Disappointed with Shermer

_{idnet.com.au
April 6, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

tribune7 @ 140
A better summary would be designed things have exclusive traits. If those traits exist, the object is designed. It is impossible to identify the designer through this method.
In my view, an even better summary would be that the Intelligent Design movement proposes that all instances of design, regardless of the nature of the designer, share traits which can be used to distinguish reliably between that which is designed and that which is not. It should be noted, however, that this proposal relies on the assumption that there exist undesigned phenomena from which designed phenomena can be separated. In the case of a Universe which is entirely the handiwork of a Creator, every aspect of that world would bear the imprint of design. There would be nothing undesigned for any Filter to remove. As for the identity of the Designer, if it is the same as the Christian God or First Cause, then there is little we can say about it at present other than it must be a being knowledgeable and powerful enough to create all we observe. If, however, the Designer is a lesser being, responsible for some - but not all - of what we observe, then we can infer something about its nature by what it can and cannot do. In either case, the nature of the Designer is a fit subject for scientific investigation and should not be excluded arbitrarily.Seversky_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Mr StephenB, While all things in the universe “have” being, their existence depends on that which “is” being. There is no way around this. Well, this restates your opening position even less clearly than before. You haven't brought evidence (as opposed to arguments) that I AM THAT I AM is more of a necessity than IT IS THAT IT IS.Nakashima_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Mr. Kellogg, Re: dogmatic ok, touche ;) even though GKC is far too fun, personable and engaging to be just dogmatic! Mr. Nakashima GKC, in Orthodoxy: "If I may put it so, [Mrs. Besant] does not tell us to love our neighbours; she tells us to be our neighbours. That is Mrs. Besant's thoughtful and suggestive description of the religion in which all men must find themselves in agreement. And I never heard of any suggestion in my life with which I more violently disagree. I want to love my neighbour not because he is I, but precisely because he is not I. I want to adore the world, not as one likes a looking-glass, because it is one's self, but as one loves a woman, because she is entirely different. If souls are separate love is possible. If souls are united love is obviously impossible. A man may be said loosely to love himself, but he can hardly fall in love with himself, or, if he does, it must be a monotonous courtship. If the world is full of real selves, they can be really unselfish selves. But upon Mrs. Besant's principle the whole cosmos is only one enormously selfish person. It is just here that Buddhism is on the side of modern pantheism and immanence. And it is just here that Christianity is on the side of humanity and liberty and love. Love desires personality; therefore love desires division." I find the preceding to be utterly coherent and an indictment of love (as I understand love) being real if Buddhism is real. Now, your job is either to convince me that the preceding isn't coherent or that love isn't real. I am not actually challenging you to do that in this forum; I find such arguments to be boring and am certain others would also. In fact, I am a little embarrassed to have dragged myself in this far. Any chance to quote GKC and I just can't help it. Oh by the way Mr. Kellogg, speaking of heretics, Chesterton's book, Heretics, is fantastic. Although slightly dated, it offers a great framework by which I can understand many movements in thought today. No offense, but I am not sure Chesterton would consider you a heretic -- perhaps many heretics, but not one :)Tim_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

----DaveB: "ID unapologetically asks that metaphysical hypotheses be considered, and that metaphysical arguments be given equal consideration to materialist (read: empirical) arguments." I can't wait to hear from you about which "metaphysical" arguments ID science is using. Please don't disappoint me on this one, and please don't be vague. I trust that if you catch some ID advocate reading the Gospel at a church service some Sunday morning that you will not characterize that activity as an example of an ID scientist proposing a formal hypothesis---or will you?StephenB_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Sal Gal, Thank you for helping us again at ID. The issue is over the origin of the universe and so far I have not seen anyone who supports atheism make a valid claim here to the non intelligent origin of the universe which is an essential element of atheism. If anyone thinks that Taoism is the way to such a claim then I believe they are deluded. I am not knocking Taoism but it has nothing to do with how the universe arose. You may say that the origin of the university has not been discussed but any discussion of atheism here at UD always involves that implicit assumption in the discussion. Maybe you will be able to latch on to that.jerry_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

to vjtorley You write,
But methinks you do the cosmos a grave injustice by characterizing it as loveless. For we can love the beauty of nature, wherever we find it. Even after a disaster in which thousands die, the world still looks maddeningly beautiful. The fact that the world is bigger than we are should not disturb us; and the fact that it cannot love us back should not bother us. The mere fact that it can be loved by us as something beautiful, no matter how badly it is “misbehaving” (from our anthropocentric perspective) should excite our wonder.
Absolutely - I agree. Our feelings of love and wonder and awe for the universe as a whole and many parts of it, including especially those of our family, friends and community, are critical and essential parts of us. We are not loveless, and a universe that produces us can not be said to be loveless. I didn't say anything denying this, I don't think. What I said was, channeling a philosophical Taoist view, is that love is not a central, core aspect of the universe. The key idea of Taoism is that all things exist as aspects of a complementary duality, and thus personal loving, compassionate engagement with the world is balanced by a vast impersonal indifference that characterizes the physical universe. Then you write,
And the additional fact that even at its craziest, the world remains knowable and amenable to scientific investigation should prompt our suspicion that it is the work of a Mind. For if we do not make such a supposition, we have no logical refuge from total skepticism regarding the future, or regarding the reliability of our reasoning in matters removed from the practical and the here-and-now.
I don't agree with this - neither that the knowability of the world implies the work of a mind nor that denying that implies serious, fundamental doubts about the reliability of our reasoning. These are big topics, and to my mind, the biggest misconceptions about what atheism (including that of the Toaist variety) entails.
Atheists cannot explain why science works, as an enterprise. Their confidence in science is a gigantic leap of faith.
I have confidence in science because a. the observations of the physical world which are the starting points of science are ones that we can all share - science is a communal enterprise based on common empirical experience b. we can test our conclusions by further observations of the world. I don't see how a belief in God is at all necessary for this enterprise to go on. As to why science works, or as to the broader questions as to how knowing creatures with minds exist in a world that itself has no Mind, I again can see that, like love and will and intelligence are a product of the universe - the universe produces many things that which have characteristics that need not be characteristics of the core nature of the universe. The Taoist view in that the Creative force acts upon the physical world (the Receptive) and out of this interplay the "restless multiplicity" (a phrase I like and used yesterday) of things such as planets and rocks and minds and love arises. I'd like to make it clear that Taoism sees this interplay as being a broader thing than the causal chains of events available to our understanding as creatures embedded in time and space. In Jung's Introduction to the I Ching, he says,
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? It happens in the first place because the physical events A' and B' are of the same quality as the psychic events C' and D', and further because all are the exponents of one and the same momentary situation. The situation is assumed to represent a legible or understandable picture.
Leaving out speculations about whether the I Ching can "really" represent a situation by a hexagram, what I find interesting is that synchronicity, as described by Jung, means that events that are not connected causally and appear to come together by chance are in fact part of a bigger "event" that transcends the world as we can know it empirically. This bigger picture isn't being created by a conscious Mind but rather by a larger set of principles acting on the world across time and space. Much as the laws of causality create the physical world that we can know empirically, the laws of the Tao - the interplay of the Creative and the Receptive and all the other complementary duals structure events that grow and develop without the need for any controlling Mind. Note well that I am not arguing that I know this is true, but I am arguing that it is as plausible as a philosophy that believes a Mind - God - must be behind the creative existence we see before us. And it makes more sense to me than belief in such a God.hazel_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

daveBHis 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. That’s a good summary of ID theory, I don’t know why it should be objectionable. It would be great summary, except that he manages to get everything wrong to such a degree it makes him (and his defenders, no offense daveB) look incredibly stupid. A better summary would be designed things have exclusive traits. If those traits exist, the object is designed. It is impossible to identify the designer through this method.tribune7_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

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. That's a good summary of ID theory, I don't know why it should be objectionable. There's some mathematical and philosophical artifice to support each of the 3 steps, but Shermer displays his usual skill here in conveying the essence of complex arguments in an accessible way. (1) Summarizes the irreducable complexity and complex specified information claims. Irreducible complexity is only detected by inspection, as is CSI, lacking any application to signal analysis. In fact, Shermer is being too charitable when he says "looks like," since ID has yet to develop an experimental basis to test the validity and utility of either IC or CSI. (2) Summarizes the entirely philosophical supposition that "chance, necessity, and agency" are indeed mutually exclusive and exhaustive. (3) Shermer might have made a small misrepresentation here, depending on whether you consider directed panspermia "supernatural." In any case, since ID proponents nearly universally believe the designer was a supernatural being (i.e. the God of Abraham), how could Dr. Crocker object to the one characterization that she surely accepts? ID unapologetically asks that metaphysical hypotheses be considered, and that metaphysical arguments be given equal consideration to materialist (read: empirical) arguments. You can hardly complain if Shermer resorts to philosophical, or even theological, arguments to show how ID fails as an explanation for the origin and history of life on earth. You haven't left him much choice, frankly. I'd love to see an intelligent design research program that digs for fossils to support ID, or scours the genome for evidence of the sort of manipulation that a designer might leave. ID's biggest failure as a scientific endeavor is that its hypothesis fits equally well with evolotion or the spontaneous origin of life as it does with traditional young earth creationism. A designer omniscient enough to know every possible viable genome and powerful enough to manipulate those physical systems could just as easily have done it with one miracle at the instant of creation. The only reason ID should want to undermine evolution at all is to subject science to religious scrutiny (although the unintended consequence will surely be to subject religion to scientific scrutiny). No surprise Shermer spent time talking about religion, given ID's dangerous implications for believers and non-believers alike.daveB_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Moderator Clive: jerry's mockery of Taoism is despicable. What happens if someone refers to prominent ID author Jonathan Wells, who believes that the second coming of Christ is realized in Sun Myung Moon, as a Moonie? As Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."Sal Gal_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Borg:
I do not see the understanding of Jesus' death as a sacrifice for sin as going back to Jesus himself, but as one of several post-Easter metaphors interpreting the meaning of his death... Moreover, in its first-century context, the sacrificial understanding of Jesus' death was a radically subversive metaphor.
It's not hard to tell that Christianity was intended as both a belief system and a way of life based upon divine wisdom. Borg has sucked away every ounce of its meaning and replaced it with the speculation of historians. Who would die for a "subversive metaphor?" Christianity glorifies God. When Borg sticks a pin in it and places it under glass, he only elevates himself. Sorry, that was a bit of a rant.ScottAndrews_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Hazel,
…you responded with some rudeness, which I don’t think I deserved.
Rudeness? Not hardly. There is no need to conflate rudeness with simple directness, and please, don’t feign having thin skin. You, in the shoes of an atheist, challenge the observable evidence that strongly infers volitional agency, and then back up your suspicions of that evidence with nothing less than wild-eyed speculation about phenomena that are not observable, and have no inferential trail that leads us to them. It’s unbecoming of the majority of your thoughtful posts on UD.
You appear to be saying that atheism is the majority position. That is surely wrong…
I am almost certain that we are on an Intelligent Design website. I am further sure that we are having a discussion about the conclusions of science, scientists, and their institutions. Surely you knew this as well, didn’t you?
…there is nothing “wrathful” about anything I’ve said
Perhaps. But, I would direct you to my previous paragraph, and simply ask if you are also not aware of the general tone given to the idea of volitional agency as first cause within scientific circles?
…and I have not spoken about any certainties.
If I quoted you as saying “…whatever the cause, nature and purpose of life is, it doesn’t come from a God” would you say that this expresses a certain level of certainty? If not, then please tell me how it doesn’t express certainty.
It is you who seems certain of what you call “virtually uncontested empirical knowledge.”
This is in reference to my “certainty” that there are only three causes known to mankind. On this point you are correct, I will freely admit to drawing a certain level of certainty from several thousand years of observations by the innumerable philosophers, theologians, scientists, and laymen that have lived prior to my short stay.
Also, you say that I am “making airy speculations about a yet unknown cause.” I agree, but my opinion is that God is an equally “airy speculation.
I am glad you agree, but let’s try to be consistent here. I am not the one suggesting that a plausible inference to an unknown cause can be made simply by a (scientifically unsubstantiated) decision to ignore the (scientifically observable) inferences to agency.
…the probable existence of a divine being seems both less likely and less useful to me than belief in other types of metaphysical concepts.
So, I can further infer that your decision to ignore the observable evidence for agency is not actually based on the evidence itself, but is rather a personal decision. That is fine, as I have never set out to convince anyone to believe in a supernatural being. As I said in my first response; you are free to personally believe whatever you wish. I simply assert that the pretense of ignoring agency is neither enlightened nor scientific. Your comments have been helpful in that regard.Upright BiPed_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

----Nakashima: "Let me be clearer. You write about contingent entities "But not everything can be like this." ----"The possibility of closed timelike curves belies this assertion.In the case of CTCs, the chain of contingent events is like a snake swallowing its tail." The statement was not "everything must be like this" (contingent) but "not everything can be like this," which is the case. Not everything can be contingent, otherwise there would be no non-contingent, self-existent being to give being to everything else. You are arguing correctly that there are, or may be, contingent things that we do not know about, but that doesn't change the need for a necessary being. While all things in the universe "have" being, their existence depends on that which "is" being. There is no way around this. Also, don't forget that there are many other complementary arguments about the existence of a creator which complement the contingency/necessity argument, including, but not limited to, the argument from motion, from design, from efficient causality, and gradation of being. In many cases, indeed, in most cases, inductive reasoning must be used in conjuction with deductive reasoning. The argument is not that the existence of a self-existent creator can be arrived at through "deductive logic." The argument is that it can be arrived at through the use of reason, which indeed it can. ----"I will certainly grant that we don’t know if CTCs exist in our universe, but their possibility means that a necessary being, even one as simple as the Big Bang, is not a logical necessity." The "big bang" is not a logical necessity; it is rather a contingent event which depends on a necessary being. The universe did not have to be.StephenB_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Hmm. Sorry about that Tim. I wouldn't think that a fan of Chesterton would be opposed to dogmatism. :-) My own views are closer to Borg's, which would make me a heretic in Chesterton's eyes.David Kellogg_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Mr Tim, Thank you for the link! Before I have only read his detective stories. His prose is quite fun to read. It just rolls along, sparkling like a stream in the moonlight. And then you realize that he has disposed of an argument from Herbert Spencer simply by slandering him in the eyes of his own audience, by lumping him in with Irish Unionists. I sure the snake in the garden could do a quite passable GKC impression. I would agree with GKC's main thesis in that chapter, that Christianity and Buddhism don't share some important theology. But I don't see your argument there, that Christianity is more coherent. Both traditions are riven with sectarianism.Nakashima_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Mr. Kellogg, I responded once before, but it has not posted. Now that I have had a chance to revisit Mr. Borg's essay, things have only gotten worse. I found aspects of Mr. Borg's essay to be dogmatic, unpersuasive, unconvincing, ponderous, at times incoherent, vague, tedious, trivial . . . Seriously, were you kidding around? Sending me on a snipe hunt? What? . . .Tim_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

@ Hazel (and probably others) I've found all the thoughts presented thus far to be quite interesting. Just thought I'd add my opinion as to why there is so much disagreement. I think the problem lies in the misuse of words. I'll try to illustrate this: Suppose I tell you I'm thinking of a number, "x," giving you only that the number is between 1 and 1 000 000. You state that the answer is five. Suppose someone else, James, believes that the answer is not five. Harry suggests that it is impossible to know what number I'm thinking of, and thus refuses to give an answer. It follows then that: 1) Your belief would represent theism. 2) James' belief represents atheism. "I do not know the answer, but I know the answer is not five" 3) Harry's belief represents agnosticism. Now neither theism nor atheism constitutes religious belief. If I were to start building temples to the glory of the number "5," then that would be another story. I think Joseph's question is an interesting one to consider further: "So the question is are all belief systems also religions?" If the answer is no, then you have to ask, "if not all belief systems are religions, then when does a belief system become a religion?" Theism and atheism are broad categories. Religions fall within those broad categories. So Christianity is a theistic religion. Atheism is not inherently a religion, but atheism is as broad a category as theism is. So the question then is, "when does atheistic belief become a religion?" Now the three bears of atheism (as Plantinga lovingly calls them) are putting forward specific epistemological claims, and claims about the cosmos. Dawkins even has a revised "ten commandments" in the God Delusion. I've heard more and more people referring to a "new atheist movement." What is this? Who are these people, and how are they uniting in disbelief? What is the atheist creed? How does one join? (I've asked many atheists this, and have gotten no answer) It is clear that there is a group of atheists who have become very vocal. They are making specific claims, and setting certain objectives. They're even raising money for advertisements on buses. They have not identified themselves as Dawkinians, Darwinists, Secular Humanists, Harrisians, Dennites or anything else. They have identified themselves as atheists. Therein lies the problem in my opinion.NSM_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Tim, another perspective is provided by Marcus Borg in his essay "Jesus and Buddhism: A Christian View." It's not really about historic Christianity but about the person of Jesus and the different ways within Christian tradition of understanding him. I'll say right away that lots of people wouldn't view Borg as a Christian, but that's ok.David Kellogg_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

Hazel: Thank you for your post (119). You write:
I think that love, like intelligence, will, compassion, etc., arise as emergent qualities in human beings, but I don’t see that love is a quality that pervades the vast expanses of the universe or the many physical phenomena within it. Love is central to our nature as human beings, but that doesn’t mean it is a central quality of the Tao. I understand that "a faith in a personal God" can give "a sense of purpose and personal identity" that Taoism cannot. But I choose my beliefs on how accurately I think they metaphysically represent my understanding of the world, not on how well they bolster my sense of self.
I take your point that a religious belief does not become rational simply because it makes us feel better. But methinks you do the cosmos a grave injustice by characterizing it as loveless. For we can love the beauty of nature, wherever we find it. Even after a disaster in which thousands die, the world still looks maddeningly beautiful. The fact that the world is bigger than we are should not disturb us; and the fact that it cannot love us back should not bother us. The mere fact that it can be loved by us as something beautiful, no matter how badly it is "misbehaving" (from our anthropocentric perspective) should excite our wonder. And the additional fact that even at its craziest, the world remains knowable and amenable to scientific investigation should prompt our suspicion that it is the work of a Mind. For if we do not make such a supposition, we have no logical refuge from total skepticism regarding the future, or regarding the reliability of our reasoning in matters removed from the practical and the here-and-now. If I were not a theist, I would be far more mistrustful of the cosmos, and of the workings of my own mind, than most atheists are. Like the ancient Gauls, I would be perpetually worried about whether the sky was going to fall on my head; and I would also believe myself to be mentally incompetent on all matters, except for pressing questions like "Where's lunch?" That would at least be a modest position to take, in the light of the evidence. Atheists cannot explain why science works, as an enterprise. Their confidence in science is a gigantic leap of faith.vjtorley_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16769/16769-h/16769-h.htm#CHAPTER_VIII_The_Romance_of_Orthodoxy Hazel, Although not a tight explanation of why one worldview is more amorphous than another, The Romance of Orthodoxy found in Chesterton's Orthodoxy is a great essay on why pantheism and Buddhism are not as coherent as Christianity. You mentioned that "Love is central to our nature as human beings," but I would suggest that love loses its meaning in the taoist, or Buddhist framework (yes, I am lumping them together for now, part of my congenital inability to care about writing precisely about some things.) Sorry, but you'll have to cut and paste the link. I offer the reference to show you and perhaps remind others of the engaging GKC.Tim_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Actually the Mama's and the Papa's have a great philosophy. Maybe we can weave it in with the inscrutable wisdom of the East. We have the yin "You gotta go where you wanna go Do what you wanna do With whoever you wanna do it with" and the yang "I'm in with the in crowd; I go where the in crowd goes. I'm in with the in crowd; And I know what the in crowd knows. Any time of the year, don't you hear? Dressin? fine; makin? time. We breeze up and down the street; We get respect from the people we meet. They make way day or night; They know the in crowd is out of sight. I'm in with the in crowd" And then the ding a ling "Got a feelin' that you're playin' some game with me babe Got a feelin' that you just can't see If you're entertainin' any thought that you're gainin' By causin' me all of this pain and makin' me blue The joke's on you"jerry_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Mr StephenB, In discussing the logical necessity of of a necessary being, given the existence of a contingent being, I don't think the goal posts of our discussion have moved. Let me be clearer. You write about contingent entities But not everything can be like this. The possibility of closed timelike curves belies this assertion.In the case of CTCs, the chain of contingent events is like a snake swallowing its tail. I will certainly grant that we don't know if CTCs exist in our universe, but their possibility means that a necessary being, even one as simple as the Big Bang, is not a logical necessity.Nakashima_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Nakashima: I'd like to clear up a misunderstanding you seem to evince relating to the cosmological argument. There are two cosmological arguments: the kalam cosmological argument (which seeks to prove that time had a beginning, and that only a timeless Being can explain the cosmos) and the modal cosmological argument (which makes no claim about the cosmos having a beginning, and attempts to argue for a Necessary Being). I'm a fan of the second cosmological argument; but I have my doubts about the first. In any case, what you should know is that both St. Thomas Aquinas and Leibniz were concerned with the second argument, not the first. This is a vital point, for two reasons. (1) The kinds of causes they had in mind were not temporally prior to their effects. (Indeed, it is a myth to say that causes have to precede their effects: think of a kettle which is heated by a flame on a hot stove. Here, cause and effect are simultaneous.) Aquinas was interested in effects which are essentially dependent on explanatory causes. He recognized that effects cannot be essentially dependent on events occurring earlier in time. For example, I would not be here now were it not for my parents having procreated me at some earlier point in time; and my parents would not exist without their parents having procreated them; yet none of these procreative acts can explain the fact that I exist now. To explain my current existence, I need to invoke other, more fundamental states of affairs, such as there being air and a solid floor in the room where I am sitting. These are not earlier events; they are true as I speak. And these in turn depend on still more fundamental states of affairs, such as the laws of nature, which are also true as I speak. If these laws were a tiny bit different, I certainly would not be here now. So if you want to object to the modal cosmological argument, please do not go back in time to the Big Bang, as the causes being considered by this argument are not earlier events, but more fundamental events. Rather, where you should stop is at the fundamental laws of nature, and ask: why do I need to go further? Why not take the laws of nature as explanatorily basic? (2) The reason why the laws of nature may not be taken as basic has nothing to do with whether they had a beginning in time; rather, the point is that they are wholly contingent, and it is therefore appropriate ro ask why they are the way they are. It would be an historical anachronism to ponder how Aquinas (1225-1274) would have responded to the question, "Why not take the laws of nature as explanatorily basic?", as these laws had not yet been mathematically formulated in the thirteenth century. However, Leibniz, who was a contemporary of Newton's, would have had a ready answer. He would have pointed out that everything in the cosmos - including its fundamental laws and the structure of spacetime itself - is wholly contingent. Nothing in the cosmos has to be the way it is; everything in the world around us could be different. The axiom that that every wholly contingent fact has a cause is crucial to the argument put forward by Professor Robert Koons in his 1996 paper, "A New Look at the Cosmological Argument," at http://www.arn.org/docs/koons/cosmo.pdf , which I cited above. Koons admits readily that this axiom (axiom number 7 in his argument) is not a logically compelling one, but maintains that it is perfectly reasonable nonetheless, and that it would be unreasonable and anti-scientific to deny it:
The evidence for Axiom 7 is essentially empirical. Every success of common sense and science in reconstructing the causal antecedents of particular events and classes of events provides confirmation of Axiom 7.... [I]t is hard to see why the abundant success of empirical science in finding causes for contingent facts does not provide overwhelming empirical support for the generalization to all contingent facts... [T]the denial of the universality of causation as a descriptive generalization constitutes a very radical form of skepticism. All of our knowledge about the past, in history, law and natural science, depends on our inferring causes of present facts (traces, memories, records). Without the conviction that all (or nearly all) of these have causes, all of our reconstructions of the past (and therefore, nearly all of our knowledge of the present) would be groundless.
True, you may say, but even if there is a Necessary Being, why should it be a personal agent? This is the Achilles heel of the cosmological argument in its classic formulation. I would argue that to adequately meet this objection, we need to dig deeper, and get to the core of the various a posteriori arguments for God's existence (i.e. arguments based on experience, and not reason alone). That core was expressed by Bernard Lonergan, S.J., as follows:
"If the real is completely intelligible, God exists. But the real is completely intelligible. Therefore, God exists."
(There is an interesting article about Lonergan's argument at this site: http://www.rojka.sk/integrity.html .) The most amazing thing about our fragile, contingent universe, as Einstein remarked, is that it is comprehensible - or intelligible, as Lonergan would say. It is amenable to scientific investigation; and we can understand it. The point that I would make here is that only an Intelligent Being (i.e. an agent) can serve to guarantee that the universe is, and continues to be, intelligible, instead of dissolving into a buzzing, blooming mess. Unless we suppose that such a Being exists, science becomes a very precarious enterprise, liable to fail at any minute. The supposition that there is a personal, intelligent Being who upholds the cosmos, who makes it possible for us to know and understand the cosmos, and who wishes to be known by us, is not a "science stopper" as ID critics charge; rather, it is a science enabler. Lastly, the criticism that an Intelligent Being of any sort has to be complex and therefore contingent (and hence not the Necessary Being) relies on a generalization from a very limited sample of intelligent beings: human beings. There is nothing about the act of knowing, or of having a concept, which necessitates the possession of separable parts. Intelligent beings don't have to be contingent.vjtorley_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

On a more serious note, please explain to me why the idea of the complementary duality of yin and yang as the fundamental metaphysical forces in the world is more "amorphous dribble" than God and Satan, or heaven and hell, or other similar concepts in Christianity. By what criteria is one amorphous dribble and the other not?hazel_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

"psychic babble" - that's a good one! :) I definitely don't belief in psychic babble - is that a belief system? I also like the respectful way in which the core concepts of a religion older than Christianity is likened to "the Mamas and the Papas" - the Receptive (yin) being the Mamas and the Creative (yang) being the Papas, I presume.hazel_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

AmerikanInKananaskis says, "I despise Michael Shermer." But Bill Dembski says, Michael Shermer is a mensch! mensch: A person of integrity and honor.Sal Gal_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

"why should we not invoke a similar standard of evidence in matters pertaining to religious belief?" This is an attempt to use reason and there is little reason in this thread so when some is attempted the response will be psychic babble. This whole discussion is a little like "Through the Looking Glass." People invoke the "ying and the yang," the "this and the that," or the "Mama and the Papas" or whatever amuses them at the moment. ID trots out science and reason and this is what we get as criticism. Are they also applying these same fantasies and musings to the origin of life and species. That would go well with the journals. We will have a new direction to look forward to for just so stories. What a joke. This begins with the bogus presentation of Shermer and diverts off into amorphous dribble. The real question is who is Tweedledum and and who is Tweedledee?jerry_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

to upright biped at 87 You asked a question about my beliefs, which I answered with some thought and detail. It seems like you responded with some rudeness, which I don't think I deserved. With that said, you wrote,
However, it does not follow that IDists who are dedicated to understanding empirical evidence (using the rationale of science) should then stand the wrath of atheist who’s defense of their own belief challenges what is virtually uncontested empirical knowledge. I am speaking here about you making airy speculations about a yet unknown cause. It would seem that the import of observation, testability, and parsimony are on a sliding scale, as needed. And then to have atheist tell us that “whatever” the cause is, “it doesn’t come from a God.” Well, apparently in this we can be certain. The knowledge we actually do have (such as knowing that a conventional language is at the heart of the instruction set that creates life) can simply be damned. It’s a minor price to pay for the personal certainties required by the majority position, or so it seems.
Hmmm. First of all, do I read your last sentences correctly? You appear to be saying that atheism is the majority position. That is surely wrong - surveys routinely find that 15% or so of Americans describe themselves as atheist or agnostic about God. Theism is without a doubt the majority position in the U.S. Also, there is nothing "wrathful" about anything I've said, and I have not spoken about any certainties. It is you who seems certain of what you call "virtually uncontested empirical knowledge." Also, you say that I am "making airy speculations about a yet unknown cause." I agree, but my opinion is that God is an equally "airy speculation." As I said in 111 above, we all choose which "airy" metaphysical "speculations" to "believe in" for different reasons, and for me the probable existence of a divine being seems both less likely and less useful to me than belief in other types of metaphysical concepts. And last, you write,
It is interesting though, you’ve been on this board for days happily arguing at the very edges of the slightest details in ID. This seems a rather stark contrast to the speculation and hazy logic you’ve used to support your own beliefs.
I've been arguing about the logic of a computer program. That hasn't had anything to do with ID, in my opinion. And that discussion wasn't about metaphysics - it was about very specific details in math and logic. Those are two very different things - I would expect a stark contrast between a metaphysical discussion and a discussion about how a computer program works. ============================= to vjtorley at 82. Thanks for your response. Here are some comments: You write,
Taoism is indeed a beautiful religion, but it has one fatal flaw, in my book: it’s ultimately a loveless account of the world. Love is not fundamental to the Taoist account: it’s just one of those things that emerges from the nameless Tao, like intelligence and will. Taoism can certainly offer believers a sense of mystery and perhaps even a kind of serenity. But that is not the same sense of purpose and personal identity that believers get from a faith in personal God. For my part, I don’t think love can be “boiled down” to anything else. It is basic.
I agree that Taoism does not make love a central concept, and frankly, that seems to me to be one of the things about it that makes it more "right" than theism. I think that love, like intelligence, will, compassion, etc., arise as emergent qualities in human beings, but I don't see that love is a quality that pervades the vast expanses of the universe or the many physical phenomena within it. Love is central to our nature as human beings, but that doesn't mean it is a central quality of the Tao. I understand that "a faith in a personal God" can give "a sense of purpose and personal identity" that Taoism cannot. But I choose my beliefs on how accurately I think they metaphysically represent my understanding of the world, not on how well they bolster my sense of self. In fact, throughout the Eastern religions there is an emphasis on reducing the importance of both one's personal identity and acting for the satisfaction of the ego.hazel_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

But anyway- Science Asks Three Basic Questions:
1- What’s there? The astronaut picking up rocks on the moon, the nuclear physicist bombarding atoms, the marine biologist describing a newly discovered species, the paleontologist digging in promising strata, are all seeking to find out, “What’s there?” 2-How does it work? A geologist comparing the effects of time on moon rocks to the effects of time on earth rocks, the nuclear physicist observing the behavior of particles, the marine biologist observing whales swimming, and the paleontologist studying the locomotion of an extinct dinosaur, “How does it work?” 3-How did it come to be this way? Each of these scientists tries to reconstruct the histories of their objects of study. Whether these objects are rocks, elementary particles, marine organisms, or fossils, scientists are asking, “How did it come to be this way?”
The motives of IDists are clear- we want to know the truth, i.e. the reality, behind our existence. If that reality, i.e. the evidence, leads us to the metaphysical then so be it. We explain the evidence and we don’t have to explain the metaphysical to do so. The DESIGN exists in the physical world and as such is open to empirical testing. ID is about the DESIGN.Joseph_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

----David: "Honestly, I don’t know why you’re so concerned with figuring me out theologically. I’m not being coy, I just don’t get it." Nothing personal, really, but ID critics seldom say anything about what they believe or what they mean, but they speak expansively about what they do not believe and what they do not mean. That puts them in the very convenient position of always being the scrutinizer and never being the one who is scrutinized. I am not willing to grant them that luxury. ----"Anyway, the notion that a Christian has to be pro-ID or anti-evolution is ridiculous, so I don’t see why I should need to defend an ID advocate. Further, the Christians on this blog don’t need their faith defended. Or attacked." I simply pointed out that for someone who claims to be a non-atheist, you certainly provide a great deal of consolation for atheists and none for their adversaries. ----"I gave your post more credit than it deserved by calling it an argument. In fact, you have not made an argument. You have made a number of assertions." It wasn't an argument; it was a description, and an apt one. I feel no need to use only one tool in my toolbox. - ---"For the record, I think that the cosmological argument is a pretty good one as such things go." To have said that earlier would have been to avoid all this fuss. ----" However, we do not come to believe (or disbelieve) on rational grounds alone, ever." Agreed. ----" All so-called logical arguments for — or against — the existence of God are finally insufficient to compel anything." The point is that theism is reasonable and atheism is unreasonable. ----"You are following Leibniz in the sense that you’re arguing in precisely the terms Leibniz formulated. Leibniz does it better, though." I am following Aquinas, who is much, much better than Leibnitz and myself put together and multiplied by ten.StephenB_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Atheism is a belief system which also has objects of worship- iow it is a religion. Atheism is not a religion just like theism is not a religion. The only reason that people are debating this is because the federal judiciary has undermined the law and basic distinctions rooted in language in order to increase its own power. After all, we've come to the point that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself could be declared unconstitutional for promoting theism. Note that theism is not a religion, nor is it a church, nor is it the federal establishment of one sect of theists over another. Theists should not try to argue that atheism is a religion. It is not a religion, nor is it a church, etc. Instead they should deal with the original problem, a judiciary that is capable of pulling decisions out of its own penumbras in order to further evolve its power. The judiciary is likely to be deeply prejudiced and biased against ID because in order to increase its own power it must reject the limitations of design rooted in text and the capacity to adapt that was written into the original design of the body politic. The main interest of the federal judiciary is its own power and prestige as it separates itself from the body politic:
Like the character of an individual, the legitimacy of the Court must be earned over time. So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Their belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals." 112 S. Ct. 2816 (1992) (emphasis added) Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
As contrasted to the main interest of those who designed the constitution of the body politic:
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. (Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis (Sept. 28,1820) in 15 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 276, 277(Andrew A. Lipscomb & Albert Ellery Bergh eds., 1904) ) I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction . . . . I confess, then, I think it important, in the present case, . . . to set an example against broad construction by appealing for new power to the people. (Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Cary Nicholas (Sept. 7, 1803), in 8 THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 247-28 (Paul L. Ford ed., 1897)
You can debate the definition of "religion" all you like. You may even come to some correct conclusions about the meanings of words and so on. It matters little, the federal will set precedents which will further its power. Evolutionary views which turn language into hypothetical goo further its power while IDing the symbols and signs typical to design limits its power, therefore judges will tend to find ID "unconstitutional" no matter what the law and Constitution actually say.mynym_{April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply