question against non-scientific explanations, such as, perhaps
theological explanations.
Don't get me wrong - I like science. I think science is in general the
most effective way to gain an understanding of the world. But it is
surely not the *only* way to acquire knowledge. Science is just one
methodology (or set of methodologies). It strikes me as wholly
illegitimate to reject an explanation simply because it fails to conform
to your preferred methodology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
15 Oct 2005 09:18:16 AM |
|
|
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:diq19h$cjf$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
Scott Erb wrote:
Goober <go.away@nowhere.com> said:
No. You're confusing several different arguments. There is
nothing essential to arguments for ID to the effect that
everything *needs* a designer. Not at all. ID arguments are
inference to the best explanation arguments. The basic strategy
is that a very significant measure of form to function fit is
noted in the natural world and an intelligent designer is
proposed as the best explanation for that.
The question is whether or not this is science.
A fit of "form to function" is easily explicable through a kind of
natural
selection -- if the form doesn't work, it gets eliminated, only a fit
between form and function would survive.
With perhaps some caution over the word 'easily', I wouldn't disagree. I
think Darwinian evolutionary theory is a very powerful theory.
But certainly one could posit some kind of 'designer' as being
responsible.
It could be a god-entity, or the space-time universe could be a kind of
playground of some kind of spiritual other level of reality where we
come to
learn lessons and/or have fun. Then the intelligent designer could be
us --
or parts of us -- who live outside this realm of space-time, and limit
ourselves for whatever reason we want.
The very nature of this reality (think about it -- electrons, photons
and
quarks, combining in different ways, with atoms having electrons ten
times
as far from the nucleaus as our planet is from the sun meaning most of
everything including our bodies is empty space -- it's a bizarro
world...add
in quantum mechanics, the implications of relativity, the way QED and
QCD
operates...well, at that reductionist level, it seems less clockwork,
then a
mystery).
So yeah, one can speculate a lot. But I don't see how it could be
science.
Any "intelligent designer" would have to be outside of space-time, and
science cannot function in such a realm. It could be as wbarwell
claimed
that something outside space-time is impossible. Or perhaps one can
imagine
such a thing. But it ain't science.
In my opinion whether or not it is 'science' really is not the question.
The question is which is the best explanation on offer - pure and
simple. Whether the best explanation qualifies as 'scientific' (by
whatever standards you wish to invoke for counting as such) seems to me
to be beside the point. If you are only wishing to accept hypotheses
that conform to a particular 'scientific' methodology, you risk begging
the question against non-scientific explanations, such as, perhaps
theological explanations.
Don't get me wrong - I like science. I think science is in general the
most effective way to gain an understanding of the world. But it is
surely not the *only* way to acquire knowledge. Science is just one
methodology (or set of methodologies). It strikes me as wholly
illegitimate to reject an explanation simply because it fails to conform
to your preferred methodology.
Science has limits. Much of what religion and philosophy deal with -- the
meaning of life, whether or not there is a god (and what that god would be,
from a monotheistic god with subjectivity to a pantheistic all is god), and
a whole host of moral/ethical questions are outside science. Science can
serve those discussions (philosophy cannot ignore what we know about the
world; religion should not contradict what we know about material reality),
but some of the biggest questions facing humans in understanding meaning in
their life are, indeed, outside science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
15 Oct 2005 04:15:46 PM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:diq19h$cjf$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
Scott Erb wrote:
[snip]
In my opinion whether or not it is 'science' really is not the question.
The question is which is the best explanation on offer - pure and
simple. Whether the best explanation qualifies as 'scientific' (by
whatever standards you wish to invoke for counting as such) seems to me
to be beside the point. If you are only wishing to accept hypotheses
that conform to a particular 'scientific' methodology, you risk begging
the question against non-scientific explanations, such as, perhaps
theological explanations.
Don't get me wrong - I like science. I think science is in general the
most effective way to gain an understanding of the world. But it is
surely not the *only* way to acquire knowledge. Science is just one
methodology (or set of methodologies). It strikes me as wholly
illegitimate to reject an explanation simply because it fails to conform
to your preferred methodology.
Science has limits. Much of what religion and philosophy deal with -- the
meaning of life, whether or not there is a god (and what that god would be,
from a monotheistic god with subjectivity to a pantheistic all is god), and
a whole host of moral/ethical questions are outside science. Science can
serve those discussions (philosophy cannot ignore what we know about the
world; religion should not contradict what we know about material reality),
but some of the biggest questions facing humans in understanding meaning in
their life are, indeed, outside science.
Then if anything divides us I think it may be whether investigation of
material reality is the exclusive domain of scientific explanation. THat
is, whether events (processes, etc.) in the material world can only be
explained by scientific explanation. I'm not committed to that view, but
perhaps you are. For example, I don't see "the earthquake happened
because it was Allah's will" to be an illegitimate explanation for the
earthquake. It's no scientific explanation, of course, and science has,
by its own standards, a pretty good proximal explanation for why
earthquakes happen. You say, for instance, that philosophy cannot ignore
what we know about the materaial world, but I wonder whether you are
implicitly committing to the claim that only science gives us knowledge
of the material world?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
15 Oct 2005 06:59:40 PM |
|
|
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dirri9$1p4$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
Scott Erb wrote:
Science has limits. Much of what religion and philosophy deal with --
the
meaning of life, whether or not there is a god (and what that god would
be,
from a monotheistic god with subjectivity to a pantheistic all is god),
and
a whole host of moral/ethical questions are outside science. Science
can
serve those discussions (philosophy cannot ignore what we know about the
world; religion should not contradict what we know about material
reality),
but some of the biggest questions facing humans in understanding meaning
in
their life are, indeed, outside science.
Then if anything divides us I think it may be whether investigation of
material reality is the exclusive domain of scientific explanation. THat
is, whether events (processes, etc.) in the material world can only be
explained by scientific explanation.
I'd put it this way: if a non-scientific explanation contradicts a
scientific one, the scientific explanation is stronger because of the power
of the scientific method, and how it is always open to new evidence and
theories.
I'm not committed to that view, but
perhaps you are. For example, I don't see "the earthquake happened
because it was Allah's will" to be an illegitimate explanation for the
earthquake. It's no scientific explanation, of course, and science has,
by its own standards, a pretty good proximal explanation for why
earthquakes happen. You say, for instance, that philosophy cannot ignore
what we know about the materaial world, but I wonder whether you are
implicitly committing to the claim that only science gives us knowledge
of the material world?
The claim "Allah caused the earthquake" does not contradict science; it only
adds a non-scientific primary cause. It cannot be falsified, so science
cannot claim it false, even if scientists would find the lack of proof and e
vidence as making it seem irrational to believe. I personally am open to
the possibility that there is a "deeper" spiritual reality that underlies
material experience. There is a magic to life and its coincidences that to
me defies simple material explanations. Also, if there were only material
causes, we'd still be left the fundamental puzzle: why is there existence?
Why is there a world? Our current level of knowledge runs into a wall with
these kinds of questions, they are outside science.
Some of my reflections on this kind of issue (an on going series I add to
now and then: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/spirit.htm)
Galileo, who was to the end a devout Catholic, said that if scripture
contradicts what we know scientifically about the world, then our
interpretation of scripture must be wrong. Expanding that
European/Christian view to a wider view on God possibilities and various
religious beliefs, I'd say that there is room for religion, but I will not
personally accept religious teachings as worthy of being considered if they
deny basic scientific facts (like the belief in the geo-centric universe
Galileo was fighting against). But if it stays in the realm of
unfalsifiable hypotheses, then it seems to me philosophy and religion are
trying to understand a different aspect of human existence. Or, bottom
line, I'm not a materialist, I don't believe the material world is the
essence of what existence is all about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
15 Oct 2005 09:57:10 PM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dirri9$1p4$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
Scott Erb wrote:
Science has limits. Much of what religion and philosophy
deal with --
the
meaning of life, whether or not there is a god (and what
that god would
be,
from a monotheistic god with subjectivity to a pantheistic
all is god),
and
a whole host of moral/ethical questions are outside science.
Science
can
serve those discussions (philosophy cannot ignore what we
know about the world; religion should not contradict what we
know about material
reality),
but some of the biggest questions facing humans in
understanding meaning
in
their life are, indeed, outside science.
Then if anything divides us I think it may be whether
investigation of material reality is the exclusive domain of
scientific explanation. THat is, whether events (processes,
etc.) in the material world can only be explained by
scientific explanation.
I'd put it this way: if a non-scientific explanation
contradicts a scientific one, the scientific explanation is
stronger because of the power of the scientific method, and how
it is always open to new evidence and theories.
I'm not committed to that view, but
perhaps you are. For example, I don't see "the earthquake
happened because it was Allah's will" to be an illegitimate
explanation for the earthquake. It's no scientific
explanation, of course, and science has, by its own standards,
a pretty good proximal explanation for why earthquakes happen.
You say, for instance, that philosophy cannot ignore what we
know about the materaial world, but I wonder whether you are
implicitly committing to the claim that only science gives us
knowledge of the material world?
The claim "Allah caused the earthquake" does not contradict
science; it only
adds a non-scientific primary cause. It cannot be falsified,
Allah is one of the gods of the class of creator/omni-everything
gods.
That class can be falsified as a whole as the a priori attributes
attributed to these sorts of god can be demonstrated to create
impossible contradictions.
So yes, Allah as a cause is right out, it is disprovable.
All one can do then is abandon that class of gods.
But anything other than this has great problems too and is not
Allah.
Questions like "Is 2 + 2 = 4 something a god does or is it
part and parcel of the Univers's laws and rules and logic beyond
any gods?" soon opens up other cans of worms that doom the whole
god as prime cause or creator of anything at all.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
15 Oct 2005 10:03:07 PM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11l3f9jj7qp8nc8@corp.supernews.com...
The claim "Allah caused the earthquake" does not contradict
science; it only
adds a non-scientific primary cause. It cannot be falsified,
Allah is one of the gods of the class of creator/omni-everything
gods.
That class can be falsified as a whole as the a priori attributes
attributed to these sorts of god can be demonstrated to create
impossible contradictions.
I understand and have read your proof on this, and am sympathetic.
But all one needs to do is posit a claim that our human understandings of
good and evil, and what is best, etc., are all imperfect, and in reality
everything that happens is indeed for the best within that God's particular
framework, and then one can evade that proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
15 Oct 2005 11:00:10 PM |
|
|
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> said:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11l3f9jj7qp8nc8@corp.supernews.com...
The claim "Allah caused the earthquake" does not contradict
science; it only
adds a non-scientific primary cause. It cannot be falsified,
Allah is one of the gods of the class of creator/omni-everything
gods.
That class can be falsified as a whole as the a priori attributes
attributed to these sorts of god can be demonstrated to create
impossible contradictions.
I understand and have read your proof on this, and am sympathetic.
But all one needs to do is posit a claim that our human understandings of
good and evil, and what is best, etc., are all imperfect, and in reality
everything that happens is indeed for the best within that God's particular
framework, and then one can evade that proof.
Or just say that impossible contradictions are no problem for some
gods.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
16 Oct 2005 03:24:54 AM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11l3f9jj7qp8nc8@corp.supernews.com...
The claim "Allah caused the earthquake" does not contradict
science; it only
adds a non-scientific primary cause. It cannot be
falsified,
Allah is one of the gods of the class of
creator/omni-everything gods.
That class can be falsified as a whole as the a priori
attributes attributed to these sorts of god can be
demonstrated to create impossible contradictions.
I understand and have read your proof on this, and am
sympathetic.
But all one needs to do is posit a claim that our human
understandings of good and evil, and what is best, etc., are
all imperfect, and in reality everything that happens is indeed
for the best within that God's particular framework, and then
one can evade that proof.
Claiming our knowledge is "imperfect" is not an argument.
Good and evil are not the doings of gods that can be
disproven. If god is omnscient and creates all, then god creates
all evil. We have no free will.
In tha case, evil is moot as a question.
Again, god is defined a priori as omnibenevolent.
So a god that creates all acts of sentient beings,
and all evils is evil.
But evil =/= omnibenevolent.
So evil exists, god does all evil, man does none, no free will
you see. But then evil =/= claims of omnibenevolence.
The problems it find a non trivial definition of god that
works, which seems to be impossible.
This has some scrambling to deny evil exists.
Which is ludicrous goal post moving. It just does not work.
You cannot evade that proof in these ways.
What is needed is a coherent definition of god that does avoid
all of these and you have not given one, nor do the thesist I
challenge with this.
Hand wave non arguments are not arguments, but disjointed
statememnts that thus have little meaning.
Much less anything like evidence.
If anybody wants to make a case for god, the fact that
omni-everything/creator gods collapse from their own internal
contradictions and in more than one way has to be admitted.
It is then for the god thgeroists to create a coherent case for
god that does not have these flaws and that means a coherent,
logic set of definitions, not an off the top
of the head recitation of fuzzy and disjointed but
hopeful statements.
I haven't seen any such.
I have indeed considered quite a number of alternative
classes of gods. None exactly work that well as a replacement.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
16 Oct 2005 06:12:56 AM |
|
|
But all one has to do is say that we do not truly understand good and evil,
and simply are applying human concepts in a manner that is false -- and that
we can't know what these things truly mean since we are not omniscient. In
such a case, everything gets thrown out.
Remember, a lot of beliefs don't put much stock in the material world; they
would say that evil here is part of the good of learning spiritual truth to
progress to the next level/heaven/ or wherever. They would argue that you
are engaged in a mundane/worldly definition of evil. One could also argue
that the good of a humanity with free will is superior to the good of a god
making autonomons who cannot do evil (and, in fact, that what we conceive of
as evil is our own construct, not god's). There are various ways around
such a proof, but the bottom line is that it assumes a known definition of
good and evil, and assumes that direct material actions that we define as
evil cannot be part of a greater good.
I'm not arguing for religion here, but rather that religious belief is of
the sort that defies this kind of proof; it is a faith in things beyond
understanding, and if someone chooses to have that kind of faith, this kind
of proof won't work for them.
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11l42g2obt8se6@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11l3f9jj7qp8nc8@corp.supernews.com...
The claim "Allah caused the earthquake" does not contradict
science; it only
adds a non-scientific primary cause. It cannot be
falsified,
Allah is one of the gods of the class of
creator/omni-everything gods.
That class can be falsified as a whole as the a priori
attributes attributed to these sorts of god can be
demonstrated to create impossible contradictions.
I understand and have read your proof on this, and am
sympathetic.
But all one needs to do is posit a claim that our human
understandings of good and evil, and what is best, etc., are
all imperfect, and in reality everything that happens is indeed
for the best within that God's particular framework, and then
one can evade that proof.
Claiming our knowledge is "imperfect" is not an argument.
Good and evil are not the doings of gods that can be
disproven. If god is omnscient and creates all, then god creates
all evil. We have no free will.
In tha case, evil is moot as a question.
Again, god is defined a priori as omnibenevolent.
So a god that creates all acts of sentient beings,
and all evils is evil.
But evil =/= omnibenevolent.
So evil exists, god does all evil, man does none, no free will
you see. But then evil =/= claims of omnibenevolence.
The problems it find a non trivial definition of god that
works, which seems to be impossible.
This has some scrambling to deny evil exists.
Which is ludicrous goal post moving. It just does not work.
You cannot evade that proof in these ways.
What is needed is a coherent definition of god that does avoid
all of these and you have not given one, nor do the thesist I
challenge with this.
Hand wave non arguments are not arguments, but disjointed
statememnts that thus have little meaning.
Much less anything like evidence.
If anybody wants to make a case for god, the fact that
omni-everything/creator gods collapse from their own internal
contradictions and in more than one way has to be admitted.
It is then for the god thgeroists to create a coherent case for
god that does not have these flaws and that means a coherent,
logic set of definitions, not an off the top
of the head recitation of fuzzy and disjointed but
hopeful statements.
I haven't seen any such.
I have indeed considered quite a number of alternative
classes of gods. None exactly work that well as a replacement.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
16 Oct 2005 11:55:45 AM |
|
|
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> said:
But all one has to do is say that we do not truly understand good and evil,
and simply are applying human concepts in a manner that is false -- and that
we can't know what these things truly mean since we are not omniscient. In
such a case, everything gets thrown out.
Remember, a lot of beliefs don't put much stock in the material world; they
would say that evil here is part of the good of learning spiritual truth to
progress to the next level/heaven/ or wherever. They would argue that you
are engaged in a mundane/worldly definition of evil. One could also argue
that the good of a humanity with free will is superior to the good of a god
making autonomons who cannot do evil (and, in fact, that what we conceive of
as evil is our own construct, not god's). There are various ways around
such a proof, but the bottom line is that it assumes a known definition of
good and evil, and assumes that direct material actions that we define as
evil cannot be part of a greater good.
I'm not arguing for religion here, but rather that religious belief is of
the sort that defies this kind of proof; it is a faith in things beyond
understanding, and if someone chooses to have that kind of faith, this kind
of proof won't work for them.
The catch is: what makes a thing beyond understanding, and what
happens if that status changes?
The problem that the skeptics point out is that, as a starting point,
the objects of "religious belief" -- the list of propositions taken to
be facts by the religious -- fills the available space of that
thought to be beyond understanding. Then, as the truth some of those
propositions comes to be challenged by other sources of belief, such
as the scientific method or historical research, we find out that the
religious are not able or willing to separate these propositions into
those in which belief is or is not essential to their religion.
Instead, resistance on all fronts is too often the reaction.
A long-standing, centralized, disciplined institution like the Roman
Catholic Church may eventually decide that some previous article of
faith, worth defending by all necessary means -- is eventually labeled
a secular proposition having no religious significance. This is a
mixed blessing, but the more relatively rootless, decentralized
religions, like fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, can't even make
this slow progress.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
16 Oct 2005 12:44:33 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0f05l1l7tdf1boulnt5i80sbaagoq69doj@4ax.com...
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> said:
But all one has to do is say that we do not truly understand good and
evil,
and simply are applying human concepts in a manner that is false -- and
that
we can't know what these things truly mean since we are not omniscient.
In
such a case, everything gets thrown out.
Remember, a lot of beliefs don't put much stock in the material world;
they
would say that evil here is part of the good of learning spiritual truth
to
progress to the next level/heaven/ or wherever. They would argue that
you
are engaged in a mundane/worldly definition of evil. One could also
argue
that the good of a humanity with free will is superior to the good of a
god
making autonomons who cannot do evil (and, in fact, that what we conceive
of
as evil is our own construct, not god's). There are various ways around
such a proof, but the bottom line is that it assumes a known definition
of
good and evil, and assumes that direct material actions that we define as
evil cannot be part of a greater good.
I'm not arguing for religion here, but rather that religious belief is of
the sort that defies this kind of proof; it is a faith in things beyond
understanding, and if someone chooses to have that kind of faith, this
kind
of proof won't work for them.
The catch is: what makes a thing beyond understanding, and what
happens if that status changes?
Ultimately, it's subjective evidence. You can't disprove that God spoke to
a person if he or she claims it happened either literally, or with a "voice
to my heart." There is no reason to believe it (I wouldn't -- if someone
claimed that to me, I'd almost certainly dismiss it as delusional or
psychologically motivated, like people who supposedly 'talk in tongues.')
But since we can't test the validity of subjective experience, then this is
outside science.
If someone believes that evil is a human construct god allows us to have
since evil is meaningless in the mundane material world, and even useful for
us to learn true spiritual lessons, then it seems that the argument from
evil wouldn't work to prove their belief wrong.
The problem that the skeptics point out is that, as a starting point,
the objects of "religious belief" -- the list of propositions taken to
be facts by the religious -- fills the available space of that
thought to be beyond understanding. Then, as the truth some of those
propositions comes to be challenged by other sources of belief, such
as the scientific method or historical research, we find out that the
religious are not able or willing to separate these propositions into
those in which belief is or is not essential to their religion.
Instead, resistance on all fronts is too often the reaction.
Galielo, a devout Catholic, believed that if science contradicts scripture,
then the interpretation of scripture must be wrong. A Galileo form of
religion could easily be held alongside respect for science. To be sure,
his church wasn't as enlightened as he was, but organized religions are
usually not driven by true faith or reasonable faith, but by protection of
social power.
A long-standing, centralized, disciplined institution like the Roman
Catholic Church may eventually decide that some previous article of
faith, worth defending by all necessary means -- is eventually labeled
a secular proposition having no religious significance. This is a
mixed blessing, but the more relatively rootless, decentralized
religions, like fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, can't even make
this slow progress.
Yes, that's true.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
16 Oct 2005 01:04:29 PM |
|
|
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:5kw4f.443458$5N3.29378@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0f05l1l7tdf1boulnt5i80sbaagoq69doj@4ax.com...
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> said:
(snip)
Galielo, a devout Catholic, believed that if science contradicts
scripture,
then the interpretation of scripture must be wrong. A Galileo form of
religion could easily be held alongside respect for science. To be sure,
his church wasn't as enlightened as he was, but organized religions are
usually not driven by true faith or reasonable faith, but by protection of
social power.
Which, if you're being honest, is true for any group in power whether they
are popularly considered being a religion or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
16 Oct 2005 01:28:44 PM |
|
|
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> wrote in message
news:1Dw4f.14276$D8.4016@okepread03...
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:5kw4f.443458$5N3.29378@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0f05l1l7tdf1boulnt5i80sbaagoq69doj@4ax.com...
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> said:
(snip)
Galielo, a devout Catholic, believed that if science contradicts
scripture,
then the interpretation of scripture must be wrong. A Galileo form of
religion could easily be held alongside respect for science. To be
sure,
his church wasn't as enlightened as he was, but organized religions are
usually not driven by true faith or reasonable faith, but by protection
of
social power.
Which, if you're being honest, is true for any group in power whether they
are popularly considered being a religion or not.
Of course. Organized power is inherently dangerous.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
16 Oct 2005 10:19:43 PM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
Ultimately, it's subjective evidence. You can't disprove that God
spoke to a person if he or she claims it happened either literally,
or with a "voice to my heart." There is no reason to believe it (I
wouldn't -- if someone claimed that to me, I'd almost certainly
dismiss it as delusional or psychologically motivated, like people
who supposedly 'talk in tongues.') But since we can't test the
validity of subjective experience, then this is outside science.
The god that spoke to the person could supply enough information to the
person to make such a claim seem reasonable.
Instead the messages are religious sect specific and have all the validity
of your daily horoscope.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
17 Oct 2005 07:20:35 AM |
|
|
Hi,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> skrev i melding
news:jLE4f.17028$6e1.11903@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
Ultimately, it's subjective evidence. You can't disprove that God
spoke to a person if he or she claims it happened either literally,
or with a "voice to my heart." There is no reason to believe it (I
wouldn't -- if someone claimed that to me, I'd almost certainly
dismiss it as delusional or psychologically motivated, like people
who supposedly 'talk in tongues.') But since we can't test the
validity of subjective experience, then this is outside science.
The god that spoke to the person could supply enough information to the
person to make such a claim seem reasonable.
Instead the messages are religious sect specific and have all the validity
of your daily horoscope.
A nice point. Revelation is marked as revelation if it contains information
that is not of "human origins". So far, the content of revelation varies
from mythology to mushroom visions (the book of Revelations), and includes a
good deal aberrant psychological projections. Nothing "divine" there, so
far, except the claim that it is.
T
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
16 Oct 2005 05:02:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:55:45 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
The catch is: what makes a thing beyond understanding, and what
happens if that status changes?
The catch is that if something is beyond understanding there is
nothing more to be said about it other than blind speculation and no
criteria for any agreement..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
16 Oct 2005 07:52:13 PM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11l3f9jj7qp8nc8@corp.supernews.com...
The claim "Allah caused the earthquake" does not contradict
science; it only
adds a non-scientific primary cause. It cannot be falsified,
Allah is one of the gods of the class of creator/omni-everything
gods.
That class can be falsified as a whole as the a priori attributes
attributed to these sorts of god can be demonstrated to create
impossible contradictions.
I understand and have read your proof on this, and am sympathetic.
But all one needs to do is posit a claim that our human
understandings of good and evil, and what is best, etc., are all
imperfect, and in reality everything that happens is indeed for the
best within that God's particular framework, and then one can evade
that proof.
Then we must ignore any religious teachings that deal with what those gods
say is good or evil.
People should be as wary of "good" people as of "evil" people.
Hitler was good or bad in this case.
The six people a minute dying from Malaria is a good thing and so is their
suffereing.
Polio vaccine and modern medicine is bad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
16 Oct 2005 08:03:37 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1BC4f.2600$BZ5.1302@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11l3f9jj7qp8nc8@corp.supernews.com...
The claim "Allah caused the earthquake" does not contradict
science; it only
adds a non-scientific primary cause. It cannot be falsified,
Allah is one of the gods of the class of creator/omni-everything
gods.
That class can be falsified as a whole as the a priori attributes
attributed to these sorts of god can be demonstrated to create
impossible contradictions.
I understand and have read your proof on this, and am sympathetic.
But all one needs to do is posit a claim that our human
understandings of good and evil, and what is best, etc., are all
imperfect, and in reality everything that happens is indeed for the
best within that God's particular framework, and then one can evade
that proof.
Then we must ignore any religious teachings that deal with what those gods
say is good or evil.
Well, I think that would be rational, but one could still believe that evil
is a human construct and that its existence in the material world is for the
greater good and still believe that a holy book could give humans teachings
about it.
People should be as wary of "good" people as of "evil" people.
Hitler was good or bad in this case.
The six people a minute dying from Malaria is a good thing and so is their
suffereing.
Polio vaccine and modern medicine is bad.
That is a good argument against religious teachings, but it isn't a proof.
Essentially what you're saying is that these teachings don't make sense, and
thus it isn't rational to believe them. I'm with you. But it isn't
logically impossible to define things in a way which would allow such events
to correspond with a belief in a God, even an omnipotent, omniscient one.
(Though a belief in such a good wouldn't necessitate believing that polio
vaccines are bad).
I'm not trying to defend religion, I just think that in a logical sense, the
idea of even a religious god is not impossible. But a lot of things can't
be logically ruled impossible. Like the old "matrix" idea (we could all be
blobs being fed stimuli to think we are living in a real world), there is no
reason to believe it, but the possibility exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
16 Oct 2005 10:36:59 PM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
<snip>
But all one needs to do is posit a claim that our human
understandings of good and evil, and what is best, etc., are all
imperfect, and in reality everything that happens is indeed for the
best within that God's particular framework, and then one can evade
that proof.
Then we must ignore any religious teachings that deal with what
those gods say is good or evil.
Well, I think that would be rational, but one could still believe
that evil is a human construct and that its existence in the material
world is for the greater good and still believe that a holy book
could give humans teachings about it.
<snip>
Then we must ignore any religious teachings that deal with what
those gods say is good or evil.
Well, I think that would be rational, but one could still believe
that evil is a human construct and that its existence in the material
world is for the greater good and still believe that a holy book
could give humans teachings about it.
That idea is common among most of the fundies many of whom don't believe
they can do *any* good without god but can do evil.
The same book talks of fallen angels who sinned thus implying evil in the
spiritual world.
If what was said is true we can't know what is good or evil.
People should be as wary of "good" people as of "evil" people.
Hitler was good or bad in this case.
The six people a minute dying from Malaria is a good thing and so is
their suffereing.
Polio vaccine and modern medicine is bad.
That is a good argument against religious teachings, but it isn't a
proof. Essentially what you're saying is that these teachings don't
make sense, and thus it isn't rational to believe them. I'm with
you. But it isn't logically impossible to define things in a way
which would allow such events to correspond with a belief in a God,
even an omnipotent, omniscient one. (Though a belief in such a good
wouldn't necessitate believing that polio vaccines are bad).
The claim that "... all one needs to do is posit a claim that our human
understandings of good and evil, and what is best, etc., are all
imperfect,..." is common and what I responded to. If you accept that then
there can be no way to know if good is evil, or war is peace.
An omnipotent god could have given us the understanding needed. Without the
knowledge we can't know if Hitler went to heaven and Anne Frank to hell.
I'm drawing a blank with your phrase "But it isn't logically impossible to
define things in a way which would allow such events to correspond with a
belief in a God, even an omnipotent, omniscient one. "
I can't make sense without adding my own words and that might make it wrong.
Would you rephrase it if possible?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
17 Oct 2005 05:35:00 AM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dirri9$1p4$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
Scott Erb wrote:
Science has limits. Much of what religion and philosophy deal with --
the
meaning of life, whether or not there is a god (and what that god would
be,
from a monotheistic god with subjectivity to a pantheistic all is god),
and
a whole host of moral/ethical questions are outside science. Science
can
serve those discussions (philosophy cannot ignore what we know about the
world; religion should not contradict what we know about material
reality),
but some of the biggest questions facing humans in understanding meaning
in
their life are, indeed, outside science.
Then if anything divides us I think it may be whether investigation of
material reality is the exclusive domain of scientific explanation. THat
is, whether events (processes, etc.) in the material world can only be
explained by scientific explanation.
I'd put it this way: if a non-scientific explanation contradicts a
scientific one, the scientific explanation is stronger because of the power
of the scientific method, and how it is always open to new evidence and
theories.
I'm not committed to that view, but
perhaps you are. For example, I don't see "the earthquake happened
because it was Allah's will" to be an illegitimate explanation for the
earthquake. It's no scientific explanation, of course, and science has,
by its own standards, a pretty good proximal explanation for why
earthquakes happen. You say, for instance, that philosophy cannot ignore
what we know about the materaial world, but I wonder whether you are
implicitly committing to the claim that only science gives us knowledge
of the material world?
The claim "Allah caused the earthquake" does not contradict science; it only
adds a non-scientific primary cause.
Good - you're on the ball. That's why I said "proximal". I agree.
It cannot be falsified, so science
cannot claim it false, even if scientists would find the lack of proof and e
vidence as making it seem irrational to believe. I personally am open to
the possibility that there is a "deeper" spiritual reality that underlies
material experience. There is a magic to life and its coincidences that to
me defies simple material explanations. Also, if there were only material
causes, we'd still be left the fundamental puzzle: why is there existence?
Why is there a world? Our current level of knowledge runs into a wall with
these kinds of questions, they are outside science.
Some of my reflections on this kind of issue (an on going series I add to
now and then: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/spirit.htm)
Galileo, who was to the end a devout Catholic, said that if scripture
contradicts what we know scientifically about the world, then our
interpretation of scripture must be wrong. Expanding that
European/Christian view to a wider view on God possibilities and various
religious beliefs, I'd say that there is room for religion, but I will not
personally accept religious teachings as worthy of being considered if they
deny basic scientific facts (like the belief in the geo-centric universe
Galileo was fighting against). But if it stays in the realm of
unfalsifiable hypotheses, then it seems to me philosophy and religion are
trying to understand a different aspect of human existence. Or, bottom
line, I'm not a materialist, I don't believe the material world is the
essence of what existence is all about.
I think we agree on enough that I'll leave it there.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
15 Oct 2005 02:52:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:41:18 -0700, Goober <go.away@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Don't get me wrong - I like science. I think science is in general the
most effective way to gain an understanding of the world. But it is
surely not the *only* way to acquire knowledge.
Whatever it is religious speculation on scientific questions can't
accomplish any thing regarding truth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
14 Oct 2005 01:26:34 PM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
Mani Deli wrote:
ID, creationism and all similar nonsense is based on a logical
contradiction. It claims that everything needs a designer and in
conclusion spouts the word god. One need only ask who designed god?
No. You're confusing several different arguments. There is nothing
essential to arguments for ID to the effect that everything *needs* a
designer. Not at all. ID arguments are inference to the best
explanation arguments. The basic strategy is that a very significant
measure of form to function fit is noted in the natural world and an
intelligent designer is proposed as the best explanation for that.
Most of the fundamentals are considered designer built. They may allow
snowflakes but claim things like the eye and most cell structures are
"irreducibly complex" and *required* a designer.
Since the trial has shown that the basic concepts of ID seems to stem
changing words form creation to Intelligent design in "Of Pandas and People"
as a result of the supreme courts decision that creationism was not science
I don't see much confusion in the comment
What you seem to be alluding to is not the design argument but either
the cosmological argument or a first cause argument - very different
arguments. Neither of these are based in a logical contradiction if
they are carefully stated.
The first cause argument makes an arbitrary choice and only word play keeps
it from being a logical contradiction in the mind of some.
Science has valid theory for both an uncaused cause and an infinite number
of causes as well as an infinite number of uncaused causes.
ID, if taken seriously, absolutely validates the question of who designed
the designer.
The detractors of science so often manage to draw its defenders into
long divisive arguments explaining a particular scientific point. Why
bother? The structure of the religious argument is simply "A"
(science) is wrong; therefore B (creationism etc.) is correct. It
doesn't follow and it surprises me that so many people who should
know better don't seem to notice this.
You seem to suppose that there is only one religious argument. That's
clearly not so.
And the structure of design arguments do not take as a premise (as you
seem to suggest) that "science is wrong". Rather, ID arguments suggest
that ID is the best explanation for the manifest fit between form and
function for significant portions of the natural world (pre-eminently,
the biological world). The central premise - shared with evolutionary
theorists - is that there is a great deal of fit between form and
function in the natural world. ID advocates then attempt to offer
grounds for thinking that ID is a better explanation for that fit than
evolutionary theory.
If that were so then greed alone would have the scientific community
supporting it rather than laughing at it.
It would mean billions in research money and be the salvation of grad
students for years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
15 Oct 2005 12:24:19 AM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Goober wrote:
Mani Deli wrote:
ID, creationism and all similar nonsense is based on a logical
contradiction. It claims that everything needs a designer and in
conclusion spouts the word god. One need only ask who designed god?
No. You're confusing several different arguments. There is nothing
essential to arguments for ID to the effect that everything *needs* a
designer. Not at all. ID arguments are inference to the best
explanation arguments. The basic strategy is that a very significant
measure of form to function fit is noted in the natural world and an
intelligent designer is proposed as the best explanation for that.
Most of the fundamentals are considered designer built. They may allow
snowflakes but claim things like the eye and most cell structures are
"irreducibly complex" and *required* a designer.
Yes, "required" in the sense that an intelligent designer (they suggest)
is the only explanation up to accounting for the particular phenomena in
question.
Since the trial has shown that the basic concepts of ID seems to stem
changing words form creation to Intelligent design in "Of Pandas and People"
as a result of the supreme courts decision that creationism was not science
I don't see much confusion in the comment
I'm not especially interested in the U.S. Supreme Court's view on the
matter. But that's largely because I'm not directly affected by it. I
perfectly well understand why Americans would be concerned with its
rulings. How certain arguments pan out in some country's law courts is
not of special concern to me.
My point relates to the arguments for or against ID as that argument has
been played out in the philosophical and theological literature. (A
classic text for ID is Paley's 'Natural Theology'.)
And I stand by my point that ID is an argument to the best explanation
for the fit of form to function observed in much of nature. The
confusion I referred to is not about whether creationism is a 'science'.
The confusion that I identify is with other arguments for the existence
of God (cosmological or first cause arguments).
What you seem to be alluding to is not the design argument but either
the cosmological argument or a first cause argument - very different
arguments. Neither of these are based in a logical contradiction if
they are carefully stated.
The first cause argument makes an arbitrary choice and only word play keeps
it from being a logical contradiction in the mind of some.
I'm not going to challenge the claim that the first cause argument makes
an arbitrary choice, nor do I challenge the claim that the minds of some
defenders of the first cause argument contain logical contradictions. I
simply claimed that careful expressions of he first cause and
cosmological arguments do not involve logical contradictions. That isn't
word play, imo.
Science has valid theory for both an uncaused cause and an infinite number
of causes as well as an infinite number of uncaused causes.
I'm not sure exactly to what you refer, so I can't really comment. But
I'm not suggesting the science has no good hypotheses.
ID, if taken seriously, absolutely validates the question of who designed
the designer.
'Validates'? Perhaps you mean it ignores the question of 'who designed
the designer?'? But that's not a relevant criticism of ID theory, since
it is not a hypothesis intended to explain the properties of the
intelligent designer. ID is a hypothesis intended to explain certain
observable natural phenomena involving a remarkable fit of form to
function (things like eyes and seeing) by appeal to an intelligent
designer. It is not a valid criticism of that hypothesis that it does
not simultaneously explain the properties of the explanada (i.e., of the
intelligent designer). If, for example, I explain certain chemical
properties in terms of the electron structure of certain atoms, it is no
criticism of that explanation that I have not explained the electron
structure of the atoms.
In any case, unless there is a remarkable degree of fit between the form
of an intelligent designer and its function, the question doesn't arise.
I'm not sure what you might suppose the form or function of the
hypothesised intelligent designer might be, but unless you can provide
some reason to think that there is such a form and function, and a fit
between them, there's nothing to explain (at least nothing demanding
further teleological explanation).
The detractors of science so often manage to draw its defenders into
long divisive arguments explaining a particular scientific point. Why
bother? The structure of the religious argument is simply "A"
(science) is wrong; therefore B (creationism etc.) is correct. It
doesn't follow and it surprises me that so many people who should
know better don't seem to notice this.
You seem to suppose that there is only one religious argument. That's
clearly not so.
And the structure of design arguments do not take as a premise (as you
seem to suggest) that "science is wrong". Rather, ID arguments suggest
that ID is the best explanation for the manifest fit between form and
function for significant portions of the natural world (pre-eminently,
the biological world). The central premise - shared with evolutionary
theorists - is that there is a great deal of fit between form and
function in the natural world. ID advocates then attempt to offer
grounds for thinking that ID is a better explanation for that fit than
evolutionary theory.
If that were so then greed alone would have the scientific community
supporting it rather than laughing at it.
It would mean billions in research money and be the salvation of grad
students for years.
I see no reason to think that's true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
15 Oct 2005 05:10:42 AM |
|
|
Goober <go.away@nowhere.com> said:
Mike Painter wrote:
<...>
ID, if taken seriously, absolutely validates the question of who designed
the designer.
'Validates'? Perhaps you mean it ignores the question of 'who designed
the designer?'? But that's not a relevant criticism of ID theory, since
it is not a hypothesis intended to explain the properties of the
intelligent designer. ID is a hypothesis intended to explain certain
observable natural phenomena involving a remarkable fit of form to
function (things like eyes and seeing) by appeal to an intelligent
designer. It is not a valid criticism of that hypothesis that it does
not simultaneously explain the properties of the explanada (i.e., of the
intelligent designer). If, for example, I explain certain chemical
properties in terms of the electron structure of certain atoms, it is no
criticism of that explanation that I have not explained the electron
structure of the atoms.
In any case, unless there is a remarkable degree of fit between the form
of an intelligent designer and its function, the question doesn't arise.
I'm not sure what you might suppose the form or function of the
hypothesised intelligent designer might be, but unless you can provide
some reason to think that there is such a form and function, and a fit
between them, there's nothing to explain (at least nothing demanding
further teleological explanation).
<...>
I wanted to leave the second paragraph here, to avoid distorting your
view. But I want to comment on the first paragraph.
The valid criticism of ID is not one that would be reducible to such
facts as that explanations like electron theory, which explain
chemical properties, do not simultaneously explain themselves, but are
nonetheless accepted by science. The valid criticism is that an
explanation may not be a "science stopper" and be considered
scientific. That is, if there are any scientific questions raised
about the explanada, they must be investigable by scientific means --
and there are scientific questions to be raised about whatever entity
that is said by ID to have intelligently designed terrestrial life.
(and an entity is implied by ID).
Questions like -- does it still exist, what is/was it made of, how did
it do what it did (eg, did it make life, or become life, and by what
stepwise process), given the composition of the earth, what
variability was possible, what conditions gave rise to it or would
terminate it, how many of it are there and where are they, what
measurable and sensible properties, if any, does it have, how does it
interact with matter and electromagnetic energy of different kinds,
and if it is intelligent, a whole bunch of questions about its coming
to have intelligent, what it knows, thinks, senses, feels, and how it
does this -- cannot be answered by anything but scientific means if
the explanada is to be scientific, and if they cannot be answered by
scientific means, the explanada is *not* scientific. I mean "cannot"
in the strong sense, as in, the explanada is not and | | | |
