Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The error of anthropomorphism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Some oppose a design conception of the cosmos only because they consider bizarre a “Designer” of the cosmos. This way they show to have an anthropomorphic, wrong idea of the Designer. So I think it is useful to dedicate a post to counter the error of anthropomorphism.

Specifically anthropomorphism is the error of attributing to God the human form and properties. On the contrary, the supreme Being not only transcends any human, even transcends any specific particular “being”, even transcends any “form” whatsoever.

There is no reason why one should conceive the universal Intelligence, symbolically called “Designer”, from which the cosmos fully gets its existence and design, as something limited by a form, human or whatever.

To my knowledge, in English, the suffix “er”, when applied to a verb or noun, transforms it into the cause of the verb / noun. Nowhere it is said that this X-er cause must be a specific “being”, let alone a “human”, let alone an “individual”.

So, when we apply the “er” operator to the verb / noun “design” we get the cause of the design, its intelligent cause. When the design is the entire universe, then its intelligent cause is the supreme Being itself, and for this reason, we call it “Design-er” (with the uppercase “D”).

Unfortunately not only some evolutionists / atheists are anthropomorphist. Also some Neo-Thomists oppose ID for similar reasons. For example, Neo-Thomist philosopher Edwar Feser in his post about Thomism versus the design argument quotes the following passage from Christopher F. J. Martin:

The argument from design had its heyday between the time of Newton and the time of Darwin, say, a time in which most people apparently came to see the world as a minutely designed piece of craftsmanship, like a clock. It is no coincidence that the most famous presentation of the argument from design actually compares the world to a clock: it is known by the name of Paley’s watch… The Being whose existence is revealed to us by the argument from design is not God but the Great Architect of the Deists and Freemasons, an impostor disguised as God, a stern, kindly, and immensely clever old English gentleman, equipped with apron, trowel, square and compasses. Blake has a famous picture of this figure to be seen on the walls of a thousand student bedrooms during the nineteen-seventies: the strong wind which is apparently blowing in the picture has blown away the apron, trowel and set-square but left him his beard and compasses. Ironies of history have meant that this picture of Blake’s is often taken to be a picture of God the Creator, while in fact Blake drew it as a picture of Urizen, a being who shares some of the attributes of the Great Architect and some of those of Satan. The Great Architect is not God because he is just someone like us but a lot older, cleverer and more skilful. He decides what he wants to do and therefore sets about doing the things he needs to do to achieve it. God is not like that. (C. F. J. Martin, “Thomas Aquinas: God and Explanations”, pp. 180-182)

I cited it in extenso because it is exemplar of an anti-ID position based on the equivoque of anthropomorphism. Feser’s endorsement and the above Martin’s affirmations are particularly meaningful because allow us to understand one of the reasons why some modern Neo-Thomist thinkers hate so much Intelligent Design to even go preferring Darwinism. In short they wrongly argue something like this: Intelligent Design recalls a Designer, a Designer recalls the Great Architect, the Great Architect recalls Masonry, Masonry recalls a position enemy of Catholicism. Ergo a Neo-Thomist should be contra Intelligent Design in principle.

I have not at all lost hope that Neo-Thomists and IDers (or at least, some of them) could finally arrive to an agreement in the future. For this motive I reply without the least intention of polemics, rather only to defend the truth (as I always try to honestly do). To the goal I have to clear some serious misunderstandings in the above Martin’s quote, and explain why their reasoning is not correct from several points of view.

(1) Whoever has studied the traditions, knows that the Great Architect of Masonry is not at all “an impostor disguised as God, a stern, kindly, and immensely clever old English gentleman… someone like us but a lot older, cleverer and more skilful”, as Martin believes. The Great Architect is a symbol of the universal Intellect, the Spirit of the universal Construction, the supreme Being. An orthodox Freemason is not at all Deist, and the correct metaphysical conception of the Great Architect is infinitely distant from any anthropomorphism.

(2) The conception of a “divine Constructor” is shared by all orthodox traditions (then, not only Masonry). For example, in Hinduism they call it “Wishwakarma” = “the Great Carpenter”. In Islam the very name “Allah” means also “the Great Architect” (even some letters of the term are symbolically linked to the universal design tools, square and compass). In Christianity and Judaism, the Bible is filled with design conceptions and, last but not least, Jesus, the “son of God”, was also “the son of the carpenter” and in turn a “carpenter” himself. Jesus was effectively and symbolically identified to the Great Carpenter of the cosmos, his “Father”. This fundamental characteristic of Jesus is a thing that some Christians tend to easily forget, nevertheless, for who knows that all in the life and mission of a divine descent (as Jesus was) is symbolic and has to be universalized, that attribute has meaning in connection with a design worldview, as Christianity is.

(3) About the ludicrous attempt by Martin of even equating the Great Designer / Architect with Satan, I have only to suggest him to search for Satan where he actually is, surely very far from any design conception of the world.

(4) Whatever have been the historical and political conflicts between some representatives of Masonry and Catholicism, these two traditions, in their roots, at different levels, and under different symbolic forms and expressions, share the identical metaphysical background of the supreme Being. The former underlines more its aspect of Designer while maybe the latter more other aspects, nevertheless the ultimate metaphysics is unique. (In a previous UD post myself dealt with the equivalence Being = Designer, and there I inserted indeed the Blake’s picture that scandalizes so much Martin and his likes).

At the very end, in its extreme generality, anthropomorphism is to attribute to the infinite Being the limits and forms of the infinitesimal beings. Therefore whoever IDer tries to assume a design worldview of the cosmos should avoid this error in all its forms, because the Great Designer of the universe is such unlimited Being. This way the design conception of the cosmos, and its Designer, can be defended from whoever equivocally uses the anthropomorphic pretest to badly deny the former and the latter.

Comments
Thanks Eric and all for your very polite and reasoned participation to this debate about a topic that I knew spiny just from the beginning. Good weekend.niwrad
July 18, 2014
July
07
Jul
18
18
2014
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
Unfortunately nowadays the modern ID movement (about the intellectual honesty of its members I have no doubt) is forced to stay “under the radar” to escape the persecutions of the atheist establishment, like the ancient Christians were forced to hidden in the catacombs to escape the persecutions of Romans. But this is a de facto situation, not de principio.
We need to be careful about this kind of statement. That is very similar to the claim that anti-IDer's have been making all along: namely that ID is really about God, but that ID proponents are sneakily flying "under the radar" by pretending that ID is about science. This is exactly the "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" anti-ID talking point. And it is precisely the (false) claim that the primary ID proponents have been trying so hard to counter over the years. There are many people who are interested in ID because of the scientific aspects, because of the logical and evidentiary questions it raises, not because they have any motivation about finding God. Yes, it is true, individuals have their individual motivations. No doubt some ID adherents are interested in ID because it is compatible with, and seems to support, their religious/philosophical preferences about God. The same is true about naturalistic evolution -- many adherents are interested in it because it is compatible with and supports their religious/philosophical preferences about no God. But in both cases those religious/philosophical conclusions do not logically follow from the evidence itself. Again, those personal motivations must be kept carefully distinct from what ID itself constitutes. ID is about identifying signs of intelligence and inferring the presence of design. It is not about identifying who the designer is; it is not about sneaking religion into the classroom; it is not about building a bridge to God. That is not a de facto situation; it is the situation de principio. ----- Well, anyway, probably enough on that for this thread. I think I understand where you're coming from; I'm merely trying to sound a note of caution and precision. I appreciate that the inference to design in the cosmos and life has metaphysical implications. I understand that such an inference is, if not a proof of, then at least consistent with the idea of Deity. Furthermore, I would say that a careful examination of living organisms provides objective, observable, science-based evidence for the existence of a creator -- indeed, a creator with incredible skill, astonishing intellect, and massive capabilities. That much I think can be demonstrated. As a result, the design inference can be an important tool in the theologian's belt, as you describe. That is fine as far as it goes. But let's be careful when using the tool. Let's be clear about what it can and cannot accomplish. Let's be upfront with our listeners and specifically make it clear when we have holstered the ID tool (the scientific inference to design) and pulled out another tool (the second-order religious/philosophical arguments about the designer's identity, personality, motivations, etc.). ----- Thanks again for an interesting post. These are good issues and nuances to think through.Eric Anderson
July 17, 2014
July
07
Jul
17
17
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
jstanley01 #65 There is a misunderstanding about the "bridge", which is a term that can be metaphorically used to mean any link. That Jesus is the bridge, the mediator between Earth and Heaven, between man and God, is true, and surely I am not me who denies that. That there is an abyss between man and God is again true, like there is between finite vs. infinite. Indeed my post wanted to underline that anthropomorphism is a form of the general error of collapsing the two. Surely you cannot accuse me of this error. Nobody wants to make ID a religion, that would be nonsense. If that is what you fear, don't worry. Simply you have misunderstood my thought (causa my defective English), when I spoke of a "bridge" between science and theology. Eric rightly says that "ID has important powerful metaphysical implications". Dembski and I call "bridge" those "implications". Therefore this internal diatribe among IDers is more about terms than substance, after all. That said, that the cosmos is a giant symbolic theophany strongly pointing to God is the conception that any ancient traditional thinker of any orthodox tradition knew to have the responsibility of attesting. As one of those thinkers said, "in any thing there is a sign that shows that God is unique". The "design argument", based on these countless signs, was at the core of any traditional, religious worldview. Unfortunately nowadays the modern ID movement (about the intellectual honesty of its members I have no doubt) is forced to stay "under the radar" to escape the persecutions of the atheist establishment, like the ancient Christians were forced to hidden in the catacombs to escape the persecutions of Romans. But this is a de facto situation, not de principio.niwrad
July 16, 2014
July
07
Jul
16
16
2014
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
niwrad: First of all, let me say that I respect your personal religious and philosophical views and am not demanding that you or anyone else who is interested in ID abandon their views. But we must recognize the difference between what intelligent design can say as an evidence-based inquiry and those personal views. True, an affirmative answer to the question of whether the universe and life were designed has important metaphysical implications. Those metaphysical implications are powerful and should be sufficient to cause any careful observer to ask sincere questions about the designer and what it all might mean for their life. Such implications should be sufficient to prompt any intellectually-honest atheist or agnostic to at least reconsider their position in light of the evidence for a designer. Though few and far between, this has in fact been the case for some, including well-known individuals like Flew and Stroebel. I am not suggesting that such implications should be ignored. I am not calling for any "bridge" to be burned. What I am calling for is that we keep very clear what intelligent design -- the design inference as an objective, observational, evidence-based enterprise -- can and cannot say. I am interested in complete and full clarity and honesty with respect to what we can and cannot confirm with ID. Bill Dembski is certainly free to write any book he wants about science and theology. He is also free to express his personal opinion about who the designer(s) might be. We should note, however, that Dembski and Behe and Meyer and other prominent ID proponents have taken great pains and extreme care and go to great lengths to make it very clear that any opinion they have about who the designer(s) might be are their own, individual, personal opinions, based on their religious/philosophical preferences, and not something that flows from ID itself. The tenor of the evolution/design debate is such that it is extremely important to ensure that this is very clear. One of the primary attacks, probably the primary attack, on intelligent design is the false claim that ID is just another religious-based argument, "creationism in a cheap tuxedo." This is false. ID is an evidence-based, observationally-sound inquiry. One that, yes, has metaphysical implications; but those implications are logically separate from and only come after the design inference itself. The prominent ID proponents have spilled much ink and made tremendous effort over the years to ensure that people understand this distinction, to make it clear that intelligent design is not another form of creationism, to make sure people understand that intelligent design has merit in its own right as a form of scientific inquiry and is not just some evangelising tool to bring people to God, etc. Anytime we are less than clear in our language, anytime we imply that intelligent design is about "knowing God," anytime we fail to clearly demark the boundaries between the design inference as a fact-based scientific inquiry and our own personal metaphysical preferences, we sow confusion rather than clarity and do a disservice to intelligent design and to the tremendous efforts that Dembski, Behe, Meyer and others have put in over the years.Eric Anderson
July 16, 2014
July
07
Jul
16
16
2014
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Sorry to have to step on toes. But in my book it is niwrad, and evidently Dembski, who are the ones that -- via the bridge metaphor -- appear to be dangerously close to suggesting that ID take on an untoward responsibility. If the Bible is right, the abyss between the natural man and God is real:
I Corinthians 2:14 (AV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Likewise, what the bridge is which spans that chasm is clear; or I should say who the bridge is:
I Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
In light of which, I would urge a sober reflection upon the following:
John 10:1-18 (NIV) "I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
The sheep know the Shepherd's voice, whether modern man or ancient. Those who don't recognize it are not sheep. It's a pretty simple evangel; too simple for some I guess. Thinking that ID ought to hire on -- so to speak -- as if the cogitations of its adherents would be better at Christ's job than Christ and his Word are -- laying aside the implied egotism (given our sin nature, it's a slippery slope for everyone) -- I would call that a responsibility which is dissociative of spiritual reality. As Eric stated, ID is not up to the task. To which I would add, "To say the least."jstanley01
July 16, 2014
July
07
Jul
16
16
2014
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson, Our disagreement is about the interface of ID with metaphysics / theology -- in a single word -- with God. You are for a total decoupling between them. Differently, I am for a strict relation (W. Dembski even calls ID "the bridge between science and theology", indeed in the title of one of his books). You want to destroy such "bridge". Science is here, and -- eventually -- God is there, separated by an abyss. Scientism is more important. On the contrary, the vision I adhere to, is one where all sciences are ancilla of theology, where the latter is hierarchical higher than the former. In this traditional perspective sciences are sort of "staircase", supports to help men to finally know God, the true goal of life. What is more important, the Designer or the design, after all? The destruction of the bridge is unfortunately the elimination of an important opportunity for modern men to search for God, perhaps the last chance for them, so intoxicated with the countless, lethal illusions of this atheist world. Some atheists / evolutionists found the Designer / God indeed by means of a meditation on the design argument. Of course I respect your opinion, but I think that you assume a serious responsibility by speaking and working in the ID movement for the destruction of the bridge. A responsibility from which I totally dissociate.niwrad
July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
niwrad @58:
If in a discussion an atheist says: “By ID you have convinced me that the universe is designed. What’s its designer?”
One appropriate answer might be: "Intelligent design does not seek to, nor indeed can it, identify the designer. We can learn certain things about the designer's capabilities by studying the designed artifacts. But we cannot necessarily identify, from the artifact itself, who the designer is nor all the designer's attributes and motives. "Those are interesting philosophical and religious questions that people have been seeking to answer for millennia. I personally believe the designer is ____, but that is based on my religious/philosophical experiences and understandings, not based on the design inference." That would provide a relatively fulsome explanation that any listener should be able to comprehend. A shorter elevator-pitch version of the answer might be: "Who knows? Intelligent design does not seek to and has never claimed to be able to identify the designer. Personally, I think the designer is _____, but that is based on my personal religious/philosophical views, not on ID." Even "Who knows?" would be a better response than delving into some discussion about the nature of deity, the infinite versus the finite, etc. ID is better served by acknowledging that ID does not address some questions, than by pretending that it does and that it is up to the task. ----- BTW, your mother example is off base. You presumably know, by firsthand, repeated, physical, tangible, reproducible, verifiable, documented evidence -- evidence that would be acceptable to any court -- who your mother is.Eric Anderson
July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
niwrad, this is the last time I will debate anything with you. See you around, amigo.Mapou
July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson #58 If in a discussion an atheist says: "By ID you have convinced me that the universe is designed. What's its designer?" You: "For ID any designer is ok". Atheist: "Well, its designer is the "Flying Spaghetti Monster"!" you reply nothing? It is like a guy asks me "who is your mother?" Me: "I don't know". Guy: "Your mother is a bitch". and I don't reply.niwrad
July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
mapou #59
First off, you conveniently and sheepishly ignored my arguments that a God who knows everything cannot have any regrets and that infinity leads to a logical contradiction.
A God with "regrets" is simply ridiculous, why not human sentiments, sensations, emotions... :) ... and, mind you, some complain that my post about anthropomorphism is useless! Your argument "that infinity leads to a logical contradiction"? It is the negation of the Total Possibility (= Metaphysical Infinite), which has nothing to do with the mathematical "infinite", to be really contradictory. Maybe you confuse the former with the latter. We had just other discussions about this topic. I already suggested you where you can learn these concepts. Evidently you disdained my suggestion because you continue to define "crackpottery" what you haven't studied.niwrad
July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
niwrad, quoting the Bible:
Psalm 147,5: “Great our Lord, and of great power: his understanding infinite.” Revelation 19,6: “And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”
First off, you conveniently and sheepishly ignored my arguments that a God who knows everything cannot have any regrets and that infinity leads to a logical contradiction. Second, other translators have "his understanding is infinite" as "there is no measure to his wisdom". Third, David's opinion about God's understanding cannot be construed as coming from God himself. David was simply writing lyrics for his songs of praise. Unlike the Pope (and some others), David is not infallible. Fourth, the word 'omnipotent' is usually translated 'almighty' and really means 'exceedingly powerful' or 'the most powerful'. There are even passages in the Bible where God's angels report to him to let him know what is occurring on earth. If one knows everything, one does not need reports. I could go on and on. Let me repeat my original position. Infinity is crackpottery.Mapou
July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
niwrad @56: What I said in [A] is in reference to having a discussion with ID's critics, which is what you listed @52. When having a conversation with an ID critic, it is fruitless to try to defend ID or explain ID or help people understand ID by talking about the identity of the designer or getting into a debate about omniscience, omnipotence, infinite capabilities, etc. ID does not and cannot go there. It is not up to the task. As I said, one can certainly have such a discussion, but it needs to be clear that it is based on one's religious/philosophical views, not based on ID. To not make this explicit -- to tie the two together, even implicitly or by silence -- is a disservice to ID. [B] is not a contradiction of that at all. It is a restatement of the same point. Allowing anthropomorphism to creep into a discussion -- a discussion which, by definition in that case, must be talking about the designer's attributes -- is a risk. Just like talking about omniscience, omnipotence, infinity, etc. Bottom line: The issue is not, contra your OP, what kind of designer IDers should be proposing when debating with ID critics. The issue is that ID proponents should not be proposing any particular designer when debating with ID critics.Eric Anderson
July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Excellent! Thank you. It is an issue of power: The cause must always have more power than the effect. At the same time, the cause cannot give what it does not have to give.
Thanks StephenB. Yes, as you said - the cause must be nobler than the effect. The first cause must have all possible powers and capabilities because they can't come from anywhere else. As humans, our capabilities for design are limited - but they point to something greater. It's not anthropomorphic to recognize that design in nature mirrors human design and therefore it's reasonable to assume that nature's designer uses something like human thought.Silver Asiatic
July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson #53
[A] To even allow a discussion of the merits of ID to get bogged down in the question of omnipotence or perfection or omniscience or infinite beings is a distraction, and a disservice, to the design argument. [B] I agree with you that for ID there is a danger of anthropomorphism creeping into a discussion of the designer’s attributes. That is a fair point.
Please decide for A or B, they self-contradict. I don't understand if my post about anthropomorphism is "a distraction, and a disservice, to the design argument" or is "a fair point".niwrad
July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
mapou #54
I see nothing in the scriptures to indicate that Yahweh has infinite knowledge, power, etc.
Psalm 147,5: "Great our Lord, and of great power: his understanding infinite." Revelation 19,6: "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."niwrad
July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT
Niwrad, I'm a Christian and I see nothing in the scriptures to indicate that Yahweh has infinite knowledge, power, etc. In fact, I see the exact opposite. In Genesis, we see a Yahweh who regrets having done certain things (such as creating man), for example. We see a Yahweh who declares that his creation of life on earth was very good, not perfect. There is even a suggestion that there were previous creations of living creatures that either became extinct or were destroyed by Yahweh. I have never seen any claim by Yahweh about his infinite knowledge and power. All the omniscience attributions I have seen come from humans, like yourself. I reject the concept of infinity because it is illogical. If infinity existed, then any finite value would be infinitely smaller than infinity. This is illogical on the face of it because it calls for the existence of a value to be both finite and infinitesimal at the same time. Furthermore, if you know everything past and future, you become impotent because you cannot change your mind. The whole idea of omniscience is pure unmitigated crackpottery. Just my opinion, of course.Mapou
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
niwrad @52:
To claim that the Being is not unlimited is to deny also His omnipotence and omniscience. In fact if something is outside Him, it is a limit for Him, then He is not omnipotent. Moreover, an external thing implies also non-omniscience, because perfect knowledge is identification of the knower with the known. A Being limited and finite, is — according to my general definition — pure anthropomorphism.
Let's assume you are right about the foregoing -- I'm happy to let the religious views fall where they may. But that has no bearing on ID per se. ID is not engaged in identifying a designer, so I would certainly hope that any IDer who is making statements about the nature of the designer is being very clear to his listeners that such statements are personal religious/philosophical views that do not flow from ID itself. To even allow a discussion of the merits of ID to get bogged down in the question of omnipotence or perfection or omniscience or infinite beings is a distraction, and a disservice, to the design argument. I agree with you that for ID there is a danger of anthropomorphism creeping into a discussion of the designer's attributes. That is a fair point. But it is precisely the same danger that would result from allowing a claim of omnipotence/omniscience/infinite Being to creep into the discussion. Namely, in both cases the speaker is making claims that cannot be ascertained from the evidence itself -- claims that go beyond what ID can determine.Eric Anderson
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
mapou #51 To claim that the Being is not unlimited is to deny also His omnipotence and omniscience. In fact if something is outside Him, it is a limit for Him, then He is not omnipotent. Moreover, an external thing implies also non-omniscience, because perfect knowledge is identification of the knower with the known. A Being limited and finite, is -- according to my general definition -- pure anthropomorphism. At this point the Designer could become even that "clever old English gentleman" that Martin says. This anthropomorphic caricature of the Designer is exactly what ID opponents are happy to state, to ridicule ID and IDers. I don't know you, but I have no intention to be ridiculed so easily by them.niwrad
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
At the very end, in its extreme generality, anthropomorphism is to attribute to the infinite Being the limits and forms of the infinitesimal beings.
Infinity is crackpottery, IMO.Mapou
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
niwrad
Therefore crystals formation is an example of less-from-more,
Yes. Thank you.StephenB
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
Complexity is not the issue. Mere complexity is meaningless. If two rocks in space collide the resulting trajectories of all the pieces will be more complex than the two original trajectories. The question is capability of producing the artifact in question, not whether the artifact is "complex".Eric Anderson
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
niwrad
Unfortunately not only some evolutionists / atheists are anthropomorphist. Also some Neo-Thomists oppose ID for similar reasons.
niwrad, you are wise to point this out. Alas, if the "Neo-Thomists" were really Thomists, there would be no conflict. The Angelic Doctor would never have taken their position. It is a scandal what they are doing to his name. They are just using his reputation as a misleading and despicable act of arguing from authority instead of arguing from reason.StephenB
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic
Right – it’s not a question of complexity but of power. The power cited by evolutionary theory (blind natural process) is not adequate to explain the design. To say that the designer must be more complex than the design assumes that complexity is a measure of greatness. It should be that “the designer must have more power than what is present in the design”.
Excellent! Thank you. It is an issue of power: The cause must always have more power than the effect. At the same time, the cause cannot give what it does not have to give. Yes, God is infinitely greater than us and has attributes that transcend our own. As Niwrad points out, we cannot conclude that the designer of the universe has human-like limitations. Nothing in ID science would prompt us to deny that fact. Of course, it doesn't follow from there that humans have nothing at all in common with God and I don't think that niwrad is saying that. We do, after all, possess a scaled down version of some of God's attributes, among which is our capacity to be causal agents. That is a large chunk of what it means to be made in His image. So, what else does it mean? Well, we are back to Silver Asiatic"s point, or perhaps a corollary to his point. Some causes have more power than other causes. It requires more causal power to bring time/matter/space into being than it does to rearrange matter into a design. So, we are nothing at all like God in the first context, and a little like Him in the second context, save our human limitations and faults. We can, after all, "think (some of) God's thoughts after him," albeit in an imperfect way. The two great errors, then, are to say that we have very much in common with God, which is presumptuous and naive, or to say that we have nothing at all in common with God, which misses the point that we are made in His image. In other words, God's causal power is infinite; our causal power is finite.
The natural processes that produce crystals are far more sophisticated and powerful than what they produce.
Precisely. The cause is always nobler than the effect. Darwinists seek to make the effect nobler than the cause.StephenB
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
niwrad, If with “optimization” you mean a cosmos populated with a single standard kind of being, then your “optimized” cosmos would really be a poor cosmos, or even not a cosmos at all. Not really, though that would be a more persuasive evidence for artificial design. You are theorizing a designer who is omniscient and omnipotent, do you consider the human body to be beyond improvement? As humans we are constantly modifying the design. Since there is no necessity for any body plan, the choice of the present plan seems puzzling from a design view if a optimal design was a criterion. The Designer leaved enough signs / proofs that a sincere seeker could find Him. But He didn’t leave too many signs / proofs that who do not want to find Him could find Him. But it is not finding Him that is the issue, it is whether He is the primary causation of the design of life on earth. Many sincere theists believe that He is not. Thanks for the infovelikovskys
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Acartia_bogart #40
A crystal is a more complex structure that arises from more simple structure by completely natural processes.
Crystals natural formation is not at all an example of more-from-less. The natural laws acting on certain materials imply, just from the beginning, a potentiality of formation of some ordered structures. Call this potentiality P. The complexity of crystals is not a form of organization, rather a simple form of low level order. Call this order O. In the hierarchy of qualitative complexity O stays far below P. We can write, based on this hierarchal ordering, P > O. Therefore crystals formation is an example of less-from-more, a universal paradigm, true everywhere, with no counter-example.niwrad
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
A.B. - "DavidD, tactic number 4 from the ID playbook: if you can’t argue logically, ridicule." Wow, if that isn't the 'Lee Allan Croteau' (Zachriel) calling someone else bankrupt A.B. - "But I will still accept an explanation for crystals which occur through natural processes and are more complex than the component parts. If that is too tough for you, try a snowflake, or a sheet of ice on a pond, or water, or lead. All are more complex than their precursors, and they all are formed through natural processes." This is so easy a child gets it. None of these so-called examples mentioned have any instructions encoded within any of their molecules for the blueprints of the items you've listed. These are the usual failed atheist dreamland examples which radically miss the mark of what constitutes living things and the way biological life operates through information. This is almost as irresponsible as Michael Ruse's Crystal Sermon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUetJ3umTWU -DavidD
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
DavidD, tactic number 4 from the ID playbook: if you can't argue logically, ridicule. But I will still accept an explanation for crystals which occur through natural processes and are more complex than the component parts. If that is too tough for you, try a snowflake, or a sheet of ice on a pond, or water, or lead. All are more complex than their precursors, and they all are formed through natural processes.Acartia_bogart
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
The natural processes that produce crystals are far more sophisticated and powerful than what they produce.Silver Asiatic
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
A.B. - "A crystal is a more complex structure that arises from more simple structure by completely natural processes." Many an evolutionist belong to new age cults where talking to Crystals as sentient beings is perfectly acceptable. Never underestimate the power of animist Faith. Guess we'll all have to join that annual Pilgrimage to the Crystal Cathedral down in Naica, Mexico.DavidD
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
A crystal is a more complex structure that arises from more simple structure by completely natural processes.Acartia_bogart
July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply