Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID’s problem in a nutshell

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Laszlo BenczeLaszlo Bencze offs a thought on how to survive in a culture that thinks that design in nature is unreasonable but an infinity of flopped universes is reasonable:

In my reading of a very fine book subtitled “How the Christian Middle Ages launched the scientific revolution” I encountered this passage:

Sir Isaac Newton explicitly stated that he was investigating God’s creation, which was a religious duty because nature reflects the creativity of its maker. In 1713, he inserted into the second edition of his greatest work, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, the words:

Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of organisms which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing….And that is enough concerning God, to discourse of whom from the appearances of things does certainly belong to natural philosophy.

It would take Charles Darwin (1809-1882) to prove Newton wrong. —The Genesis of Science, James Hannam, p. 349

Mind you, this book bends over backwards to be sympathetic to Christianity, frequently reminding the reader that the Middle Ages produced much excellent science and that the church was neither frightened of such knowledge nor fought against it. But sympathy has its limits. The flat statement of fact closing this passage certainly represents the standard secular view of science and its relation to Christianity. Darwin made God obsolete. That’s that. Any discussion of evolution which proposes taking God seriously as an actual existing entity is backwards, primitive, outmoded, and, frankly, contemptible. Such is the world view which pervades intellectual society.

I find it fascinating that Hannam does such a good job of explaining the metaphysical controversies of the Middle Ages, some of which were quite subtle, yet manages to miss the elephant in the room of our current discourse. Of course Darwin did not disprove Newton’s statement. His achievement was insignificant in terms of advancing science and negligible as theology. But the problem is that he wrote so beguilingly that his work was accepted as both paradigm changing science and irrefutable theology. The best minds of the past 150 years have generally been conned into both opinions. And those opinions are seemingly unshakable.

Vast human capital gets infested in such theories. Only obituaries help in such cases, unfortunately. Suddenly, the relicts and dependents provided for, it becomes safer to say that it is all rot.

Comments
Gregory:
Does anyone think he will actually take up this challenge?
You're the one touting the book. Why didn't you take up the challenge?Mung
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Gregory:
Has timaeus ever started his own thread? Does he have posting privileges?
This from someone who was asked to start his own thread at TSZ to discuss the book Design in Nature and declined to do so. All available evidence indicates that Gregory does know how to start his own thread at TSZ, and it pretty much follows that he has posting "privileges." Perhaps if Gregory started a thread at TSZ Timaeus could be enticed to participate.Mung
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
"I’d be happier distinguishing between “intelligent design” and “Intelligent Design” if I knew what that distinction was supposed to capture and why it is best captured in capitalization." - Kantian Naturalist I wrote about it here and here. Does that help explain the distinction? re: timaeus' claimed 'critique of Bejan,' let him start his own thread about it. Let it be featured at UD instead of buried in a thread without acknowledgement by most IDists. Has timaeus ever started his own thread? Does he have posting privileges? This could be his first attempt to make a statement, instead of just piggy-backing on what other people have started: "timaeus on Bejan's (lowercase) 'design in nature'" at his comfortable Expelled Syndrome lair. Does anyone think he will actually take up this challenge?Gregory
September 26, 2013
September
09
Sep
26
26
2013
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
Gregory:
No, I’m not an ‘Emperor.’
A Pope, perhaps? I've always wondered at the Pope's new clothes, myself.Mung
September 26, 2013
September
09
Sep
26
26
2013
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Gregory wrote: "Laszlo Bencze should take on Adrian Bejan’s lowercase ‘design in nature’. But he likely won’t. And neither will UDers." The last sentence, if not an outright lie, is at least demonstrably false. I met this challenge long ago; Gregory was still participating in the thread after I met it; he did not reply. Later on, when he made the same complaint about Bejan, I pointed out to him that I had responded earlier; he still did not reply. Now he is making the same charge again. The fact that Gregory is incapable of responding, or at least unwilling to respond, to a critique of Bejan doesn't mean that the response hasn't been given. But it's hard to believe that Gregory *really* wants reasoned responses to any of his "challenges" here; they have been met time and again, and he never deals with the answers he gets. I've come to the conclusion that his "challenges" are purely for rhetorical purposes. But since Gregory is back, I'm now going to look to see if he has replied to my recent refutation of a false charge he made against me, on the "can we afford to be charitable" thread. It will be interesting to see whether he will respond to the mass of solid textual evidence that completely refutes his charge, or will just ignore it.Timaeus
September 26, 2013
September
09
Sep
26
26
2013
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT
I do find it really interesting that the basic move open to non-theists today who don’t want to be agnostics is, at bottom, still the same Epicurean gambit: if there are infinitely many universes, a universe hospitable to life and consciousness is bound to turn up. If there are infinitely many universes with the right parameters shifting, there are also universes where 'design' rules the roost. Infinite multiverses is not a way to dodge design. It's a way to guarantee it. I'd go so far as to say, atheism is incompatible with accepting an infinite multiverse. At that point, polytheism at the least falls out straightaway.nullasalus
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Happy liar – this is ‘Axel’ – Paul Hugh Derek BECKE – who claimed “I do have a PHD though.”
Is the poster who calls himself 'Gregory' and demands obeisance toward his anonymously-credentialed self deliberately being obtuse? Or has the obvious joke simply sailed right over his well-educated head?Phinehas
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
You could have a point, nullasalus!!Axel
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
Considering the meager level of prominence that ‘design-denier’ view had at the time, and how it came before nearly two millenia of design-friendly thinking around the world, I think that’d be more evidence for the ‘blip’ of design denial than anything else.
Granted, Leucippus was barely recognized at the time (so far as we know), but through Democritus and then Epicurus and Lucretius, "design-denial" came to exert a fairly substantive influence on Western thinking about these issues. The real 'blip' was between the end of antiquity and the Renaissance, when 'design-denial' (qua Epicureanism) had disappeared as coherent philosophical view from Western consciousness. Although I'm quite critical of Epicurean metaphysics (its denial of teleology) and epistemology (its denial of a priori concepts and judgments), I do find it really interesting that the basic move open to non-theists today who don't want to be agnostics is, at bottom, still the same Epicurean gambit: if there are infinitely many universes, a universe hospitable to life and consciousness is bound to turn up.Kantian Naturalist
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Simple question about a doctorate. Simple answer. Not even a fourth class BA. Though it seems nothing could be quite simple enough for you to comprehend on this subject. You were obviously hoping I'd be too embarrassed to mention it. Very far from it. I'm not an admirer of the Academy or of the worldly, analytical intelligence, so seldom based, as it tends to be, on sound assumptions.Axel
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
The first major “design-denier” in Western philosophy was Leucippus, the teacher of Democritus. 2500 years is a long slip.
Considering the meager level of prominence that 'design-denier' view had at the time, and how it came before nearly two millenia of design-friendly thinking around the world, I think that'd be more evidence for the 'blip' of design denial than anything else.nullasalus
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
I'd like to have said, 'Nice try', KN, but I wouldn't want to be dishonest with Greg ready to pounce.Axel
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
One swallow, even a few, I'm sure, don't make a summer, KN.Axel
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
#58 It's clear now that you are bankrupt of rational capital, and just parroting your laughable would-be ad hominem. You're just exposing yourself to ridicule, at least in people's minds. Here is effectively a second-tier, secondary-school scholar, and the best you can do is continue to peddle your already comprehensively-exposed twaddle (as if it were not obvious to everyone else) of an accusation of dishonesty. If I sought to sue you for libel, I'd be laughed out of court, because your accusation of dishonesty on my part clearly doesn't even rise to the level of an adult jibe, never mind accusation - most notably, since it is in the teeth of now boringly pedantic, reiterated elucidations. Go back to sleep, there's a good chap. You'll be fine in the morning, I'm sure. Aussie Axel. (now watch him call me a liar, because I'm not really an Aussie!!!!)Axel
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Acne (Axel) - do you feel particularly dishonest now for lying publically on the internet about your qualifications? You do not hold a doctoral degree, do you? Simple question. Just yesterday we spoke about Einstein with German, Italian, Lithuanian, Danish and Russian colleagues. None of them would dare stoop to the low level of 'Axel's' dishonest IDism. Happy liar - this is 'Axel' - Paul Hugh Derek BECKE - who claimed "I do have a PHD though." 'Follow the evidence where it leads,' folks. People like 'Axel' mar the IDM with their narrow thinking. Nevertheless, IDists seem to relish in it as fellow 'victims.'Gregory
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
You Design-Deniers are ephemera, an aberration, a temporary blip.
The first major "design-denier" in Western philosophy was Leucippus, the teacher of Democritus. 2500 years is a long slip.Kantian Naturalist
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
You Design-Deniers are ephemera, an aberration, a temporary blip.Axel
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Greg, do you feel particularly stupid now, to have effectively sneered at Einstein, as an imbecile, for his IDist conviction? 'I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.' - A Einstein of this parish. 'My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.' A Einstein of this parish.Axel
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
“I do have a PHD though.” – Axel In short, that was a lie. Yes, it was. "I was joking about having a PhD" - Axel That's a public admission. 'Axel' actually does not *have* a PhD in Australia, born in the UK. This, folks, is IDist idiocy representing Expelled Syndrome. Thanks, 'Axel' - Paul Hugh Derek BECKE - for personally discrediting IDism with lies in this thread.Gregory
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
I really think you've lost it all together now, Greg. You really are rattled, aren't you? Never a winning characteristic. I would have thought it must be clear after repeated clarifications, that I was joking about having a PhD, since no PhD given by an university is placed before the person's surname. But once you've been wound up, there's no derailing you, is there. Why, I even wrote the PHD all in capitals, as well as stating the initials were before my surname(!), against the event of its being read by a truculent, academically-challenged, non-native English speaker, without a vestige of a sense of humour - such as your good self, seemingly. What is YOUR surname? Are you scared to reveal it - for fear of being black-balled in the near future, as an anti-Ideist, seeing that the tide is turning against you all? After sitting for 'O' Level Maths twice, I managed 6 'O' Levels, a mere 2 'A' Levels and a few units towards a BA, before dropping out. I'm not sure I'd have even got into a British university with those qualifications in 1959 or 60. Happy now? I am!Axel
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Yet the capitalisation issue is still important. kn has not acknowledged this, even personally here at UD.
I'd be happier distinguishing between "intelligent design" and "Intelligent Design" if I knew what that distinction was supposed to capture and why it is best captured in capitalization.Kantian Naturalist
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
"But WJM, KF, Axel, and Box have all seen fit to let the cat out of the bag on that one." Yeah, that's bang-on. Yet the capitalisation issue is still important. kn has not acknowledged this, even personally here at UD. Distinguishing btw 'arguments' and 'explanations' imo isn't as important as finding connections btw worldview and scientific scrub. I use 'scrub' b/c 'science' isn't as prime as some elevate it to be. But it is valuable and inevitable as aspect of our current internet-electronic era. Can't escape it w/out ignorance...both for science and philosophy, with theology/worldview included. I don't find kn goes far enough here though nighlight seems both scholarly and vertical. Otoh, a guy like 'Axel,' aka Paul BECKE - is that him fundamentalising (although I'd most certainly support his anti-Randist attitude) on behalf of IDism - narrow-minded and hearted in Australia? http://www.christianforums.com/t7700422-7/ Otoh, serious thinking and feeling, not just low-level 'play': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzY8LA4rxxM and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBBxFKCAaCo It's like 18 million to 400,000. Why? She's in jail my friends. You're comfortable mainly white, protestant IDists. Her kids are waiting. NOT a snail YECIST - OF COURSE. Get real from your wanna-be revolutionary IDism, folks. Grow to the era, stop your empty squawk. Drop the pretense, Americano MOVEMENT crack-narrow.Gregory
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Although KN doesn’t properly capitalise ‘Intelligent Design’ because at least for now he doesn’t seem to believe in Capitals.
I don't capitalize "intelligent design" because I don't see how capitalization helps to distinguish between (1) the design argument (which has deep roots in antiquity and a complicated history in metaphysical and theological speculation), (2) "design theory" (which I put in scare-quotes because I don't think that the current-day 'intelligent design' movement has done the work necessary to vindicate 'the design inference' as an empirical theory), (3) the intelligent design movement, as a socio-political movement aligned with social conservativism, usually (though not necessarily) strongly religious. though I think that the movement tends to obscure (1) and (2), as indicated (among other things) by the confusion between a priori and a posteriori considerations, or (what is the same thing), a persistent inability to distinguish between arguments and explanations. For that matter, I think that the movement also tends to over-emphasize the pre-Christian roots of the design argument in order to conceal the deep complicity between the critique of evolutionary theory and the critique of secularism and progressivism. But WJM, KF, Axel, and Box have all seen fit to let the cat out of the bag on that one.Kantian Naturalist
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
It's great that nighlight is speaking of zombies and automatons. IDists are smashed wrt their conceptions of what an 'agent' actually means. They're mainly stuck evangelically in agent/Agent talk, disguised as knowledge by a political-educational movement known as IDism. We, and I presumptuously include nightlight here, may not 'like' the atheism of Blackmore and Dennett, but speaking scientifically even for theists takes precedence over loose quasi-scientific talk by IDists who are quite clearly out of their league; Meyer, Behe, Dembski included. 'Axel' hasn't nearly the guts of 'Kantian Naturalist.' Obviously. Although KN doesn't properly capitalise 'Intelligent Design' because at least for now he doesn't seem to believe in Capitals. "I talked to Jesus at the Sewer and the Pope said it was none of his God-damn business." - Jesus 'Sixto' Rodrigues Searching for Sugarman (great film!!) - beyond the silly, narrow (OoL) IDist paradigm.Gregory
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
And you know what? I have no respect for people who pursue tertiary studies to stroke their egos. Do it for the money and status (however questionable), but don’t pretend you’re interested in the truth.
I got my Ph.D. for the money, power, sex, and fame. Still waiting, though . . . And yes, I do hold a Ph.D. in philosophy. But my areas of specialization are in philosophy of mind, American pragmatism, and 20th-century 'Continental' philosophy -- not directly relevant to the debates about intelligent design. My main interest lies in various conceptions of "nature" and of "naturalism," and I'm a strong proponent of liberal naturalism (see also Naturalism and Normativity, reviewed here). I'm presently developing my own version of this view. Speaking from that perspective, my main complaint about intelligent design qua philosophy is that it takes for granted a very narrow and rigid conception of 'nature', as indicated by the polemics against "materialism". If one begins with a narrow, rigid conception of 'nature,' then one can make non-naturalism ('supernaturalism'?) look good by comparison -- extremely good, in fact.Kantian Naturalist
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
@ Elizabeth B Liddle #49
In my field consciousness is an important variable, and indeed we have a number of proxy measures for it in various contexts, from the Glasgow Coma Scale, to awareness of experimentally manipulated stimuli as determined by behavioural responses and reports.
Yes, but still the term 'consciousness' merely serves as a shorthand for some objective, functional or structural descriptions (objectively describing interaction, communication, responsiveness, answers to questions, etc). There is nothing in any natural science that depends in the essential manner on the existence of direct experience (which is the 'consciousness' I was talking about) that may or may not be associated with such descriptions. While you may personally believe that other humans and perhaps animals, even objects, also have 'direct experience' of some sort, there is presently no way for you or anyone else to verify or falsify such belief, or find out how do they compare to yours. You (or anyone else) have no way of finding out how does 'white' look to me, how does it compare to your 'white', is it the same or different 'white' and in what way. The most you can scientifically establish and state are similarities and differences in objective responses (verbal, motoric, neural, etc) to such stimuli. Therefore, no 'scientific statement generating algorithms' (the rules determining what constitutes 'scientific statement') of your scientific discipline can be based upon quirks of your personal beliefs. These algorithms of natural science must be replicable i.e. anyone 'skilled in the art' should be able to logically retrace your steps and verify the validity of your scientific statements, even zombies or automatons, such as Susan Blackmore or Daniel Dennett, who hold that 'consciousness' is an 'illusion'. Of course, informal or pedagogical speech or statements are not constrained by such algorithmic rules.nightlight
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
"DI shouldn’t complain that their version of ID[T] is not treated as natural science when they themselves are championing ID[T], via their persistent consciousness-talk, as a branch philosophy or theology." - nightlight
Yeah, that's worth repeating. Although again I add that IDT is a 'theory' and not something simply reified by repetitiveness. The vast emptiness of consciousness talk, about agency of 'normal' (lowercase) design theory awareness by DI fellows is a glaring problem with IDT. Thanks to nightlight for pointing this out. Elisabeth knows this but doesn't seem ready to elevate her cognitive approach to a higher human level. Although, to her credit, I believe she honestly tries.
"Seriously. Who are you? I’m only seeing you casting anonymous stones, but I can’t see where you’ve been shown to be without anonymous sin." - 'Phinehas'
You should be red in the face, Phinehas-the-anonymous UDer. Click on my name. You'll find non-anonymous staring directly at you. Obviously you are either not seeing well or simply internet naive. Follow the links, IDist marginal fundamentalist, and find your answers.Gregory
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Interesting post, Nightlight, although I somewhat disagree. In my field consciousness is an important variable, and indeed we have a number of proxy measures for it in various contexts, from the Glasgow Coma Scale, to awareness of experimentally manipulated stimuli as determined by behavioural responses and reports. This variable is then correlated with proxy measures of neural activity, and forms the basis of much neuroimaging methodology.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Someone posting as 'Gregory':
And yes, this preferred ‘anonymity’ amongst Expelled Syndrome IDists is quite obviously one of the IDM’s problems in a nutshell.
Seriously. Who are you? I'm only seeing you casting anonymous stones, but I can't see where you've been shown to be without anonymous sin.Phinehas
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
@Axel #42 "your confusing scientism for science, c.f your dismissal of philosophy in #15." You are misreading my post #15. I am not "dismissing" philosophy or theology (or 'consciousness' for that matter) but merely pointing out that DI shouldn't complain that their version of ID is not treated as natural science when they themselves are championing ID, via their persistent consciousness-talk, as a branch philosophy or theology. The present natural science simply doesn't have a formal definition of 'consciousness' (direct experience) that does anything which the rest of science already doesn't do without it. If it occurs in any textbook, it's a non-functional figure of speech or a shorthand for some functional or structural description. It is not part of any formula, algorithm or causal chain or natural law -- it's a nonfunctional empty label for natural science. Hence you can safely remove it without changing any 'output' (such as scientific prediction or model) of the natural science. That is simply a defect (incompleteness) of the present natural science, not a flaw or a claim of non-existence of 'consciousness' or "dismissal" of philosophy and theology which, unlike science, do study subject of consciousness.nightlight
September 25, 2013
September
09
Sep
25
25
2013
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply