Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Apparently, scientists are the only ones exempt from the fact that we evolved to have biases…

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At Mind Matters News: Claim: If science were properly presented, trust would grow!:

The summary concludes with the view that science needs to be presented in the right, targeted learning style…

In the closing lines of this summary, we learn

“As much as we pride ourselves on being logical beings, in reality, we humans are animals with messy minds that are just as governed by our social alliances, emotions, and instincts as our logic. Those of us involved with science, whether as supporters or practitioners, must understand and account for this. – Tessa Koumondoros, “These 4 Factors Can Explain Why So Many People Are Rejecting Science” at ScienceAlert (July 16, 2022) the paper requires a fee or subscription.”

The underlying assumption is that “Those of us involved with science” are somehow exempt from the bias problem — even though they have the same biology as everyone else and biology is supposed to rule!

News, “Claim: If science were properly presented, trust would grow!” at Mind Matters News (July 23, 2022)

Also:

The Royal Society advocated a much sounder approach recently: Quit worrying so much about “misinformation.” That only makes people trust less.

Some tips for people worried about why we don’t “Trust the science!” now:

  • “Misinformation” is often just unwelcome information, not incorrect information. Get used to it.
  • Wuhan is not just a city in China. It stands for something.
  • Don’t depend on the legacy mainstream media to save you. They are very out of touch and less trusted than you.

and

Many people have noticed. Heck, they couldn’t help it.

News, “Claim: If science were properly presented, trust would grow!” at Mind Matters News (July 23, 2022)


Takehome: The ideas examined in these four short essays all assume that scientists are exempt from the bias and self-interest that governs everyone else.

We’re asked to believe that scientists are somehow exempt from the bias problem ingrained in our biology — yet they have the same biology as everyone else…

The paper, which requires a subscription, is “Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?” by Aviva Philipp-Muller, Spike W. S. Lee, and Richard E. Petty, July 12, 2022, PNAS 119 (30) e2120755119
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120755119

Here are all four parts of the series:

  1. Why many now reject science… do you really want to know? COVID demonstrated — as nothing else could — that the “science” was all over the map and didn’t help people avoid panic. As the panic receded, the government started setting up a disinformation board to target NON-government sources of panic, thus deepening loss of trust.
  2. Researchers: Distrust of science is due to tribal loyalty. In Part 2 of 4, we look at a claim arising from a recent study: We blindly believe those we identify with, ignoring the wisdom of science. There seems to be no recognition that researchers, however fiercely competitive among themselves, also have a tribal loyalty that skews their judgment.
  3. Researchers: If we tell folks more about science, they trust less. Part 3: The researchers argue that doubts about science arise from conflict with beliefs. The many COVID-19 debacles suggest other causes… Generally, the remedy for loss of trust after widespread failures is reform of the system, not reform of its doubters. Post-COVID, scientists should take heed.

and

  1. Claim: If science were properly presented, trust would grow! The ideas examined in these four short essays all assume that scientists are exempt from the bias and self-interest that governs everyone else. We’re asked to believe that scientists are somehow exempt from the bias problem ingrained in our biology — yet they have the same biology as everyone else…
Comments
Back to the headline: "Apparently, Scientists Are The Only Ones Exempt From The Fact That We Evolved To Have Biases…" Of related note to that, the following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that Darwinian evolution can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview,
Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html
As Dr. Egnor noted elsewhere, "It would be funny if it were not so dangerous to our culture and to our souls."
An Atheist Argues Against Reason And thinks it is the reasonable thing to do MICHAEL EGNOR - MAY 24, 2019 Excerpt: Think of the irony: a professor of philosophy, who is paid only to reason, uses reason to argue against reason. Welcome to the bowels of atheist metaphysics. It would be funny if it were not so dangerous to our culture and to our souls. https://mindmatters.ai/2019/05/an-atheist-argues-against-reason/
Further note:
"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881 Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Darwin’s Selective Skepticism People are sometimes under the impression that Darwin himself recognized the problem. They typically cite Darwin’s famous “horrid doubt” passage where he questions whether the human mind can be trustworthy if it is a product of evolution: “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.” But, of course, Darwin’s theory itself was a “conviction of man’s mind.” So why should it be “at all trustworthy”? Surprisingly, however, Darwin never confronted this internal contradiction in this theory. Why not? Because he expressed his “horrid doubt” selectively — only when considering the case for a Creator. From time to time, Darwin admitted that he still found the idea of God persuasive. He once confessed his “inward conviction … that the Universe is not the result of chance.” It was in the next sentence that he expressed his “horrid doubt.” So the “conviction” he mistrusted was his lingering conviction that the universe is not the result of chance. In another passage Darwin admitted, “I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man.” Again, however, he immediately veered off into skepticism: “But then arises the doubt — can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?” That is, can it be trusted when it draws “grand conclusions” about a First Cause? Perhaps the concept of God is merely an instinct programmed into us by natural selection, Darwin added, like a monkey’s “instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.” In short, it was on occasions when Darwin’s mind led him to a theistic conclusion that he dismissed the mind as untrustworthy. He failed to recognize that, to be logically consistent, he needed to apply the same skepticism to his own theory. Modern followers of Darwin still apply the theory selectively.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/
bornagain77
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
Yet another thread distraction from a key focus, here playing at anti God talk points. A sign that there is want of substance on merits.kairosfocus
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
Sev at 46 , Romans 5 :12 states sin and hence death entered into the world because of Adam but the latter part states all Die because all sin, so Sev you will die because you sin. You just dont get Gods nature or his relationship to man in the world , simply put God is offering us the opportunity to spend eternity with him in a place of compassion , love, kindness, mercy , beauty, truth, peace , etc , but you guys want some of these but not to such an extent that it interferes with your envy , lust , malice ,discrimination , etc . The problem is one contaminates the other, as we can clearly see on the earth as much as we hope to do good the earth is filled with selfish people who feel justified in their selfishness, by the way that is all of us me included Well all will end up where their heart dictates , and those of us who want what God wants will end up with God , because although sinners like everyone else we acknowledge our sin and we avail of God`s offer of salvation in his son , you can do the same if truth, love , compassion , mercy kindness , the things of Gods nature are something you want on a permanent basis.Marfin
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
@sev “I agree such a being is conceivable but that is not the God Christianity is trying to sell to us, unless they are conceding the principle that might makes right.” Incorrect God IS describe in the Bible multiple times as such a being from Paul to Peter “Again, yes He is capable of that but does that make it right? Or, again, are you saying that might makes right?” Right is determined by God not you. That comes with the title God. Furthermore, it is impossible to please everyone with everyone decision/action you make, and that’s even if an action was made. You keep thinking God is sitting up in mount Olympus moving us around like chess pieces on a chess board. God might be the first mover, but God let go after setting in motion and letting things grow freely. There also might be a bigger picture we are not privy too, and many of us might not want to be privy to because it could ruin our lives here. Millions die now to save billions later from a disease that can’t be cured because we got penicillin too early keeps coming to mind. “Yes, if the Christian God exists He must have created all the good and evil we see in the world. And, for all the talk of free will, we have no choice in the matter. It’s like it or lump it.” What do you mean by this? Honestly this, it just seems like you’re complaining to complain. Are you upset that you are forced to live in a world where choices have consequences, where things aren’t 100% your way? You have a choice to live righteously or poorly. Life isn’t perfect and it shouldn’t be. If it was, it would be meaningless. “If God exists and created all the evil and suffering then, yes, a “horrible bully” is exactly what He is.” That’s your opinion Richard Dawkins, very infantile opinion. You are very entitled to your opinion. You also probably thought your parents were bullies too, when they punished you for being bad. “God created the Plague and let it rip. Like Trump on Jan 6, He sat back and watched it on Divine TV and didn’t lift a finger to prevent it. What would you call that?” This is silly you’re dragging politics into this, please leave your trump derangement syndrome (TDS) at home. Also if you think January 6 was bad but had no problem with the Chad/Chaz eight months occupation zones and violence perpetrated by BLM then you need to reevaluate your moral principles and so much should also refrain from judging a supreme being on his. Also if you voted for Clown Biden you have ZERO room to talk about Orange Man “Like I said, it would have been nice if He’d shared that knowledge in time to save all those lives” Like I said, he did with his people, and like I said we cannot know if it would have been worth it in the long run. Diseases have this really cool ability to adapt and evolve. How many ARBs are there now since we received that answer? Imagine giving them 600 more years to evolve further. “What freedom? Are we free from all the suffering and evil in the world? Are we free of being at the mercy of the whims of the God who created all that suffering and evil?” Yes we are, evil is often a consequence of our poor choices. Second you seem to have a very broad sweeping idea of evil. Anything you disapprove seems evil. Natural disaster aren’t evil, they are part of our continued existence and are necessary. “God had nothing to do with it? He created this whole mess. And for what purpose? Entertainment? It can’t have been to see what would happen, some form of scientific experiment. He’s supposed to be omniscient and omnipresent, He not only knows all that there is to be known but He’s present in all times and in all places. He knows what is in our future because He’s already there watching it. So what is this all about?” I don’t know because I can’t see all possible futures and outcomes, and neither can you. And again this little marble has freedom to exist and live, all of it. “Assuming He could do that, the question would be, why? What purpose could any of that serve” I answered that already, to give us freedom. That’s the purpose it serves. I personally don’t like it when I have someone breathing down my neck for every little thing. Now make that person God. I would prefer not to exist if that were the case.AaronS1978
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT
That really comes across as a complete lack of respect for people who may have more wisdom and experience than you do in these matters. Maybe ask yourself how you have concluded that everyone who has expressed an experience and communication with God is equally ignorant and deluded.
OK. The main reason I find people talking about their religious ideas unconvincing is the complete lack of consistency. If there is one true God, why are there so many different stories?Alan Fox
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
AaronS1978/19
God is God, God is subject to nothing. Literally nothing, if God deemed that you and every creature on this earth and everywhere in the known universe were to melt into a horrific pile of flesh, forever alive and yet never capable of death while wracked with perpetual pain, God could do so.
I agree such a being is conceivable but that is not the God Christianity is trying to sell to us, unless they are conceding the principle that might makes right.
God is the creator of all that exists and all that exists owes their existence to God. God owes no one or anything. So God is capable of making the rules, reinforcing the rules, changing his mind and breaking his rules. He made them
Again, yes He is capable of that but does that make it right? Or, again, are you saying that might makes right?
God created everything good, evil, every creature, every disease, and everything in this universe. God created everything
Yes, if the Christian God exists He must have created all the good and evil we see in the world. And, for all the talk of free will, we have no choice in the matter. It's like it or lump it.
Now in your case you blame God for all the deaths and misery in the world, so you have specifically chosen that he is the creator of all that is evil therefore he if exists he’s a horrible bully.
If God exists and created all the evil and suffering then, yes, a "horrible bully" is exactly what He is.
That said God didn’t kill any of the people in your example. God didn’t come down and say “and you have the plague, and you have the plague, you’ve all got the plague Hooray for Yahweh”.
God created the Plague and let it rip. Like Trump on Jan 6, He sat back and watched it on Divine TV and didn't lift a finger to prevent it. What would you call that?
(Again I emphasize God created disease and God created the means to cure it as well, God created the problem and the answer in the existence God created)
Like I said, it would have been nice if He'd shared that knowledge in time to save all those lives.
Now here’s the deal, God also gave you freedom, and he gave his entire creation freedom, the freedom to exist, including the disease, whether it be good, bad, wonderful, or awful we have that freedom and so does everything else
What freedom? Are we free from all the suffering and evil in the world? Are we free of being at the mercy of the whims of the God who created all that suffering and evil?
So God didn’t come down and murder millions of people like you accused God of doing. God had nothing to do with it short of it was part of the existence he created. It was a disease living its existence and a series of events that took place that brought that disease to people who are susceptible to it.
God had nothing to do with it? He created this whole mess. And for what purpose? Entertainment? It can't have been to see what would happen, some form of scientific experiment. He's supposed to be omniscient and omnipresent, He not only knows all that there is to be known but He's present in all times and in all places. He knows what is in our future because He's already there watching it. So what is this all about?
Logically if God can create the universe, God can easily stop himself from reading the final chapters of this book.
Assuming He could do that, the question would be, why? What purpose could any of that serve?
The idea of heaven upsets me because it seems to me that once someone makes it to heaven all they do is sit there and praise God’s glory
I tend to agree. It sounds like it would get pretty boring after a while.Seversky
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
Just Another Commenter/18
We don’t have to ask why death entered the world. It is stated quite clearly, and is one of the elementary tenets of Christianity: “through one man [that is, Adam] sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned”. Romans 5:12.
If somebody is found guilty in our courts of having committed an offense they will be punished. We punish the offender not his or her descendants in perpetuity. If Adam had sinned by eating the fruit of the tree then he should have been punished, not descendants who would not be born until a thousand years after his original transgression. In what world is it just to punish people for an offense committed long before they were born, in which they had no part and for which they were not responsible? It may be God's will but "just" it most definitely not.
How is it that you can keep commenting here year after year without learning even the most rudimentary basics of the faith you are criticizing?
How is it that you people can read the Bible yet be blind to the implications of what you are reading?Seversky
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
Just Another Commenter/17
@sev, am I misunderstanding you, or are you actually using 1 John 5:14 to support the idea of God as a “wish-granting machine”? In fact, this verse says the opposite. The key phrase is “according to his will”. I will leave the implications of that as an exercise for you.
Yes, what are the implications? When the Plague wiped out upwards of half the population of Europe in the 14th century it must have been His will that all those people died since He withheld the help He could easily have provided had He wanted. Why? Why was he deaf to their prayers? Had he become so callous and indifferent to human suffering that He no longer cared? Did He think they all deserved exactly what they got? What are the implications?Seversky
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
Seversky
It’s the observation that science has proven to be much more fruitful then any other “way of knowing”.
My point here is that this conclusion you offer "science is more fruitful than any other" - is not a scientific statement. We cannot evaluate that statement scientifically. We're using another "way of knowing" in order to say "science is the best". We can't even use science to know what science is. Science cannot even say "science is valuable" - science is incapable of that. All of that said, science is quite a limited tool.
And there is competition when religiously-inspired Intelligent Design is pitted directly against the theory of evolution.
Some might think that we never make any progress in our discussions here, but I see your statement there as a step forward, however minor. You're saying that ID is "religiously-inspired" and therefore it's a challenge to evolution. So this would put God on one side and science on the other. But that opens up a can of worms since we're judging ID by what "inspired" it and not on what it says. But at least you're not saying that "ID is a religious belief" as many would, so I see that as progress. However, it leaves the problem that if some scientific effort was "inspired by atheism" would that equally be a problem? We could also wonder if Darwin, for example, was inspired by an anti-religious sentiment, etc.
No, belief in God is not an alternative to science but there are those in the Christian community who would like science subordinated to their religious beliefs to the extent that they would be at risk of a sort of religious “Lysenkoism” where only science that would be deemed consonant with those beliefs would be approved. In other words, religion would take precedence over science.
True, but people do the same thing by believing that science must be consonant with an atheistic-worldview (Lewontin's famous quote). I think those are minority views in either case.
No, more like humanity slowly realizing that if they want certain things done they are going to have to do it for themselves. They can’t rely on a Creator who may not be there.
Some people think that way, but others give credit to God for the work they do and for their discoveries (and for God having built potentials into the earth that we can find and use). Louis Pasteur felt that God guided his discoveries.
Yes, we’re the lucky ones. Shame about the millions of the unlucky. What do we chalk them up to?
No, I didn't say you were lucky to have avoided millions of events like that, but rather that God has saved your life by protecting you and caring for you. Your life has been spared that way. If it was just luck, as you said, then the answer to your question at the end would be "we chalk them up to bad luck". But you want to appeal to luck by being spared from many evils on a daily basis, but then blame God for people who suffer from one thing or another. That's not consistent. If it's luck then it's luck. If God cared for you, protected you and spared you - then you'd normally want to thank God for all of that.
Yes, we all die eventually. If your God exists, try asking Him why He did that to us. If He doesn’t, if this short life is all we have, doesn’t it make sense to stretch it out as long as we can?
It's an interesting question that goes in circles. First, you've lamented the misery, evil, injustice and intolerable conditions of life. These are all God's fault. However, if God doesn't exist - then it's really not so bad after all. We'll want to stretch this good life out as long as we can. If there are all of these miseries and non-existent God is to be blamed, then just taking yourself out of life is what makes sense. But wanting to stretch this life out is different. Sure, if there is enjoyment, pleasure, goodness - at least to a reasonable degree - why not keep it alive by living as long as you can? For one of many problems with that, it destroys the notion of self-sacrifice for a greater good. Why risk your life? Additionally, if you can make your life more pleasant at the cost of other people, why not do it? Finally, not everybody is as lucky as you are. It would take quite a lot of work to try to make their life as pleasant as yours. Some might propose that since it's just either good luck or bad luck - those with the bad luck might best be just eliminated. There doesn't seem to be a good reason why not.Silver Asiatic
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
What I notice in the original quoted text is the false humility, exhibited by using the first person plural when talking about flaws of intellect or character, when the context clearly shows that the speaker does not seriously entertain the notion that he is subject to these flaws. I see it in religious circles, and it's just as annoying there.EvilSnack
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
AF
We’re all in the same boat of ignorance.
As suggested elsewhere: Nobody could possibly know more about God than you do. And you know nothing, so everyone must be equally ignorant. That really comes across as a complete lack of respect for people who may have more wisdom and experience than you do in these matters. Maybe ask yourself how you have concluded that everyone who has expressed an experience and communication with God is equally ignorant and deluded. You know nothing about God but you're 100% certain that everyone who makes a positive claim about God is lying or deceived or just wrong for whatever reason?
We can make up comforting stories or we can admit we have no clue.
You may be doing both here: Admitting you have no clue and then making up the comforting story that it's not possible that anyone else could know more than you do.Silver Asiatic
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
No, belief in God is not an alternative to science but there are those in the Christian community who would like science subordinated to their religious beliefs
No, belief in materialism is not an alternative to science but there are those in the atheist community who would like science subordinated to their religious beliefs.Lieutenant Commander Data
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
CD, doubling down on a toxic misrepresentation does not convert it into truth. Kindly, tell me, when and where has it been observed that functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information beyond 750 +/- 250 bits has come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity ____? [Honest answer, never.] I can confidently point to trillions of cases by intelligently directed configuration. Similarly, kindly explain to us the observational base for the origin of string data structure, coded complex info expressing algorithms in the cell by blind chance and mechanical necessity ____. The normal, generally observed sources for algorithms using coded information are ____ ? [Honest answer, designers with relevant knowledge, where we cannot reasonably exhaust possible designers of code.] So, the attempt to taint as religion is simply an ideological stunt to cover the documented imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, in defiance of Newton's common sense rule on explaining like effects with observed like causes. KF PS, Here is Lyell showing the force of Newton's rule:
PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY: BEING AN INQUIRY HOW FAR THE FORMER CHANGES OF THE EARTH’S SURFACE ARE REFERABLE TO CAUSES NOW IN OPERATION. [--> appeal to Newton's Rules, in the title of the work] BY CHARLES LYELL, Esq, F.R.S. PRESIDENT OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OE LONDON . . . JOHN MURRAY , , , 1835 [--> later, publisher of Origin]
kairosfocus
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
@Relatd I would assume that a being with the capacity to be everywhere, know everything at once, and is entirely outside of time, would not normally think linearly like we do. I suppose he could and did for a time.AaronS1978
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Seversky at 15, You have a non-Biblical understanding of God. The Bible tells us that truths about God are spiritually discerned. And God's ways are not our ways. Since you lack this spiritual understanding, God's behavior seems either foolish or not logical by man's standards. And you'll have this problem until you accept God as He is.relatd
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Seversky at 13, I understand you. What I don't understand is why you put God on the same footing as humans. I could give you the Christian Biblical explanation but it looks like you insist on God being just like any man and having the exact same qualities. He is God. This world became corrupted the moment two people, Adam and Eve, disobeyed the one Commandment God had given them. God had given them preternatural gifts, including bodily immortality, but they lost these gifts. So things are the way they are and God's complete plan is known only to God. All men participate in this plan whether they acknowledge God as God or not.relatd
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
"They aspire to ideals of dispassionate objectivity, ruthless honesty, logic and rigorous application of the scientific method." LOL Andrewasauber
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
the evasion and diversion tell us that there is no cogent answer to the design inference on tested, reliable sign
Yes, that is true. But does making this observation for the thousandth plus time with a long discussion each time add anything? No! Just pointing it out is enough. Maybe adding a link to the list of things not answered will be useful. Nothing more is needed. It actually gets in the way by moving the discussion away from the evasiveness to something else.
Perhaps because the “design inference” is religion
Pure nonsense. You cannot back up anything you say. But thanks anyway because your bogus comments and evasiveness just confirms IDjerry
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
KF/22
Sev, why do you continue to try to taint the design inference as religion not science....
Perhaps because the "design inference" is religion.....chuckdarwin
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Jerry, the evasion and diversion tell us that there is no cogent answer to the design inference on tested, reliable sign. That points to design of the cell, given coded algorithms . . . language, data structures, goal directed processes . . . in protein synthesis. Life is designed from the root up. The side tracks and evident bitterness point to deeper motives of the heart that notoriously warp thought and to crooked yardstick premises. Finally, the decade plus persistence here and in the penumbra of attack and even hate sites tells us this is a message domination issue and that they aim to drown us out or silence and smear us. Those, cannot stand scrutiny but that is the Alinsky rules game. KFkairosfocus
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
Nothing changes, as Jerry will no doubt confirm
That’s true on UD in general as on this particular thread. Somehow the discussion has gotten itself back on the term “evil” which I maintain no one can define. It will as usual go nowhere as nearly every discussion of “evil” does or as nearly ever other thread does. Also Seversky brings up what he sees as an imperfect world for the hundredth plus times and which he has been answered several times. On other threads anti ID commenters fail to answer the obvious conclusions of ID for maybe the ten thousandth time. Instead they divert as Seversky does here. Yes, nothing changes. Aside: there are occasionally a few exceptions when we actually learn something. Aside2: if commenters refuse to address someone’s observations even after they are repeated, does that mean they internally understand why those observations are true but don’t personally like the implications these observations imply?jerry
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Seversky at 16, once again, bemoans the existence of evil, i.e. death, disease, and suffering, in the world, and holds, basically, if God existed He would not allow such evil to exist in the world. This 'argument from evil' turns out to be one of the two primary arguments of atheists against God. (Both arguments of which are inherently flawed)
Elite Scientists Don’t Have Elite Reasons for Being Atheists - November 8, 2016 Excerpt: Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham has compiled video of elite scientists and scholars to make the connection between atheism and science. Unfortunately for Pararejasingham, once you get past the self-identification of these scholars as non-believers, there is simply very little there to justify the belief in atheism.,,, What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true.,,, The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism. Finally, it is also clear the militant atheism of Dawkins is a distinct minority view among these scholars. https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/elite-scientists-dont-have-elite-reasons-for-being-atheists/
In their argument from evil, atheists hold that "If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist."
The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism - 2015 Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,, P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good. P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist. C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist. https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/
But this is a self defeating position for Seversky, and all other atheists, to be in. As former atheist David Wood put the irresolvable dilemma, "By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil."
Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist - By David Wood Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,, https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: Peter Kreeft - Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM
C.S Lewis, also a former atheist who converted to Christianity, put the irresolvable dilemma in the atheist's argument from evil like this: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Harper San Francisco, Zondervan Publishing House, 2001, pp. 38-39.
In short, without God, i.e. without an ultimate standard of moral perfection to judge from, evil simply could not exist for Seversky, and thus Seversky, if God does not exist, simply has no place to argue from. As Cornelius Van Til put the atheist's irresolvable dilemma, "He cannot stand in a vacuum.”
“In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.” - Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).
In conclusion, the atheist's argument from evil is fatally flawed in that it necessarily presupposes the existence of an objective standard of moral perfection, i.e. the existence of God, in order for evil to even exist in the first place. In fact, the atheist's argument from evil actually plays right into the Theist's 'moral argument' for the existence of God.
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276
Supplemental note: "every twinge of human conscience proves His existence."
The Divine Hiddenness Argument Against God's Existence = Nonsense - Michael Egnor -Oct. 4, 2021 Excerpt: We will set aside Scriptural revelation and personal experience (given that atheists like Dillahunty discount these anyway) and consider the ways in which God shows Himself in nature (i.e., the ten ways that God’s existence can be known that I listed during my debate with Dillahunty. Here are three excellent references for the details of these various arguments: Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, (Edward Feser), Five Proofs of the Existence of God (Edward Feser), and Letters to an Atheist (Peter Kreeft). These and other works cover evidence such as Aquinas’ First Way (by change in nature), Aquinas’ Second Way (by cause in nature), Aquinas’ Third Way (by contingent existence), Aquinas’ Fourth Way (by degrees of perfection), and Aquinas’ Fifth Way (by design in nature) as well as the Thomistic argument from existence, the Neoplatonic argument (from the order of things), the Augustinian argument (from abstract objects), the rationalist argument (from the principal of sufficient reason), and the argument for Moral Law (from the reality of objective moral obligation). Each of these proofs of God’s existence is revealed to us through our intellect. Is the information that God provides in these ways sufficient to convince a reasonable person of His existence? Consider the ten ways that simple everyday experience provides inexhaustible evidence for His existence: Every change in nature proves His existence. Every cause in nature proves His existence. Everything that exists in nature proves His existence. Every degree of perfection in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of natural design proves His existence. Every realization of possibility in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of organization in nature proves His existence. Every abstract concept proves His existence. Every reason for anything in nature proves His existence. And every twinge of human conscience proves His existence. Natural science provides massive evidence for His existence as well. The Big Bang — i.e., the creation of the universe from nothing in an immense primordial flash of light — is a remarkable confirmation of the beginning of the book of Genesis. Astrophysicists have discovered dozens of physical forces and properties in the universe that must have very specific values to permit human life — and of course these forces and properties do have exactly the values necessary for our existence (as if Someone rigged physics just for us). The DNA in living things is an actual code — in every meaningful sense like a computer code with letters and words, grammar and phrases, sentences and punctuation. And life forms’ intracellular metabolism is run by an astonishingly intricate and elegant system of biological nanotechnology. So my question to Dillahunty and to other atheists who endorse the Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence is this: What is it about God’s existence that you still consider hidden? https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/the-divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence-nonsense/
Verse:
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
bornagain77
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
AF, trying to pose the problem of evils or euthyphro dilemmas or hume guillotines as objections betrays profound misunderstanding of what the God envisioned by ethical theism is. And yes, we are in phil here, not yet the Hebraic-Christian tradition. We may not exhaust his depth, but we can and do know framework characteristics of God, especially given that we are undeniably morally governed. The world cannot have been a past infinite temporal causal succession, circular retrocause is something from non being, were there ever utter non being, there being no causal capability such would forever obtain. A world is, with morally governed creatures, requiring a finitely remote, necessary being world root capable of bridging is-ought, and being supreme. The candidate: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; one worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Where, a serious candidate necessary [worlds framework] being either is, or is impossible of being as a euclidean plane square circle. Atheists and fellow travellers, of course, have yet to provide a sound argument why God is impossible of Being. KFkairosfocus
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
Sev and AF, you both know that the problem of evils was decisively answered through a series of works by Plantinga some fifty years ago. Through, the free will defence, as opposed to theodicy. The matter is logical, if a1, a2, . . . an are challenged as incoherent but ex is added and they are seen to be coherent, all are coherent due to AND logic. It matters not that one may disbelieve ex or any ax, this is a logical solution, matters not if you can compose a radical disharmony dy, ex prevails. All of this has been pointed out. That ex was provided, the deductive form is over. Inductive and natural evil forms have been tamed as well. Then, once evils exist, so do goods and the root of good must be the world root requiring power to create worlds, but also inherent goodness and utter wisdom, once we have morally governed creatures, us. Deny that we are morally governed all you please, that only shows denial of the blatant attested by sound conscience. All of this has been pointed out on record, explained and answered. Why then do you cling to a refuted and/or tamed objection? It's not ignorance, that is a mark of desperation and/or playing at rhetorical stunts. Neither of which are responsible. Which goes of course to the same first duties you have objected to but which are the branch on which we all sit. Especially, truth, right reason, warrant. Meanwhile the serious problem of bias, distortion, politicisation and just plain junk in science is being distracted from. That, too, is irresponsible. KFkairosfocus
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
Alan Fox , no one can know any more about an omniscient being than the average atheist , unless they chose to open themselves up to that being revealing himself to them , which he does through his word. Now if you want to know more about his nature you are free to do so just pick up a bible and away you go.Marfin
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
@ Alan Fox lol! I was actually waiting for Sev to make that comment. It’s not hypocritical If you want to base your disbelief a line of questioning that implies that you think you can do it better or know better than that Omniscient being, then go for it. But if I decide to counter question you by asking you why you think you know better than that’s not being hypocritical and that’s just responding to your dumb line of arrogant thinking Sev made his statements, tried to back everyone who believed in this Omniscient being into a moral dilemma. I answered his moral dilemma with a question, he chose not to answer anything I asked previously by rephrasing what he stated before, so I dumbed it down for him. Whether you think it’s daft or not doesn’t it really matter because it was in response to Sev being daft So if we’re all in the same boat I expect you to have the same criticisms for SevAaronS1978
July 25, 2022
July
07
Jul
25
25
2022
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
If it helps I’ll rephrase my question, do you think you are smarter then an omniscient being of any type?
What a daft question! It always makes me chuckle when Christians adopt the position of claiming skeptics can't understand omniscient beings while claiming they can themselves. We're all in the same boat of ignorance. We can make up comforting stories or we can admit we have no clue. Nothing changes, as Jerry will no doubt confirm.Alan Fox
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
...actually evil is not a thing in itself...
I agree. The word "evil" only makes sense as an adjective. I don't think StephenB would agree, though. ;)Alan Fox
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
@ KF I agree with you and understand exactly that. Sev thinks that since existence is capable of evil God created it. In this case Yersinia Pestis is that evilAaronS1978
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
AS78, actually evil is not a thing in itself, it is at root abuse of a key good, rational responsible freedom, to warp or frustrate things away from their due end, leading to chaos. So, God does not create evil, he created the means for the higher order good that comes through love of one another, our fellow creatures and truth, also Him who is truth and source himself. You are right that we can expect that he has also provided means to ultimately overcome evils. KFkairosfocus
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply