Disappointed with Shermer

_{Mark

April 6, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From EXPELLED Dr Caroline Crocker.

“Recently I attended a lecture by Michael Shermer at the UCSD Biological Science Symposium (4/2/09). His title was, “Why Darwin Matters,” but his topic was mostly religion. He started by defining science as “looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena” and said that his purpose was to “debunk the junk and expose sloppy thinking.”

We were all subjected to an evening of slapstick comedy, cheap laughs, and the demolition of straw men.

His characterization of ID was that the theory says, 1) If something looks designed, 2) We can’t think how it was designed naturally, 3) Therefore we assert that it was designed supernaturally. (God of the gaps.) Okay everyone, laugh away at the stupid ID theorists.

I was astonished at how a convinced Darwinist, who complains about mixing science and religion, spent most of his time at the Biological Science Symposium talking about religion.”

Get the full text here.

Comments

We need to show that an personal agent created the universe. To do that we must show that an impersonal, changeless cause could not have done so. So, we begin with a self-evident truth as the premise and work our way through those things which necessarily follow: Premise: For all impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed, none can begin in time. 1. Therefore: All effects that have always existed could not have begun to exist 2. Therefore: All impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed could not have begun in time. 3: Therefore, no effect can begin to exist if its impersonal, unchanging cause always was. 4: Therefore: No impersonal, unchanging cause can begin to exist if its effect always was. 5: Therefore, no impersonal, unchanging cause can exist without its effect. 6: Therefore, no effect can exist without its impersonal, unchanging cause. 7: Therefore, the impersonal, unchanging law cannot cause the universe to begin to exist. 8: Therefore, a personal agent caused the universe to begin to exist. If someone needs for me to demonstrate why each follows from the other, let me know.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Then your definitions have settled the matter, so why all the logical steps?hazel_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

----Hazel: So now how do you define agent? Just defining impersonal as non-agent doesn’t tell us much. Anyone or anything that can choose to act or not act. An impersonal, unchanging law cannot do that.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, I think that the word "unchanging" in the premise deals with your objection. Also, Sotto Voce's objection doesn't hold. If an unchanging law has always been, its effect has always been. If an effect begins to exist, then that means that the law also began to exist. So, if Sotto Voce's description of what goes on is correct, then it just means that the law to which he refers began in time. David, all that matters is the premise itself. My sloppy first premise does not leak into the current one, regardless of the process by which it was arrived at.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

So now how do you define agent? Just defining impersonal as non-agent doesn't tell us much.hazel_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

That should read, "the purportedly compelled move from impersonal TO personal first causes."Diffaxial_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

hazel:
Not only that, but restricting his statement to impersonal causes begs the very question (at least one of them) under discussion: why is it OK for a personal uncaused cause to initiate an effect and not an impersonal one.
Stephen's responses, in essence, hinge on an arbitrary definition: impersonal causes cannot vary in their effects, by definition. Hazel challenged the dichotomy between personal agency and impersonal laws by describing the notion of the Tao. I addressed the question from a different tack by postulating (in 470 and again in 477, above) the possibility of a lawful, impersonal first cause that oscillates, therefore issuing different effects when in different states. I asked why this is excluded and how one would distinguish the effects of such a timeless cause from those of a personal cause. Stephen decisively rebutted my repeated question by ignoring it. Sotto Voce simultaneously (literally: he posted his response at 469 while I was working on 470) pointed to natural phenomena that force the same question: Sotto Voce @469:
Place a radium atom in a completely isolated location. For a while nothing will happen, and then it will decay with no apparent external cause. Isn’t this a case of a law that “always was” (or at least, was since close to the beginning of the universe) producing an effect that “begins in time”? Do you contend that spontaneous radioactive decay cannot be explained without postulating some personal agent who decides when the atom will decay?
So far as I can tell, Stephen also ignored this example. Stephen, since we are once again at the the purportedly compelled move from impersonal and personal first causes, the time has come to actually address these questions.Diffaxial_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I don't think so. If you look back, you'll see that your first premise in 702 is a variation of a conclusion earlier. The first premise of the syllogism that led to that conclusion was Premise 1: No thing that has always existed can begin in time. I could follow up: Premise 2c: All personal causes are things. Therefore: No personal cause that has always existed can begin in time. At this point I don't see that your conclusion (which is pretty loosely derived -- it would have to be broken down to make a proper set of syllogisms) would not follow equally from a personal cause.David Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

---David: "If we go back to 685 and 686, we have “No thing that has always existed can begin in time.” If God falls under that premise, you could construct a set of syllogisms that make the existence of God impossible! But I bet you don’t want to go there." Right, but all those "things" have been taken out. They are no longer in the premise or in any of the extensions.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Hazel: "Now that you have added the word impersonal you need to define it and differentiate it from personal. Why is your premise valid for impersonal and not personal?" Yes, that's right. At 702, impersonal is defined as non-agent, and I also added the word "unchanging." Your feedback helped and David's feedback helped.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

I think I may have identified the problem. If we go back to 685 and 686, we have "No thing that has always existed can begin in time." If God falls under that premise, you could construct a set of syllogisms that make the existence of God impossible! :-( But I bet you don't want to go there. There's a potential equivocation at the phrase "no thing." It may mean the "nothing" but have been written that way to define the middle term in proper syllogistic form (that is, to allow "thing" in premises 2a and 2b). If you want "thing" to exclude personal causes, you'll have to do a little more work at that stage or else risk writing God out of existence.David Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Unfortunately uncompelling - see 703 above.hazel_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Its getting late in the game, so here are the other 4 steps: Step 5: Therefore, no impersonal, unchanging cause can exist without its effect. Step 6: Therefore, no effect can exist without its impersonal, unchanging cause. Step 7: Therefore, the impersonal, unchanging law cannot cause the universe to begin to exist. Step 8: Therefore, a personal agent caused the universe to begin to exist.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Now that you have added the word impersonal you need to define it and differentiate it from personal. Why is your premise valid for impersonal and not personal? You are trying to get to the conclusion that only a personal uncaused cause can initiate an effect that begins in time, but you are building that conclusion right into the premise. Could you explain what your definitions for personal uncaused and impersonal uncaused causes are? If your definitions include the very distinction you are trying to prove then we have no need for the logic.hazel_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

David and Hazel, thanks. Also, David is right. I can't just change step three, that would be fudging, which means I had to rewrite the premise. For all impersonal causes that have always existed, none can begin in time. (Define impersonal to mean non-agent) We can also add "unchanging" if you want to really tighten it down as in impersonal, unchanging cause. So, here we are. Premise: For all impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed, none can begin in time. 1. Therefore: All effects that have always existed could not have begun to exist 2. Therefore: All impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed could not have begun in time. 3: Therefore, no effect can begin to exist if its impersonal, unchanging cause always was. So, now I am breaking down step three with my example, which still applies: Could the effect ever exist without the cause? No. So if the effect begins to exist the cause must also begin to exist. If the cause had already been there, then the effect would have always been there. So, if the effect begins to exist, the cause cannot have always been. We can make it more concrete. Let’s assume that rain is the cause of the wet street. Can the wet street begin to exist if the rain does not also begin to exist? If the rain always was, then the street would have always been wet. So, if the street begins to get wet, the rain cannot have always been. So, step 3 again reads, "no effect can begin to exist if its impersonal cause always was." Moving ahead: Step4 Therefore: No impersonal, unchanging cause can begin to exist if its effect always was. Let me know if an explanation or concrete example will help.StephenB_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Moderators, may we please have a new thread to continue this topic? The page and all of its 700 comments are taking forever to load.Adel DiBagno_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Not only that, but restricting his statement to impersonal causes begs the very question (at least one of them) under discussion: why is it OK for a personal uncaused cause to initiate an effect and not an impersonal one. It was because of this question that I brought up the point that the personal/impersonal dichotomy (especially when the latter just means lawlike) are not the only alternatives for understanding - hence my summary of Taoism. Among other things, to resolve this question we would need a discussion of just what do “personal” and “impersonal” mean, and I’m sure that would involve more than tautological, self-evident premises.hazel_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

StephenB [695], we've already been working with all causes and all effects. Restricting it to just immpersonal causes (the impersonal/personal distinction hasn't been defined) at this point seems to be fudging the categories a bit.David Kellogg_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

David/Hazel, I thing to resolve the question regarding StephenB's comments, we can think in terms of potentiality vs. actuality. Acting upon potential (eternal) causes effects (contingent). The 'idea' of the universe has always existed. It is it's actualization however that has a finite nature. A good illustration is an idea for a Church of Divine Mercy I have in mind. I'm not a priest but I was moved by St. Faustinas visions and have decided that one day if/when I get the opportunity, I will build it. Now, that builing truly exists in my mind. I can see it clearly. I know the layout, the texture of the stone, the outer design, color of the paint, etc. Yet it currently exists as potential since I have yet to actualize it. My will is the force that bridges its potential state into actuality. The question is: Can this building said to be non-existent as its effect has yet to be perceived? Is a construction site a pile of wood, gypsum board and nails, or 'an unfinished house' (i.e.a house being transformed from potential to actual).Oramus_{April 18, 2009
April
04
Apr
18
18
2009
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

David:
Stephen might be leading toward an argument that a personal cause avoids this alleged conundrum.
Seems to me he has been arguing this at least since 462, WAY above. VJtorley too.Diffaxial_{April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Hazel, don't you think that there is a limit to what the human mind can comprehend, and that everything is a matter of faith? OTOH, maybe there isn't a limit to the human imagination and man can delude himself into thinking there is nothing he can't comprehend. There are irrational faiths such as materialism (i.e. everything is matter or can be reduced to matter or what is measurable) and rational faiths such as the Abrahamic ones (i.e. there is a Creator outside the material universe who has established laws to govern it but can break and has broken those laws revealed Himself to His creation.) There is truth and we have the power to reason that away.tribune7_{April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Hazel, David, you are both right. I can't make it work until I change the language "the effect cannot begin to exist if its impersonal cause always was." So, step three would have to be "the effect cannot begin to exist if the impersonal cause always existed."StephenB_{April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Stephen might be leading toward an argument that a personal cause avoids this alleged conundrum.David Kellogg_{April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

I was thinking the same thing. As I read Stephen's logic, it would imply that if God is the first cause, and God always existed (even more than that, God is "unchanging" in Stephen's words) then the universe must either(a) always exist, or (b) never come into existence.David Kellogg_{April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

I know I'm not playing, so Stephen can ignore this question. But to others (onlookers?), when Stephen says "Step 3: no effect can begin to exist if its cause always was.", then I ask, "Then how did God create the universe?" God is eternal, and presumably God is the cause of the universe. Doesn't his creation of the universe violate Stephen's proposition?hazel_{April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

---David, "I don’t see how that follows. But it may be the phrasing. I’m not actually sure what you’re saying." OK, fair enough. Maybe you will have to help me rephrase again. Meanwhile, let’s bracket this one step and ask a question. Could the effect ever exist without the cause? No. So if the effect begins to exist the cause must also begin to exist. If the cause had already been there, then the effect would have always been there. So, if the effect begins to exist, the cause cannot have always been. We can make it more concrete. Let’s assume that rain is the cause of the wet street. Can the wet street begin to exist if the rain does not also begin to exist? If the rain always was, then the street would have always been wet. So, if the street begins to get wet, the rain cannot have always been. Think about it an I will check in tomorrow.StephenB_{April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

David, Why, thank you. I don't think anyone can hear that often enough. And while we are sharing, I would want you to know that I truly appreciate your involvement in this thread. I have read every word you've posted. Thanks!Upright BiPed_{April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Hmm. Step 3. Let me think about this. First, I'm fine with "to exist" as a substitute for "in time." If I take therefore [a] and [b] as premises, does Step 3 become the new conclusion? I don't see how that follows. But it may be the phrasing. I'm not actually sure what you're saying. Can you put terms that follow from the premises? (I know I was the one who questioned the usefulness of syllogistic logic, but I'd be happy to accept that kind of logic here.)David Kellogg_{April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

I’m also interested in wrapping this up, if for no other reason than to reclaim some discretionary time in my life. One of the starting points of this thread, for me, was the discussion about how atheism is just the lack of a belief in a God - stating that one is an atheist says nothing about what one does belief. From there the discussion spun off to the long part of the thread about logic, rationality, arguments for the existence of God, etc. For me an important summary of one of the issues was offered by vj at 515:
As my preceding post makes clear, the real difference between the two cases is that while a personal agent who makes free choices (even if they are timeless ones) might be able to cause the beginning of the cosmos in a way that respects the freedom of the creatures that exist within it, there is no way known for an impersonal cause to do this. For if the impersonal cause’s generation of the cosmos is an act of necessity dictated by its built-in program, then we are no more free than we would be in Newton’s clockwork universe.If on the other hand, the impersonal cause’s generation of the cosmos is a random act, then that is no better for us: purely random acts are not free either, and cosmic randomness per se does not enable free choices on our part. It is difficult to see what other alternatives you could posit.
Well I think there are other alternatives. So in an effort to bring some closure for myself to this discussion (irrespective of whether it helps anyone else or not), I’m going to offer some of my thoughts on Taoist philosophy. Note well: these are philosophical speculations. They are a framework for metaphysically understanding our experience of, and in, this world we live in, but they are not provable, logically necessary, or even testable in the empirical sense. However, as a metaphysical belief system they make the most sense to me of all the religious and philosophical perspectives I have studied, and they have provided me many meaningful principles which have helped me in my life. So, the following is both an alternative to the two cases mentioned by vj (personal agent vs impersonal laws) and a statement of what one atheist, me, might be said to believe as an alternative to believing in God. So here we go: 1. The Tao is the undifferentiated One out of which all that is arises. It is the ultimate ground of all characteristics, yet it has no characteristics itself. The Tao is ineffable. As the saying goes, "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao." Words by their nature segment and specify, and the Tao cannot be segmented or specified. Trying to capture the Tao in words is not only fruitless, it squeezes the spirit out of our understanding of it. In Eastern traditions, to the extent that we can approach understanding the Tao, we must quiet the mind, give up attachment to our verbalizations, and find a sense of Oneness in a state of pure consciousness. From this point of view, all the logical manipulations going on on this thread are antithetical to a true spiritual understanding. 2. Complementary duality: all of the fundamental concepts in the world arise out of the Tao according to the principle of complementary duality. Complementary duals are not opposites in the Western sense - antagonistic and exclusionary concepts defined by being not the other - but rather two facets of one whole which interact with each other as they manifest themselves. The two little circles in the yin-yang symbol (black inside white and white inside black) represent the idea that inside each one of thepair is the potential and the impetus to move to the other. Because of this complementary interplay, these “opposites” work to create dynamic balance, not antagonistic tension. Even existence/non-existence is a complementary dual. The Tao is neither something nor nothing, but that which encompasses both. That which exists has motion towards non-existence, but that which does not exist has motion to come into existence. Another symbol for this principle is the bell-shaped curve. The ends of the spectrum represent the two opposites when separated from their complementary nature - the ends represent antagonistic opposites. However the middle represents the balance that comes when the duals commingle. Far too often people exclude the middle and set up a black-and-white battle of the extremes. Such a perspective is out of balance and will inevitably be less effective than being aware of the value and interplay of the whole spectrum. As my son has put it, truth does not lie in either of the opposites but in the interplay between them. Such an interplay is dynamic and fluid - truth is never solidified but always demands to be understood in context. 3. The Creative and the Receptive The most fundamental dual is the yang/yin concept of the Creative and the Receptive, for it is the interplay of these two that sets and keeps the world in motion - that creates the “restless multiplicity” of the world we experience. The Receptive is the ground upon which the world is built. It is passive and does what it is impelled to do, but it provides the nourishment of material for the activity that is imparted to it. The Creative is active, and impels the world to move and change. The Creative desires to bring forth what is new, and the Receptive desires to nourish what is old. Together they bring growth to the world. 4. Synchronicity Because of our nature as creatures in the physical world, we necessarily experience time as flowing from moment to moment and space flowing from point to point. As the world thus changes we notice the regularities of cause-and-effect that are manifested. This causal relationship is the heart of our empirical understanding of how the world works. However just because that is all we can experience doesn’t mean that is all there is. The principle of synchronicity posits that there are other connections between non-contiguous points of time and space such that at times changes are coordinated in ways that are beyond normal causality and yet do not violate normal causality. As I quoted earlier from Carl Jung’s introduction to the Wilhelm version of the I Ching,
This assumption [that the I Ching works] involves a certain curious principle that I have termed synchronicity,[2] a concept that formulates a point of view diametrically opposed to that of causality. Since the latter is a merely statistical truth and not absolute, it is a sort of working hypothesis of how events evolve one out of another, whereas synchronicity takes the coincidence of events in space and time as meaning something more than mere chance, namely, a peculiar interdependence of objective events among themselves as well as with the subjective (psychic) states of the observer or observers. … Just as causality describes the sequence of events, so synchronicity to the Chinese mind deals with the coincidence of events. The causal point of view tells us a dramatic story about how D came into existence: it took its origin from C, which existed before D, and C in its turn had a father, B, etc. The synchronistic view on the other hand tries to produce an equally meaningful picture of coincidence. How does it happen that A’, B’, C’, D’, etc., appear all in the same moment and in the same place?
So when things happen “by coincidence”, or things turn out “just right”, or a dark cloud has a silver lining, it is not just pure random chance that might be involved, but rather a “behind the scenes” arrangement of events arising from the balancing of various complementary duals. Such events are the product of the Creative principle at work striving to bring disparate parts together into a new, meaningful whole. 4. Spontaneity: one of my favorite Taoist sayings is that “the wise man is he who does spontaneously exactly that which he would do after great deliberation.” Spontaneity and deliberation are a complementary dual. However, when one is in harmony with the overall nature of a situation, the next right action often will rise all of a piece - both what to do and why to do it will be just presented to us, as if (and this is what happens) our larger organic self has grasped the whole without our active engagement. The world as a whole works like this also: at times the Creative and the Receptive interact to suddenly bring something new into existence - not in a poof-like way that violates normal causality but in a synchronous type of way that brings otherwise disparate parts together to truly produce something new. To address the main issue of the thread, our universe was a spontaneous creation of the Tao. There was no person behind it, acting with foresight and purpose, but there was a creative gathering of forces to produce something that had the wherewithal to keep on keeping on in an interesting way. How the Tao does that gathering is beyond our comprehension, but it doesn’t take a man behind the curtain to make it happen. 5. The world is fractal (although of course Taoism doesn’t use this word.) The principles of the Tao apply to every little moment of the world - our lives and all the events around us - just as much as they apply to the creation of the universe as a whole. 6. Living well: The main purpose of adopting a Taoist philosophy is to learn how to live well - to learn to act so as to maximize health and harmony in the world around us. Taoism is not concerned with dogma, nor with compelling belief, nor with dichotomizing the world. It is concerned with always doing “the next right thing” in a way that both contributes to and is receptive of the larger synchronous forces around us in a situation. 7. Conclusion Now I know this probably sounds like fuzzy gibberish to many of you (I admitted to this being untestable metaphysical speculations in the beginning), but it is no more so than how most theistic theology sounds to me, I imagine. My purpose was to provide an alternative view to the standard dichotomy of “personal agent” vs “law and chance.” Taoism provides a third option of spontaneous creativity. There is no person necessary for spontaneous creativity to happen. A standard metaphor in Eastern thought is that the world is a web - a vast inter-connected lattice of events. Taoism says that the web has no weaver - that the design has no designer. Law and chance may be what we see when we examine the world empirically, but if we can look beyond that - see the world with the spirit as well as with the eye, so to speak - we can see that the ever-present Tao has a larger layer of synchronous creative causality which brings about the bigger patterns we see unfold around us. I’m sure I could go back and refine this a bit, and I’m not sure whether it will be of much interest to anyone, but as I said earlier, I have written this as much for my sake as for anything else. So if you’ve gotten this far, thanks for reading. “hazel”hazel_{April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

David: Thanks, the rewrite looks good, and thanks for giving me a chance given all the heat we have had. That's pretty open minded, and I appreciate it. It's not a trick, in fact, if you like, I will tell you where we end up before we get there. I am not going to alienate the only person who will dialogue with me, in spite of some of my past snippish remarks. If you want to substitute "begin to exist" for "begin in time," we can. In fact, maybe that would be better so that we don't have to deal with that difficulty. So far, here is where we are: Therefore [a] no cause that has always existed can begin to [exist] Therefore [b] no effect that has always existed can begin to [exist] Step 3: no effect can begin to exist if its cause always was. OK, with that. I'll probably finish up tomorrow, because we only have about three of four more steps. The idea is to show [very soon] that for every eternal cause its effect must also be eternal and for every eternal effect its cause must also be eternal. From there, one more point will be made. In fact, if you accept that proposition now, we can move on to the last two steps, which will reveal something else. Otherwise, we can just go from where we are. When we complete it tomorrow, I will probably retire from the thread and let everyone have their say without my interference [unless someone calls me back.]StephenB_{April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply