Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On Holding Utterly Contradictory Ideas in Your Head

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Preliminary note. This post focuses on william spearshake again, and readers could be excused for wondering whether I am singling him out. Fair question. The fact is that william is a veritable fount of materialist shibboleths, which he spews with apparently gleeful abandon. In short, he has provided me with a rich vein of materialist error to mine, for which I thank him.

In a prior post two materialists had this exchange:

AVS

If I may be so bold as to speak for WS, maybe he thinks that ID relies on the assumption that there is a designer (a god in just about all cases), which by default makes it a religious doctrine.

william spearshake:

AVS, exactly. Until they can propose the nature of a designer who isn’t a god, what else can I think?

I find this exchange fascinating, because it illustrates with such clarity a violation of the principle of charity (which I was discussing in the very post where this exchange occurred) and the ability of materialists to hold simultaneously utterly contradictory ideas. I will elucidate.

Idea 1:

By definition materialists do not believe in miracles or the supernatural. Certainly they don’t believe any supernatural act was necessary for life to arise and evolve to its present state. Indeed, they don’t believe that intelligence or any guiding principle (by which I mean an agent or force that works to achieve a distant goal) was necessary for life to begin and evolve.

What do they believe? Materialists are supremely confident that blind unguided natural forces are fully sufficient to account for the beginning of life and its evolution from that time to the present. In short, it is all just chemistry and physics, super-sophisticated chemistry and physics which we only partially understand, to be sure, but at bottom its nothing but chemistry and physics.

Idea 2:

This idea is demonstrated by the exchange between AVS and william I quoted above. ID is a religious doctrine because, “until they can propose the nature of a designer who isn’t a god, what else can I think?” The obvious assumption underlying this statement is that william believes any currently plausible candidate for the designer must be a supernatural being.

The Contradiction:

Wait a minute here. Isn’t it you reductionist materialists who insist that life is nothing but chemistry and physics. It follows from that premise that you believe that in principle no miracle is necessary for life to begin and then to evolve. So tell me, if a designer with access to super-sophisticated technology did design life, what principle of chemistry and/or physics did he violate when he did so? And if he didn’t violate any law of chemistry or physics, why is it necessary for him to be a supernatural being?

If blind unguided natural forces could do it without a miracle, why couldn’t someone with access to super-sophisticated biological technology do it without a miracle? Indeed, while the technology to create synthetic life from scratch is probably decades away, we have people like Craig Venter who are already working on the problem.

Are you going to call Venter up and say “Give it up Craig; while blind natural forces can create life without a miracle, if a designer like you tries to do it he has to have supernatural powers. Sorry.” Of course you aren’t.

In summary, materialists like william hold two contradictory beliefs:

1. Blind unguided natural forces are completely sufficient to account for life.
2. Any designer who tried to create life must be supernatural.

Collisions between matter and antimatter lead to the annihilation of both. Up until now I suspect william did not know he was holding simultaneously two irreconcilable ideas. When he reads this post and those two ideas touch I hope his head does not explode. If it does would I be guilty of manslaughter? A question for another post.

Comments
Rex, thanks for the clarification. Clearly, I misunderstood. Sorry.StephenB
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
@StephenB I'm not sure if you're addressing me or not. I have belived Mr. Arrington all along. I was just pointing out William's Catch 22 he put himself in. Cheers.RexTugwell
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
It is uncharitable to suggest that Barry may not be telling the truth, especially when there is no reason to believe it. To suggest that we should withhold judgment on the matter until an unfriendly adversary comes forward as a friendly witness is add outrage on top of outrage.StephenB
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
BA states that WS was not banned but left on his own. So let's hear from Mr. Spearshake. If he responds then BA didn't lie. If all we hear are crickets, then WS has proven to us he dispatched himself.RexTugwell
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Daniel King
Barry, have you no decency?
Since DK keeps pushing it, it think we should revisit the events as they happened. BA says that he will miss William Spearshake and the opportunity to expose his errors. DK challenges Barry's honesty and insinuates that he has other motives [*false charge #1] Barry takes umbrage DK shrugs it off by saying the people challenge other people's honesty all the time. Barry points out that no one likes to be called a liar DK repeats the charge without a shred of evidence (It "seems" as if Barry was glad to "get WS out of his hair.") [*False charge #2] DK implies that Barry want to preside over a self-congratulatory echo chamber. [*False charge #3] Barry issues a reminder that DK has been posting his objections here for nine years without interference. DK ignores the refutation and characterizes Barry's allusion to the written record as an indicator that Barry has been "surveilling" his activities. [*False charge #4] Barry calls attention to DK's false charges. DK takes umbrage, arguing that what he did was no different than what Barry did. [*false charge #5]StephenB
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Saying I will miss him makes it seem to you like I am glad he is gone? Lie # 3 in one comment. DK, you are on a roll.
I voiced an opinion based on what Barry wrote:
We will miss him. As we said in one of our posts, he certainly provided us with a rich vein of materialist error to mine.
and he calls that a "lie." Barry, have you no decency?Daniel King
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
Barry:
Said a voracious critic who posted his first comment nearly eight years ago on December 16, 2006 and has been hammering away at us without interruption since then.
You have a dossier on me! Thank you. That's more than kind. And I'm "voracious." I thought that my rare and sporadic objections to the silliness repeatedly on display here were beneath notice. But Barry has been surveilling my voraciousness since 2006!
DK, when you have to make up lies to fit your paradigm, you really should consider abandoning your paradigm. Just saying.
Folks, did you catch that not too subtle maneuver? Barry took extreme umbrage when I questioned his veracity on a specific point, so now he taunts me to over-react similarly to a vague accusation of lying. Bring on that list of my "lies." Let's see that dossier.Daniel King
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
BK @ 36:
We will miss him. As we said in one of our posts, he certainly provided us with a rich vein of materialist error to mine.
DK @ 54:
in this instance you seemed relieved to have one of your recent perceptive critics out of your hair.
Saying I will miss him makes it seem to you like I am glad he is gone? Lie # 3 in one comment. DK, you are on a roll.Barry Arrington
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
DK @ 54:
People question other peoples’ veracity all the time, without the questioned person having a fit about it.
You don't really think that people don't usually have an adverse reaction to being called a liar. Another lie in your comment 54 on top of the one I have already identified. Again, when you have to lie to prop up your side, you really ought to consider changing side.Barry Arrington
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
Criticism is always welcome as long as it is informed. We are more than ready willing and able to support our ideas. And it is more than obvious that our "critics" are not able to support anything and can only flail away.Joe
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
DK @ 54:
Or is it your ambition to run a self-contratulatory echo chamber ad infinitum?
Said a voracious critic who posted his first comment nearly eight years ago on December 16, 2006 and has posted literally hundreds of comments hammering away at us without interruption since then. DK, when you have to make up lies to fit your paradigm, you really should consider abandoning your paradigm. Just saying.Barry Arrington
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Barry A:
Do you seriously not understand that implicit in your request was the suggestion that I was lying?
Indeed, I do understand that I questioned your veracity. People question other peoples' veracity all the time, without the questioned person having a fit about it. Why are you so obsessed with establishing your honesty with disparagement of the questioner? Once again I say: Comment 36 is STRANGE, and calls for an explanation. Instead of gloating about Acartia_bogart/William Spearshake's abdication, as if you'd won some kind of victory,
We will miss him. As we said in one of our posts, he certainly provided us with a rich vein of materialist error to mine.
you might have questioned his motives directly. You have his email address, but apparently insufficient curiosity to pursue the matter. Instead of encouraging challengers of ID to participate here in the interest of fruitful debate, in this instance you seemed relieved to have one of your recent perceptive critics out of your hair. Does UD welcome criticism and are its stalwarts prepared to defend its ideas? Or is it your ambition to run a self-contratulatory echo chamber ad infinitum?Daniel King
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
DK: "No need to get all hot and bothered about a simple request for some evidence . . ." Do you seriously not understand that implicit in your request was the suggestion that I was lying? OK. I will take your word for it.Barry Arrington
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
It matters to me not one wit that you are incredulous about the provenance of WS’s farewell post.
That's a relief. No need to get all hot and bothered about a simple request for some evidence, which I made because the manner in which the news came in comment 36 was unusual, don't you agree? I'll still miss him/her, though.Daniel King
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Daniel King @ 46. And how would an email to me satisfy you? If I posted it, would you not demand evidence that the email was really from WS? I could get another email attesting to that one, and then we would have a regress. It matters to me not one wit that you are incredulous about the provenance of WS's farewell post. TaBarry Arrington
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Am I the only one who sees this thread as a means of catharsis, where IDers, just for a brief hour of heavenly release, let it all hang out?! After all, the main contributor to satire is the subject of it, and if that subject manifests insanity for too long, the sane must vent their frustration in satirical humour or lose their own minds. My late, great brother served in the navy on submarines, and he said that after they had been at sea for more than certain time, everyone, including the officers, had to sing a song for the entertainment of the rest of the crew. Apparently, they call it, a Sods' Opera! I suspect that's what this has been (in a manner of speaking(!)) And shortly, it will be back to the drawing-board with these leading lights reverting to the role of remedial teachers of mentally defective children, very patiently arguing against the endlessly incoherent prevarications of fatuously impervious minds. While the rest of us hunker down, sniggering at the sight of some great minds being jerked around again by a band of hapless numpties.Axel
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
ID, as it is currently being presented, is not about the identification of design. It is about the identification of perceived design.
Evolution is not about actual change of species from a common ancestor but about the identification of perceived change. We observe 'perceived design'. We look for a cause. Two options: Chance/blind-mechanism or intelligent design. We know chance/mechanism cannot produce the perceived design. We know that intelligence can produce it. Intelligence is the most reasonable explanation. I guess that is impossible for some people to understand. ???Silver Asiatic
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
ws:
ID, as it is currently being presented, is not about the identification of design.
Yes, it is. That is if you actually read what IDists have written about it. And no, science does not require a hypothesis about the intelligent designer. We infer there was an intelligent designer by the sheer volume of traces of intelligent activity that was left behind.Joe
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
In the absence of a plausible natural designer then you have to assume a supernatural designer.
Or a pre-natural designer. Or non-natural designer.Joe
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Wow Daniel. What evidence would satisfy you? Would you like for me to try to find out who WS really is, fly to his home, have him sign a notarized affidavit attesting to the authenticity of the first line of comment 36 and publish same in the local newspaper of record once a week for four consecutive weeks. Just say the word and I’ll jump right on that.
Wow, Barry, there's no need to go to such wild extremes (although I would be amused to see it). Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you have email addresses of everyone who has a UD account. (You emailed me once thinking that I was someone else.) Just email Acartia_bogart/William Spearshake and ask him to confirm his decision to leave your premises in a farewell post. He was an excellent foil for you and vice versa. I think I am not the only one who will miss him.Daniel King
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
UD Editors: Thanks for the needed clarification, which gives telling context. KFkairosfocus
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT
Heh. I bet when Acartia_bogart AKA William Spearshake gets bored, he'll come back as someone else. a. He'll be back as Darles Charwin. b. He'll return as suireuQ or gnuB c. He's already back as Daniel King. lol -QQuerius
September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
Wow Daniel. What evidence would satisfy you? Would you like for me to try to find out who WS really is, fly to his home, have him sign a notarized affidavit attesting to the authenticity of the first line of comment 36 and publish same in the local newspaper of record once a week for four consecutive weeks. Just say the word and I'll jump right on that.Barry Arrington
September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
DK: "Is it unreasonable to ask for EVIDENCE that William Spearshake actually posted this?" YES. IT IS UNREASONABLE!Mung
September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Maybe Bogart the cat jumped up on the table and typed it randomly? Heck, it is only one sentence amongst the trillions of keystrokes today. It's possible. Not impossible.ppolish
September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
William Spearshake, AKA Acrtia_Bogart, is no longer with us, UD Editors: We did not write this; WS did. He was not banned. We assume that he could no longer deal with the dissonance of having to commit and then defend so much error in order to prop up his world view. We will miss him. As we said in one of our posts, he certainly provided us with a rich vein of materialist error to mine.
This is bogus. WS would not have shouted like this. Is it unreasonable to ask for <b?EVIDENCE that William Spearshake actually posted this?Daniel King
September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
William Spearshake:
But for a significant portion of the ID crowd, discussing the nature of the designer is a forbidden topic. I would suggest why I think this is the case but I am sure that I would be accused of being uncharitable. So, rather than be uncharitable, I invite Barry or any others explain to me why the nature of the designer is a forbidden topic.
The nature of the designer is not a forbidden topic. It is an irrelevant topic. Design detection technology is not equipped to answer that question. Will someone please tell me why materialists cannot grasp that point.StephenB
September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Fair enough Mark. But I hope you will understand when an ID proponent metaphorically slaps his forehead when a materialist says “Not only is at all nothing but physics and chemistry, but also blind unguided natural forces that cannot plan or have a distant goal in mind can put it all together. But there are all sorts of problems with whether it is physically possible for even a highly advanced intelligent designer using super-sophisticated technology to do it given what we know about the history of the earth and life.” The two statements seem contradictory to me.Barry Arrington
September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
BA I think this is a simple misunderstanding. I don't think it is logically or metaphysically impossible for a natural designer to create life; but there are all sorts of problems with whether it is physically possible given what we know about the history of the earth and life. I think this may be what WS was getting at. In the absence of a plausible natural designer then you have to assume a supernatural designer.Mark Frank
September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
William Spearshake, AKA Acrtia_Bogart, is no longer with us, UD Editors: We did not write this; WS did. He was not banned. We assume that he could no longer deal with the dissonance of having to commit and then defend so much error in order to prop up his world view. We will miss him. As we said in one of our posts, he certainly provided us with a rich vein of materialist error to mine. william spearshake
September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply