Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New UD Policy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Dear readers,

We have just added the following to our “Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design” in the “Resources” section linked on our home page:

41] What About the Canaanites?

Whataboutism is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

A frequent example of whataboutism employed by materialists:

ID Proponent: “The Holocaust was objectively evil. Therefore, objective moral standards exist.”

Materialist: “What about God’s command to kill the Canaanites? If the Holocaust was evil, wasn’t that evil too?”

Notice what the materialist did not do: He did not even address the ID proponent’s argument, far less refute it. Instead, the materialist tried to discredit the argument by charging the ID proponent with hypocrisy.

Materialists employee whataboutism frequently because it works. It puts the ID proponent on the defensive, and time after time arguments about whether objective moral standards exist get bogged down in attempts to justify God’s commands concerning the Canaanites 3,400 years ago.

From a strictly logical point of view, there is no reason this should ever happen. The proper response is to decline the invitation to change the subject: “I don’t believe it, but let’s assume for the sake of argument you are right. Getting back to the argument before you tried to change the subject . . .”

Strictly speaking, whataboutism is not a “weak argument.”  It is, rather, an attempt to derail an argument, and many times it has been used very effectively by the materialists that frequent these pages.  Arguments about whether objective moral truth exists go nowhere, because they are bogged down by theists’ apologies for God’s commands to the Israelites 3,400 years ago.

No more.  UD’s purpose is to serve the intelligent design community, and while there is a great deal of overlap between that community and various stripes of theists, they are not the same thing.  UD is not a platform for apologetics.  Therefore, henceforth, materialists’ whataboutism tactics designed to derail arguments similar to “what about the Canaanites?” AND apologies from theists who fall for the tactic will be discouraged.  We hope warnings will be sufficient, but reserve the option of deleting comments and/or putting commenters in moderation if the warnings are ignored.

To the materialists who are disappointed this particular tactic for derailing arguments will no longer be available at UD, don’t worry.  We are sure you will find other ways to try to deflect from a reasoned examination of your views.

To the theists who are disappointed they will not be able to post apologies for God’s commands concerning Canaan, you too should not worry.  There is a time and place for apologetic concerning this matter.  UD is not the place.

Comments
UB: Perhaps Origenes is merely responding to his more definitive statements: “Whatever precedes our universe and its laws wouldn’t fit any present definition of material”
Honesty compels me to say that I overlooked that statement by Mikeenders. Thank you UB. Well, that's settles it. Nothing before, or outside, the universe can be material, is what Mike is saying. And on that basis he wants ID to posit an immaterial designer of the universe. Subsequently he wants ID to posit an immaterial designer for earth's biology as well, because he feels that it is "false and dishonest" to make a distinction between biological and cosmological ID. Guess what would happen if ID would comply with Mike's (baseless) demands? What would he say next? That 'ID is not compatible with methodological naturalism and is therefor not science' perhaps?Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
I don’t accept the biological designing entity as being separate from the cosmological designing entity
Here's a clue: No one has argued that the designer of biology is "separate" from the designer of the universe. You invented that caricature yourself as a means to deflect attention away from the glaring flaws in your position. Instead, it has been argued that the evidence that forms the inference to design in biology is different than the evidence that forms the inference to design of the universe. They do not overlap. You say " A good deal of life is chemistry after all and you cannot claim constants have nothing to do with the chemistry involved." Right. And good deal of a painting is paint, but you can't derive one from the other. That is the argument that you have not successfully addressed. It appears that you simply want to assume your conclusions and dispense with the practice of science altogether. That's not going to happen.Upright BiPed
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Mikeenders @
Mike does not agree with that not because JDK’s position is not coherent in regard to the issue with our understanding of “physical ” but because of the nonsense scenario I laid out in 73 where you have two designers one non material and one material who happen upon the same universe.
I am not sure that I can make sense of this. You do not agree that there can be physical things outside the universe, because you laid out a nonsense scenario? … BTW why do you keep insisting on a non-material designer who is supposedly “required” for the existence of the universe?
… immaterial designer required to precede our universe in order to create it …
Do you disagree with JDK (and me) who holds that “There could be physical things outside our universe”? And if you do not, and you actually agree with him, why can there be no material designers of the universe?
As you have whined about I don’t accept the biological designing entity as being separate from the cosmological designing entity …
I did not discuss this topic with you.
… for the same reason I don’t buy your Alien designer conspiracy theory that the designers might be fooling us (wish I had an eyeroll emoji) – its contrived and near gibberish.
I would like to argue that materialism is “contrived and near gibberish” in many ways.
I wrote that the issue was with the DEFINITION Of the word physical on many occassions thats why JDK was easily able to see the point on “physical” even if we may not be in total agreement.
Why would that be the issue? What is the relevance? The fact that we define the physical from the inside of the universe has no bearing on the possibility that there could be physical things, like material designers, outside our universe.Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
jdk,
No, mike is saying that that we can’t know whether outside the universe is like what is inside the universe
Perhaps Origenes is merely responding to his more definitive statements: "Whatever precedes our universe and its laws wouldn’t fit any present definition of material"Upright BiPed
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
"At the point someone demonstrates the smallness of their mind by the limits of their vocabulary it is usually indictive of two related things" That wasn't a limit of vocabulary, Mike, I picked every word on purpose. And by the way, I entered this conversation with a completely benign request for clarification of something you said. You responded with one insult after another, ending with me committing the sin of dishonesty for having disagreed with you (something I suspect you allege quite often). And at the end of the day, two things remain entirely true; 1) the physical evidence forming an inference to design in biology is of a different nature than the evidence forming the inference to design of the universe, and 2) you haven't provided a single iota of rationale why the two must be treated the same, or even that they can be. In other words, your argument, such that it is, is completely empty.Upright BiPed
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
origenes @89 Mike does not agree with that not because JDK's position is not coherent in regard to the issue with our understanding of "physical " but because of the nonsense scenario I laid out in 73 where you have two designers one non material and one material who happen upon the same universe. As you have whined about I don't accept the biological designing entity as being separate from the cosmological designing entity for the same reason I don't buy your Alien designer conspiracy theory that the designers might be fooling us (wish I had an eyeroll emoji) - its contrived and near gibberish. I wrote that the issue was with the DEFINITION Of the word physical on many occassions thats why JDK was easily able to see the point on "physical" even if we may not be in total agreement.mikeenders
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
UB @76 "I’ve read about you in a little black book. It said something about you cleaning the shit out of your ears." At the point someone demonstrates the smallness of their mind by the limits of their vocabulary it is usually indicative of two related things a) its safe to ignore them b) they've come to the end of their mind's capacity to deal with your points so in desperation are just flushing the toilet because - what else do they have left? toodlesmikeenders
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
We just can’t know what is outside the universe, but we certainly can’t assume that the outside of the universe is like the inside.
True. We don't even know the inside very well! Andrewasauber
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
JDk @82 "Mike is saying, rather, that we have no justification for extrapolating our experience of what is physical to outside the universe. We just can’t know what is outside the universe, but we certainly can’t assume that the outside of the universe is like the inside." Good night man! Give this man a cookie. Between him and gpuccio they have demonstrated that there IS intelligent life on UD after all.mikeenders
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
ET: Yes ID is OK with a physical designer.
I take it that you mean a purely physical designer.
ET: But ID is not OK with materialistic processes producing that designer.
If we are talking about an extraterrestrial physical designer of life, then ID can easily afford to be neutral on its origin. If, after examination, it can be shown that the extraterrestrial physical designer is itself the product of intelligent design, then, again, ID can remain neutral on the identity of that intelligent designer, and so on.Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
ID is not compatible with materialism. ID is not ok with:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.
Yes ID is OK with a physical designer. But ID is not OK with materialistic processes producing that designer.ET
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
jdk @87
JDK: 1. “There could be physical things outside our universe.” That is true. This is a logical possibility. I agree with that.
But Mike does not.
JDK: 2. “We are not justified in thinking that there actually are physical things outside our universe based on the evidence of physical things existing within our universe.”
And that is Mike’s ‘reason’ as to why there can be no physical things outside the universe. But, again, that does not suffice as a reason, does it?
JDK: Physical things might exist outside our universe, but the existence of physical things in our universe cannot be considered evidence for the existence of such things.
“Evidence”? Well, of course not. Who in his right mind would suggest such a thing?Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
ET@86 Are you perhaps referring to this:
O: For one thing, this means that a materialist cannot reject ID simply because ID has to posit an immaterial designer.
If so, what is wrong with offering multiple reasons? They overlap, actually, since an immaterial designer is incompatible with methodological naturalism. - - - - For clarity, I hold materialism to be an utterly failed philosophy. It is absolutely false.Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
I can't really speak for Mike - all I've done is look at the sentence you have quoted - but I think that these are two different statements: 1. "There could be physical things outside our universe." That is true. I agree with that. This is a logical possibility. 2. "We are not justified in thinking that there actually are physical things outside our universe based on the evidence of physical things existing within our universe." Physical things might exist outside our universe, but the existence of physical things in our universe cannot be considered evidence for the existence of such things. The first statement is an ontological statement about what might exist, and the second is an epistemological statement about what we are justified in saying that we might know.jdk
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
My main reason is this: allowing for a purely physical designer shields ID from the claim that ID is not compatible with methodological naturalism.
That is different from what you said earlier. Could you please make up your mind.ET
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
JDK: No, mike is saying that that we can’t know whether outside the universe is like what is inside the universe, or not.
Nope, that is the position which I defend.
Origenes (to Mikeenders): ... my simple point was, and still is, that, contrary to your claim, we cannot know that our universe exhausts physical reality. The consequence of this is that there can conceivably be physical designers outside our universe.
And BTW I am not arguing that the "outside the universe is like what is inside the universe". I am arguing that there could be physical things outside our universe.Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
No, mike is saying that that we can't know whether outside the universe is like what is inside the universe, or not. That is different than saying "there cannot possibly be physical things outside this universe", which would be a definitive statement about knowledge of what is outside the universe. Different things.jdk
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
jdk @82
JDK: Mie is saying, rather, that we have no justification for extrapolating our experience of what is physical to outside the universe. We just can’t know what is outside the universe ...
I do not get your point. Can there be physical things outside the universe or not? Mike seems to argue that there cannot possibly be physical things outside this universe because "we have no justification for extrapolating our experience of what is physical to outside the universe", but that doesn't suffice as a reason, does it?Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
I agree with mikeenders, who is not saying what origenes says he is. Mike is NOT saying that, as Origenes says, "everything outside of this universe cannot be physical, because we cannot experience it." Mie is saying, rather, that we have no justification for extrapolating our experience of what is physical to outside the universe. We just can't know what is outside the universe, but we certainly can't assume that the outside of the universe is like the inside. That is much different than saying everything "outside this universe cannot be physical".jdk
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Mikeenders@
SO you have no other worldy reference point to determine what physical is but this universe? Light bulb come on yet? That was the entire point of the question.
You seem to be arguing that outside the universe there can be nothing physical, because we cannot determine it. That strikes me as nonsense. Not being able to determine something obviously does not guarantee that it is not there.
And my simple point which is beyond your ability to grasp is that it is our definition that cannot be extrapolated from our universe to apply to another one because it is entirely derived for our experience here.
So, everything outside of this universe cannot be physical, because we cannot experience it? Doesn’t follow. But, let’s, arguendo, suppose that you have made this case, then your idea should be embraced by Hawking, Weinberg, Higgs and so forth — not just by ID. I do not see any support for that.Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
mikeenders: "to claim nothing to do with implies that there are no laws and constants that make life work (not just passively allow it). Science does not support that. A good deal of life is chemistry after all and you cannot claim constants have nothing to do with the chemistry involved." No, this is simple to asnwer. What I mean is that in biological ID the inference of designis made from the specific configurations that generate functional information: the sequence of nucleotides or AAs, for example. That has nothing to do with biochemical laws, because the sequence is arbitrary from a biochemical point of view. It's exactlt because it does not depend on biochemical laws that we use the functional sequence to infer design. IOWs, biochemical laws have no role in the design inference we make in biological ID. That's my simple point.gpuccio
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
"... ID generates testable hypotheses based upon our knowledge of how the world works, and can be reliably inferred through the scientific method. In this way, intelligent design does not violate any mandates of predictability, testability, or reliability laid down for science by MN [methodological naturalism]."
-- Intelligent Design and Methodological Naturalism — No Necessary Contradiction, evolutionnews.org, 2017
"... the intentions of a designer and even the nature of a designer (whether, for instance, the designer is a conscious personal agent or an impersonal telic process) lie outside the scope of intelligent design. As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such."
-- William Dembski, Gauging Intelligent Design’s Success, billdembski.com, 2003 Do naturalism or materialism really rule out teleological forces, like intelligent design?Quaesitor
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
GPuccio @
GPuccio: The design inference requires to posit conscious designers. That cannot be renounced. In that sense, cosmological ID has to posit consciousness out of the universe as we know it. Biological ID has to posit consciousness acting during natural history. That said, any materialist can decide if his worldview is compatible with that or not.
I have yet to see sound arguments as to why the materialist world view is not compatible with that scenario. Mikeenders is doing his utmost, but his incoherent arguments do not stick. Plausibility is of course another matter. In my estimation the materialist will have a hard time selling his interpretation of ID to the public.Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
I’ve mischaracterized it? Fine.
A brief respite of honesty. You might try starting there. You'll need a mirror.Upright BiPed
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Mike Enders at 69. The difference between you and I Mike is that I can back up my statements with evidence and reason, while you are forced to spit yours out with that certain 2000 year old humility that has served us all so well. I've read about you in a little black book. It said something about you cleaning the shit out of your ears.Upright BiPed
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
ET et al.
O: The position I defend is that ID is compatible with materialism.
ET: Why? ID is not compatible with a failed philosophy.
My main reason is this: allowing for a purely physical designer shields ID from the claim that ID is not compatible with methodological naturalism. If, as materialists believe, brains are solely responsible for intelligent designed objects, then ID makes the case that intelligent designed objects can only be explained by brains. So, the story the materialist must go with is the following: An extraterrestrial brain has designed life on earth and an extrauniversal brain has created the universe. Where do these brains (or brain) come from? Well, that is not a question that ID has to answer.Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
gpuccio by all means take your time. I will be busy the next day or two so there is no rush. I'll look over your post and responds as I can as well. Thanks. I can say though on a quick glance that that this line of argument I see you use at least twice needs more substance in my opinion "As you can see, using words in that sense (as I have always done) the fact that our universe is fine-tuned to allow life is a strong and valid argument for cosmological ID, but has nothing to do with biological ID," to claim nothing to do with implies that there are no laws and constants that make life work (not just passively allow it). Science does not support that. A good deal of life is chemistry after all and you cannot claim constants have nothing to do with the chemistry involved.mikeenders
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
BTW "To do so would be a no-no because (from your perspective) ID cannot posit a material designer for biology in contradiction to the immaterial designer required to precede our universe in order to create it (i.e. that which “wouldn’t fit any present definition of material”)." I think this best illustrates the silly desperation that has set in to try and accommodate materialists and gain wider acceptance among them (which has close to zero chance of working for reasons I'll lay out quickly later). consider the implausibility of this contrived scenario one ahem "Cosmological" intelligent designer happens along and creates the universe with all the inherent possibilities of life but says "meh I'll pass on the creation of life even though I have everything setup to do so in the laws and constants " (bored? or he/she/it/they got tired? Or maybe immaterial Wife said time to come home now? or else?). I mean this is where just about all of you arguing for a material designer have come down on the alleged "cosmological intelligent designer". then from somewhere else another intelligent designer (or design group) happens along from some other material place (it cannot be the cosmological designers universe because he didn't design life much less intelligent life in his stint on the job) and says "aha. Here is a universe that some cosmological intelligent designer setup and we will intelligent design biological life on in because we just happen to have the understanding of that universes setup (but are not a part of that cosmological design team) to create life in it. Seriously? (I'll skip all the hilarity I could have with just those claims for now) and I am being chastised for my perspective that this contrived forced nonsense isn't logical? as if it just offends my perspective and isn't offensive to logic and reason in general? I've mischaracterized it? Fine. Explain it differently so as to make - no pun intended - a material difference. Why won't it work to gain a wider acceptance among materialists? Simple because materialists not only don't want anything that is theistic. They don't want anything the even SMELLS of theism. Swing high or swing low having an intelligent entity that you owe your existence to and are not related by ancestry to IS a construct identical to some aspects of theism. You can run but you can't hide. If you think you can just slap material on it and that makes that theological aspect palatable and acceptable to materialists - You are all just kidding yourselves.mikeenders
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
mikeenders at #64: I have still a couple of things to say about your post, but I have not the time now. I will come back later. Of course, you can comment on what I have already said, and maybe that can help our future communication! :)gpuccio
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
mikeenders at #64: Thank you for your thoughtful and kind response. My doubt about "being worthwhile" was just a natural reluctance to intervene in a rather "hot" discussion between people that I respect, and with whom I share many fundamental ideas. In general, I think that there can be acceptance of diversity between peopole who share the basic ID intuition. Diversity is a form of strength, not of weakness. ID is not a political party, but a field of thought where the basic feature is the intuition and detection of design in reality. So, I fully respect your ideas, and I will try to go in some more detail about a few points for the sake of clarity, not to convince anyone. I can agree with many of the things you say, but still I think that some points deserve further thoughts. You say:
First let me say that my issue of “biological ID” and “cosmological ID” is not merely based on the merits of either but on actual practice and history. I can grant your preference for one over the other as logical (even though not agreeing with it) but problem is it simply is just not true that ID has so compartmentalized the two. Either in the past or in the present.
OK, I would like to say that I am not interested in discussing what ID is or is not as an historical movement. Usually, I just discuss my ideas about what is true. So, please consider any statement byb me as just my personal ideas about truth. They are mi udeas about ID, and they can be evaluated for their merits or lack of them. ID is, IMO, a very dynamic filed of thought, and it can and will change, while certainly retaining its basci intuitions and arguments. You say:
The fine tuning of life IS a biologically referenced argument yet IS probably the quintessential cosmological argument having to do with constants and laws built in at creation. I do not see ID as a group decoupling it nor do I feel they should. To represent there being this divide to me is just false and dishonest (though not intentionally dishonest).
This is probably the main point of disagreement, and I think that I must clarify better. I don't want ot "decouple" anything. I just want to clarify the differences, because there are differences. To avoid misunderstanding, I think we should clarify our terminology. So, I will give a couple of personal definitions. There is no need that you agree with them, but I make them explicit because my discussion is based on them, so I want you to understand what I mean with the words I use. a) Cosmological ID is the idea that some features of the universe as we can observe it (in particular, fine tuning) originated from some conscious act of design. b) Biological ID is the idea that some features that originate inside the universe after its origin, in particular in the biological world, originated from some conscious act of design. As you can see, using words in that sense (as I have always done) the fact that our universe is fine-tuned to allow life is a strong and valid argument for cosmological ID, but has nothing to do with biological ID, unless one accepts the general position of TEs, that given the finetuning of the universe life can originate withoun any furthur act of design. I don't accept that position, because I believe that it is wholly falsified by the arguments of biological ID. So, again, I have no reason to decouple two important aspects of ID theory: I am just saying that they have different form and different arguments. a) Cosmological ID infers design for the whole universe from the empirical observation of feature in its basic laws (fine tuning). Therefore, it infers some acts of design which by definition take place "before" (logically, not chronologically) the beginning of the universe as we know it (IOWs, "before" the Big Bang, if we accept that model). b) Biological ID infers design for specific events that took place at specific times and places inside the universe (in particualr, on our planet and in the biological world). Therefore, it infers some acts of design that by definition take place at specific times and places. To avoid confusion, please consider that I am speaking of the events here, not of the designer, when I speak of "time and place". I am not debating if the designer is in time and space. I am just saying that the acts of biological design cause events in time and space, while the acts of cosmological design cause the whole universe, including its time-space structure. IMO, these are important differences. Of course, the facts that are used to get the design inference are different too: a) In cosmological ID, those facts are linked to the basic laws of the universe, and they are provided essentially by physics, astrophysics and cosmology. b) In biological ID, those facts derive from the observation of biological objects and their properties, and they have nothing to do with the basic laws of the universe. Those facts are essentially provided by biology. IOWs, cosmological ID reasons about fine tuning of laws, while biological ID reasons about functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity in specific biological objects. Even the properties that can be inferred for the designer are slightly different, even if absolutely compatible. While a designer always needs to be conscious, I would say that we can infer a few different features from the two lines of thought: a) We can infer that the designer of cosmological ID had to exist "before" (logically) the Big Bang, and be able to input functional information in the universe as a whole. b) We can infer that the designer of biological ID had to be able to input functional information into material objects at specific times and places. I would say that these are different inferences. In many senses, b) is a weaker inference than a) (weaker in the implications, not in validity). Of course, they are in no way incompatible, only different. I am not arguing with you. I am just interested to understand if you agree that those differences exist, or if you don't, what are your reasons. More in next post.gpuccio
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply