[quote mine] Charles Darwin: “all has been intelligently designed”

SCordova: “I think that would make a perfect textbook sticker.”

Or a T-Shirt, with a picture of Darwin!

To provide a bit of context, a little bit more of he letter goes like this:

“One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this. For, I am not prepared to admit that God designed the feathers in the tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail; & if this be not admitted (I know it would be admitted by many persons), then I cannot see design in the variations of structure in animals in a state of nature,—those variations which were useful to the animal being preserved & those useless or injurious being destroyed.”

Sorry, I didn’t see the Humor part. Perhaps it’s my monitor, but the line that lists the category and says Leave a Response is virtually unseeable because the font color is so light. If I had seen the humor part I wouldn’t have responded. My apologies.

From Jack’s post:

“…I am not prepared to admit that God designed the feathers in the tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail; & if this be not admitted (I know it would be admitted by many persons), then I cannot see design in the variations of structure in animals in a state of nature,—those variations which were useful to the animal being preserved & those useless or injurious being destroyed.”

Notice that Darwin doesn’t talk abut what he believes to be true but what he is personally prepared to tolerate. This becomes a bit like Dawkins’ “Argument from Incredulity” where someone proclaims something false because they can’t possibly see how it could be true. In the end, this is no argument at all as the truth of a particular proposition has nothing at all to do with how understandable or personally tolerable it may or may not be to specific individuals.

Nice try, Jack, but if the universe as a whole is designed (which Darwin seems to admit), then Darwin’s personal incredulity isn’t much of a defeater for the notion of whether or not pigeon feathers are designed.

The Scubaredneck

From the quote in context, it seems that Darwin was admitting that there is an “Edge of Evolution” somewhere between the universe as a whole and pigeon feathers.

My apologies to Jack if I pulled the trigger a bit early in my defense of Sal. I was typing my post as Jack was posting his explanation.

The Scubaredneck

If I had seen the humor part I wouldn’t have responded. My apologies.

What about the part about you banning Sal? Any humor there, oh gutless one?

It truly is amazing how Jack Krebs (KCFS) and Wesley Elsberry (AtBC) will allow the supporters of their forums to use the most horrific name calling and ridiculing techniques known to man, yet they ban people like Sal and I for the most insignificant, miniscule comments in comparison.

Then they have the gall to complain when we moderate their profane, inane, or repetitive comments at our blogs.

Elsberry is a Christian, but evidently verses like “Be ye kind one to another” only apply to those who agree with his philosophy about life.

I swear this whole on-line debate is out of control. People are positively nasty to one another. It’s really sad if you think about it.

Sal is not banned at KCFS. Any further discussion about this should take place there, not here, as it really doesn’t pertain to this site at all.

Right…then your friends can fire up the cannons and let loose while you sit back (as usual) and enjoy the fireworks.

More interesting is what lead up to the letter in question.

“The Law of Higgledy-Piggledy”
by j

Charles Darwin, Autobiography, p. 68:

During my last year at Cambridge I read with care and profound interest Humboldt’s Personal Narrative. This work and Sir J. Herschel’s Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy stirred up in me a burning zeal to add even the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science. No one or a dozen other books influenced me nearly so much as these two.

Darwin states that his interest in science was due in great measure to John Herschel, eminent astronomer and philosopher of science.

John Herschel to Charles Lyell:

Feldhausen, Cape of Good Hope, 20 February 1836.

My dear Sir,

I am perfectly ashamed not to have long since acknowledged your present of the new edition of your Geology, a work which I now read for the third time, and every time with increased interest, as it appears to me one of those productions which work a complete revolution in their subject, by altering entirely the point of view in which it must thence-forward be contemplated. You have succeeded, too, in adding dignity to a subject already grand, by exposing to view the immense extent and complication of the problems it offers for solution, and by unveiling a dim glimpse of a region of speculation connected with it, where it seems impossible to venture without experiencing some degree of that mysterious awe which the sybil appeals to, in the bosom of Aeneas, ” on entering the confines of the shades—or what the Maid of Avenel suggests to Halbert Glendinning,

“He that on such quest would go, must know nor fear nor failing; To coward soul or faithless heart the search were unavailing.”

Of course I allude to that mystery of mysteries, the replacement of extinct species by others. Many will doubtless think your speculations too bold, but it is as well to face the difficulty at once. For my own part, I cannot but think it an inadequate conception of the Creator, to assume it as granted that his combinations are exhausted upon any one of the theatres of their former exercise, though in this, as in all his other works, we are led, by all analogy, to suppose that he operates through a series of intermediate causes, and that in consequence the origination of fresh species, could it ever come under our cognizance, would be found to be a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process—although we perceive no indications of any process actually in progress which is likely to issue in such a result.

In this letter, published in 1838 in the appendix of Charles Babbage’s The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, we see that John Herschel read and was greatly impressed with Lyell’s masterpiece, The Principles of Geology, and that he considers it to shed light on the area of biological origins. Herschel suggests that it is a natural process; that the process is teleological is implied (“he operates through a series of intermediate causes”).

Charles Darwin, Autobiography, p. 68:

I felt a high reverence for Sir J. Herschel, and was delighted to dine with him at his charming house at the C. of Good Hope… He never talked much, but every word which he uttered was worth listening to.

Darwin dined with Herschel in June 1836. In his journal, Darwin called the occasion “the most memorable event which, for a long period, I have had the good fortune to enjoy.” (I wonder what they talked about.)

Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (1859), p. 1:

When on board H.M.S. ‘Beagle,’ as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species — that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it.

Darwin implicitly gives tribute to Herschel for highlighting the issue of species origination.

Charles Darwin to John Herschel, 11 November 1859:

My dear Sir John Herschel,

I have taken the liberty of directing Murray to send you a copy of my book on the Origin of species, with the hope that you may still retain some interest on this question.— I know that I ought to apologise for troubling you with the volume & with this note (which requires no acknowledgment) but I cannot resist the temptation of showing in this feeble manner my respect, & the deep obligation, which I owe to your Introduction to Natural Philosophy. Scarcely anything in my life made so deep an impression on me: it made me wish to try to add my mite to the accumulated store of natural knowledge.

With much respect
I beg leave to remain
Yours sincerely
Charles Darwin

Darwin seeks the approval of Herschel.

Charles Darwin to Charles Lyell, 23 November 1859:

Sir J. Herschel, to whom I sent a copy, is going to read my book. He says he leans to the side opposed to me. If you should meet him after he has read me, pray find out what he thinks, for, of course, he will not write; and I should excessively like to hear whether I produce any effect on such a mind.

Darwin is desperate to find out what Herschel thinks of his book.

Charles Darwin to Charles Lyell, 12 December 1859:

I have heard, by roundabout channel, that Herschel says my book “is the law of higgledy-piggledy.” What this exactly means I do not know, but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is a great blow and discouragement.

Herschel has perceived that, in Darwin’s theory, variation and natural selection are both generated by chance. Darwin is offended and upset by Herschel’s sharp characterization.

John Herschel, Physical Geography of the Globe (1861), p. 12:

This was written previous to the publication of Mr. Darwin’s work on the Origin of Species, a work which, whatever its merit or ingenuity, we cannot, however, consider as having disproved the view taken in the text. We can no more accept the principle of arbitrary and casual variation and natural selection as a sufficient account, per se, of the past and present organic world, than we can receive the Laputan method* of composing books (pushed à outrance [i.e., to the extreme]) as a sufficient one of Shakespeare and the Principia. Equally in either case an intelligence, guided by a purpose, must be continually in action to bias the directions of the steps of change — to regulate their amount, to limit their divergence, and to continue them in a definite course. We do not believe that Mr. Darwin means to deny the necessity of such intelligent direction. But it does not, so far as we can see, enter into the formula of this law, and without it we are unable to conceive how far the law can have led to the results. On the other hand, we do not mean to deny that such intelligence may act according to a law (that is to say, on a preconceived and definite plan). Such law, stated in words, would be no other than the actual observed law of organic succession; a one more general, taking that form when applied to our own planet, and including all the links of the chain which have disappeared. But the one law is a necessary supplement to the other, and ought, in all logical propriety, to form a part of its enunciation. Granting this, and with some demur as to the genesis of man, we are far from disposed to repudiate the view taken of this mysterious subject in Mr. Darwin’s book.

In Herschel’s reply to Darwin, he correctly points out that in order for evolutionary processes to generate complex specified information, they must be guided by intelligence.

Charles Darwin to John Herschel, 23 May 1861:

Dear Sir John Herschel,

You must permit me to have the pleasure to thank you for your kind present of your Physical Geography. I feel honoured by your gift, & shall prize this Book with your autograph. I am pleased with your note on my book on species, though apparently you go but a little way with me. The point which you raise on intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure; & has been ably discussed by Prof. Asa Gray, with whom I have had much correspondence on the subject. — I am in a complete jumble on the point. One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this. For, I am not prepared to admit that God designed the feathers in the tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail; & if this be not admitted (I know it would be admitted by many persons), then I cannot see design in the variations of structure in animals in a state of nature,—those variations which were useful to the animal being preserved & those useless or injurious being destroyed. But I ought to apologise for thus troubling you.—

You will think me very conceited when I say I feel quite easy about the ultimate success of my views, (with much error, as yet unseen by me, to be no doubt eliminated); & I feel this confidence, because I find so many young & middle-aged truly good workers in different branches, either partially or wholly accepting my views, because they find that they can thus group & understand many scattered facts. This has occurred with those who have chiefly or almost exclusively studied morphology, geographical Distribution, systematic Botany, simple geology & palaeontology. Forgive me boasting, if you can; I do so because I shd. value your partial acquiescence in my views, more than that of almost any other human being.—

Believe me with much respect
Yours, sincerely & obliged
Charles Darwin

Darwin uses the phrase “intelligent design” and effectively threatens Herschel with obsolescence. Herschel does not reply.
__________

Herschel, an ID proponent, set Darwin on his life’s course, first by igniting a love of science (”natural philosophy”), and then by highlighling a major, unanswered scientific question, and giving a general description of the type of answer it should have. Darwin reported back to his muse over 20 years later with a theory, basically saying, “Chance did it.” Herschel immediately and rightly rejected the theory as plainly inadequate, over a century before it was possible to demonstrate this (via computer), as has now occurred. Herschel — “such a mind” indeed.
__________

* From Gulliver’s Travels (1726) by Jonathan Swift:
We crossed a walk to the other part of the [Laputan] academy, where, as I have already said, the projectors in speculative learning resided.

The first professor I saw, was in a very large room, with forty pupils about him. After salutation, observing me to look earnestly upon a frame, which took up the greatest part of both the length and breadth of the room, he said, “Perhaps I might wonder to see him employed in a project for improving speculative knowledge, by practical and mechanical operations. But the world would soon be sensible of its usefulness; and he flattered himself, that a more noble, exalted thought never sprang in any other man’s head. Every one knew how laborious the usual method is of attaining to arts and sciences; whereas, by his contrivance, the most ignorant person, at a reasonable charge, and with a little bodily labour, might write books in philosophy, poetry, politics, laws, mathematics, and theology, without the least assistance from genius or study.” He then led me to the frame, about the sides, whereof all his pupils stood in ranks. It was twenty feet square, placed in the middle of the room. The superfices was composed of several bits of wood, about the bigness of a die, but some larger than others. They were all linked together by slender wires. These bits of wood were covered, on every square, with paper pasted on them; and on these papers were written all the words of their language, in their several moods, tenses, and declensions; but without any order. The professor then desired me “to observe; for he was going to set his engine at work.” The pupils, at his command, took each of them hold of an iron handle, whereof there were forty fixed round the edges of the frame; and giving them a sudden turn, the whole disposition of the words was entirely changed. He then commanded six-and-thirty of the lads, to read the several lines softly, as they appeared upon the frame; and where they found three or four words together that might make part of a sentence, they dictated to the four remaining boys, who were scribes. This work was repeated three or four times, and at every turn, the engine was so contrived, that the words shifted into new places, as the square bits of wood moved upside down.

Six hours a day the young students were employed in this labour; and the professor showed me several volumes in large folio, already collected, of broken sentences, which he intended to piece together, and out of those rich materials, to give the world a complete body of all arts and sciences; which, however, might be still improved, and much expedited, if the public would raise a fund for making and employing five hundred such frames in Lagado, and oblige the managers to contribute in common their several collections.

He assured me “that this invention had employed all his thoughts from his youth; that he had emptied the whole vocabulary into his frame, and made the strictest computation of the general proportion there is in books between the numbers of particles, nouns, and verbs, and other parts of speech.”

I made my humblest acknowledgment to this illustrious person, for his great communicativeness; and promised, “if ever I had the good fortune to return to my native country, that I would do him justice, as the sole inventor of this wonderful machine”…
__________

(Please excuse the length of this comment.)

The strength of Darwin’s theory is that on the surface it explains and unifies biology. This is why it is so readily accepted. If it only worked all of biology would fall into place. The only problem is when one looks at the details and finds it fails at nearly every turn.

It is interesting that Darwin said that when you look at the universe as a whole you see design but when you look at the individual species you do not see design. If he had gone one step further and looked at the patterns of change in species he would not have found any evidence for gradual change. So where to then if not back to design.

The letter to Herschell reveals a cocky Darwin who thought the details would be easily shown to support his views while 150 years later the details actually undermine it.

Thanks J for the long post about the context of Darwin’s comments and that the term and concept of intelligent design was not borne in 1989 as Nick Matzke claims but was well known to Darwin.

Forthekids, the very impersonal nature of online discussions lend themselves to childish tactics like name calling, etc. The reason of course is that the person you are insulting is not sitting in front of you. I can guarantee you that most people will not behave the way they do, if they had to face the consequences of doing it in person.

Jerry wrote:

“Thanks J for the long post about the context of Darwin’s comments and that the term and concept of intelligent design was not borne in 1989 as Nick Matzke claims but was well known to Darwin.”

And well beyond. There have been design advocates throughout recorded history, although most deists and theists probably (as today) have disavowed design as an ‘intelligent process.’

It’s been stated by certain researchers, however, that many Greek and Roman thinkers recognized design in nature. One ancient whose writings are available today was Epictetus. Here’s a quote from Disc. 1.6.7 (Loeb Classical Library translation, 1:41)

“Assuredly from the very structure of all made objects we are accustomed to prove that the work is certainly the product of some artificer, and has not been constructed at random.”

And another: Epictetus Disc. 1.16.8

“Anyone who observes the facts of nature yet denies the existence of a creator, he opines, is stupid.”

The concept is as old as man’s cognitive processes, although granted, there have been resurgences of late. Sorry, Nick.

JK is, imo, a 1st class Darwinian fundamentalist terrorist — where he can freely act as such, and pretends to be a nice, fair, unprejudiced guy anywhere else.

Gee, that sounds like almost every other Darwinian fundamentalist I’ve ever met. What a coincidence!

Gentlemen, I know nothing of Krebs’ site, but this site is famous for banning people. I think we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Sal may have a point about abusive language on Krebs’ site, I don’t know. But I personally would love to have more dissenters on this site.

Lets pull the plank out of our own eye before trying to deal with the speck in our brother’s eye.

Thanks, bfast. I know there are people at the KCFS site that are rude and abusive, as there are on every site (I was just called a terrorist, for instance, who only pretends to be nice), but people’s behavior has to be quite excessive before they get banned at the KCFS forum.

I know that I disagree with most of you about lots of basic issues, but I think on this site I’ve been pretty good about having civil discussions with people, which is what I enjoy when I have the time and the topic interests me.

Hi bfast,
It is perhaps because this site has acquired such a reputation that it is possible for us to have the long and fruitful discussions that do occur here.

Having tried to speak my mind at PT, Pharyngula, StrangerFruit, ATBC, etc., I, for one, couldn’t care less about the so-called plank in the eye of UD.
Dissenters are not hard to find.

“If I had seen the humor part I wouldn’t have responded. My apologies.”

I would agree with Jack on this. The font color is almost unreadable on my laptop.

“I’ve asked UD commenters to treat you with respect like an opponent visiting under flag of truce.”

People who believe we are made in the imago Dei will treat others with respect.

Those who believe we are made in the imago animalia however have no reason to treat others with respect (other than pragmatic reasons).

Those who believe we are made in the imago animalia however have no reason to treat others with respect (other than pragmatic reasons).

Pragmatism works for me.

Is there anyway of changing the font color for comments or blockquotes? They are difficult to read.

I measured the color components of the grey type face of the blockquotes in Photoshop and it is closer to white than black and when it is on the grey background of the typical responder it is a faint grey on slightly fainter grey.

The “humor” classification under the post at the top is close to white and the line above it almost pure white in Photoshop.

Daniel King,

The problem is what is pragmatic for you may be different from others such as Hitler and Stalin. It was very pragmatic for Stalin to get rid of the Kulaks. History is full of pragmatic solutions that are pragmatic only in the eyes of a single person or a few or maybe even a majority. Majorities may have different pragmatics than minorities.

Pragmatic also means that what is useful to you today may not be useful for you tomorrow. Pragmatic is a different way of saying relativism because the basis for judging anything can change depending upon one’s personal needs.

In many instances the actual pragmatic choice has no major implications for others but in many cases it does.

I’ve been thinking about Robo’s comment that

People who believe we are made in the imago Dei will treat others with respect.

Those who believe we are made in the imago animalia however have no reason to treat others with respect (other than pragmatic reasons).

I don’t know whether Robo intended his comment to include all possible cases - whether he sees the “imago Dei” and the “imago animalia” groups as two disjoint sets that include the only two possibilities into which a person’s beliefs can fall.

I’m also not sure what people he includes in the “imago animalia” group. I’m assuming at a minimum he is including materialists who do not believe in any metaphysical aspect to the world. Keeping these uncertainties I have about exactly what Robo has in mind, here are a few comments.

1. There are many people throughout the world who are not theists in the Western tradition and that have spiritual beliefs that all human beings have an inherent right to our respect, irrespective of any pragmatic grounds they might have for treating people with respect.

So if Robo’s two categories are meant to just mean theists and materialists, then his categories are not all-inclusive: many people fall in neither group.

2. However, perhaps Robo includes in the “imago animalia” group all who accept evolution and our biological relationship with all of life via common descent back to the beginnings of life. In this case, this group includes much more than the materialists, including a sizable fraction of the theists in the world. As has been discussed at length (but is still always a quite relevant fact)), many Christians accept evolutionary science and Christian theism: we have evolved in the animal world and also participate spiritually in the “imago Dei” that God has endowed upon and within our animal nature. One doesn’t have to agree with that interpretation, but I think it is a true fact that is what many Christians believe.

3. But even if Robo is just talking about the materialists, I think he misrepresents them by saying that they respect others for pragmatic reasons only.

In fact, I find the following a little ironic: the claim is made that “[p]eople who believe we are made in the imago Dei will treat others with respect.” And yet one sign of respect, in my opinion, is to try to genuinely understand the points of view of others who have different points of view than our own. Each person is trying to make sense out of the world as best they can, and even though we may think someone else’s path is terribly misguided, we should at least try to honestly understand them.

I am certain that many materialists feel strongly that they have reasons other than just pragmatism for treating others with respect. I would hope that Robo and others would not be so simplistically dismissive of the beliefs of those who believe that the material world is all there is - if for no other reason than out of respect for the “image of God” that the theist believes resides in us all.

jerry, Sal: You’re very welcome.
__________
Keep the moderation policy as is, please. No tripe.

I am certain that many materialists feel strongly that they have reasons other than just pragmatism for treating others with respect.

Can you articulate any?

Let me restate this then:

Many materialists have reasons other than just pragmatism for treating others with respect. I believe they would claim that their reasons are sound, based on both the exercise of logic and human reason as well as experience and knowledge of human nature and the human condition.

I understand that you, and many theists, are as dismissive of this position as the materialists are of theism. The current point I am making is not who is right, but rather what kind of respect does one show one with opposing viewpoints. In discussing materialism, should one make an effort to accurately present their position as they themselves see it, or can one just dismiss their position as wrong and then portray them as you - the anti-materialist - see them.

And let’s be sure to turn this around: how should the materialist look at the theist? Should he make a genuine effort to understand the reasons the theist believes as he does, and to understand the overall context of the theist’s religious beliefs?, or should he dismiss the theist as having totally unsubstantiated beliefs in imaginary entities?

There are people on both sides of this discussion who do not show respect for persons on the other side, and there are people that do. There are many people - good people - who have thought deeply about these matters and have reached opposite conclusions. What kind of respect should one have for someone who has reached the opposite conclusion as one’s self, and how should you treat such a person in discussing these matters with him?

This is the question brought up by Robo’s comments above, I think.

I was writing my response to Barry when Tribune7’s post intervened.

When I wrote, “I am certain that many materialists feel strongly that they have reasons other than just pragmatism for treating others with respect,” Tribune7 asked,

Can you articulate any?

Sure. However, following up on what I just wrote to Barry, let me say that I am fairly sure that you won’t agree with them, which is fine with me - I’m not trying to convince you to be a materialist. What I would like you to do, however, is understand a bit better.

So here is, perhaps, a materialist talking:

“We live in a wondrous world - one capable of, among many other things, producing livings things as human beings. We have this short opportunity to be a human being, and while we are here we are sharing this opportunity with other human beings. Human beings have a nature - we have the potential to love, to be compassionate, to help others, to create and better the world around us; and our experience (both individual and collective) tells us that our deepest sense of satisfaction comes when we realize these potentials to reach out beyond ourself.”

“So from this understanding of human nature and of the human condition both reason and emotion tell us that we should care about others, which of course includes having respect for the inherent human nature that resides in each and every one of us.”

One does not have to believe in God to believe that love, compassion, and respect are central to the human condition, and that exercising those qualities resonates the best with the truth about what human beings are.

And I agree with all that Barry just wrote about treating others with dignity and respect. My point is that one doesn’t have to be a theist to believe what Barry wrote about how to treat people. The reasons might be different, but the conclusion is the same.

We have this short opportunity to be a human being, and while we are here we are sharing this opportunity with other human beings.

And how does this have any basis in materialism?

Human beings have a nature - we have the potential to love, to be compassionate, to help others, to create and better the world around us; and our experience (both individual and collective) tells us that our deepest sense of satisfaction comes when we realize these potentials to reach out beyond ourself.”

Not according to materialistic evolutionary theory.

Barry writes,

The important question is, on what ground does the materialist choose to be guided by reason and good emotions instead of bad emotions such as envy, lust and malice?

As I have said, this is a choice based on both reason and on the individual and collective human experience as to what resonates most with the truth about human nature.

The theist is really in no different situation than the materialist. The theist chooses to believe in a God who imparts a rationale for the theist to be guided by reason and good emotions, but the belief in God is itself a choice that is really no different in nature than the choice made by the materialist. Just believing that their is an external source and justification for being good etc. doesn’t raise that belief to a different level of certainty than the belief that the reasons for being good lie within our human nature.

Barry also writes,

Again, from a strictly logical point of view, it is quite simply inescapable that the true materialist … bases all of his decisions on pragmatic grounds, for to him, by definition, there are no other grounds upon which to base a decision.

I disagree strongly with this. Logic is a tool, but logic carries no content itself. When you say “from a strictly logical point of view” and “by definition” a materialist has nothing but pragmatic grounds for basing his moral decisions, you are embedding your own premises and definitions into the situation. As defined by you, and following the logic of your own theistic world view, you draw conclusions about someone who has different premises and different definitions. Your definitions and premises aren’t privileged. Of course you think the materialist is wrong, but they are only “logically” wrong within your theistic framework.

This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I wrote earlier, “In discussing materialism, should one make an effort to accurately present their position as they themselves see it, or can one just dismiss their position as wrong and then portray them as you - the anti-materialist - see them.”

“Pragmatism works for me.”

Yeah? Well, my pragmatism may not work 4 u. That’s the point — no God —> no objective moral values.

I stumbled on a list of “worst company names” which included this entry and one line of commentary:

27) Engineering by Design (ebdesign.com)
“For those who’ve had disappointing results engineering by accident”

One presumes the company founders didn’t consider their moniker an oxymoron, though the website author did. So who is right? Are their two methods of engineering—Design and Natural Accident/Inevitability?

Hi Jack, Robo here. Greetings from New Zealand.

I appreciate your interaction with my thoughts above but I really think you are being inconsistent, not in your values such as respecting others, but in your claim TO those values while holding to a materialistic worldview (I hope I am understanding your position correctly).

I think that if you are going to argue for (for example) something being good, I should like to ask you why you think it is so. Since atoms and molecules have no idea of good and evil, I am puzzled by how you derive these (non-materialistic) entities from a periodic table ensemble. Ultimately all values that you claim to have, and I do believe that you them, are founded either in materials made of electrons and quarks or in the creator of those materials.

Since a materialist by definition denies that God exists, only the other option remains. Thus the materialist (being inconsistent) denies God but clings to morals that he has no right to (other than pragmatism).

My last comment here would be regarding why I believe you to have the values you are clinging to. It is because you are made in God’s image, even though you deny it. According to God (Bible, book of Romans) you actually do know that God is, but you refuse to acknowledge Him as such.

Cheers.

A syllogism for Robo to analyze:

“I am moral because god has commanded me.

This person does not kowtow to my god.

Therefore, this person is not moral.”

Hi All:

On Morality, pragmatism, relativism and reason

1] Morality and pragmatism

Let’s start with a basic point: we all struggle to do the right thing, and the fact that we quarrel reveals that we all understand and expect that we live under moral LAW. As C S Lewis (and behind him Paul of Tarsus in Rom 1 – 2, 13, Eph 4 etc) observed, this is a telling testimony that we implicitly acknowledge a Moral Lawgiver, with all that that in turn entails.

But, since too often we are on the wrong side of that law, we try to justify ourselves in claimed “exceptions” to principle that we would at once realise there can be no real exceptions to when we or ones dear to us are on the receiving end of such “exceptions.” And that by the way is one reason why “it works for me” — i.e. pragmatism, that quintessentially appealing American philosophy, and one as fatally self-referentially absurd by vicious circles today as it was 100 years ago — is never good enough as a justification for morality.

Kant knew better when he penned the Categorical Imperative and in so doing appealed to the implications of a bad example as it propagates across a community! (Recall, he showed that treating others as ends in themselves i.e as one wishes to be treated himself, is formally equivalent to the principle that one should act on maxims capable of universalisation without chaos or absurdity. Underneath lurks the classic Golden Rule.)

2] Relativism

The issue is not whether atheists etc can be “moral.” So they can, even as theists can be immoral. And, we all struggle to be consistently moral.

Though, too, I have found too often that in practice the atheists among us protest too much and demonstrate too little, especially when issues come up that challenge their behaviour.

Far too often “the nice moral atheist” comes down to a myth, especially when a gap appears between perceived interest and objectively moral behaviour. A capital example of this is the censorship, harassment and slander as well as sustained false accusations against those who have in recent times advocated for the re-emerging paradigm of intelligent design. I know the smell of bullying, and too many recent actions and too many prominent atheist web sites reek to high heaven of it.

Thence cometh the key point that relativism undermines all basis for accepting the objectivity and no-exceptions nature of moral knowledge; thus, too, the capacity for self-reflection, repentance and reform. Like chloroform for the soul, it numbs too many to the appeal to conscience. [Cf here Eph 4:17 – 24.]

. . .

3] Evolutionary materialism and reason

This brings us to the underlying gap that Robo just highlighted:

if you are going to argue for (for example) something being good, I should like to ask you why you think it is so. Since atoms and molecules have no idea of good and evil, I am puzzled by how you derive these (non-materialistic) entities from a periodic table ensemble. Ultimately all values that you claim to have, and I do believe that you them, are founded either in materials made of electrons and quarks or in the creator of those materials.

Since a materialist by definition denies that God exists, only the other option remains. Thus the materialist (being inconsistent) denies God but clings to morals that he has no right to (other than pragmatism).

In short, evolutionary materialism reduces the world to a cosmos that evolved by chance + necessity from hydrogen to humans. That, IMHCO, carries certain evident implications that I would like to see addressed on the merits. Namely:

materialism . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.
But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as “thoughts” and “conclusions” can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.)
Therefore, if materialism is true, the “thoughts” we have and the “conclusions” we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited!
Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze?
In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic, and only survives because people often fail (or, sometimes, refuse) to think through just what their beliefs really mean.
As a further consequence, materialism can have no basis, other than arbitrary or whimsical choice and balances of power in the community, for determining what is to be accepted as True or False, Good or Evil. So, Morality, Truth, Meaning, and, at length, Man, are dead.

This is the key issue I have with evolutionary materialism as a worldview and as a paradigm for science, not to mention as a claimed ground for morality. Unless I can find a plain and coherent answer on the merits [and kindly nb onward links at the linked page], I am forced to view it as in the end corrosive to rationality, reasonableness and morality.

Thence, to view it as an enemy of reason, sound science and virtue. Thus also, of civility and even of the sustainability and basic viability of our civilisation; which I intend to hand on in good condition to my children.

Do you have a good, factually adequate, coherent reason backed up by solid empirical evidence on the long-term viability of widespread atheism in a community that holds the levers of power [cf here Rom 1:19 - 32], on why I should revise this opinion?

If so, kindly state it.

GEM of TKI

Daniel:

You have, sadly, indulged in an ad hominem based on a strawman misrepresentation and using a loaded term to get there, “kowtow.” (Of course, this may all be inadvertent, but we need to realise that the just above by you distorts what Robo and others have said directly and plainly, not just tried to say.)

Indeed, this is not irrelevant to the topic in view. For, unless we can respect one another enough to pause, calm down and hear what is being said, we can make no progress.

So, please, look back above at what Robo has said, not at what you think he said or what you may wish to knock over, an imaginary “fundy” who wants to impose “his” “god” on others. (Cf here, what it appears Ms Amanpour is indulging on CNN at the moment through the fallacy of drawing improper immoral “equivalencies.” As John Hinderaker of PL quite properly notes on the direct implication of the logic of what she said, “Ms. Amanpour identifies herself as one of those who “don’t want to see religion in politics and culture.” Which is to say, they don’t want to see religion at all.” Think of what that implies, DK, think on it in terms of what that implies for freedom of opinion, expression, association and conscience for those of us who are principled theists. Then think of why we therefore respond so sharply to such an overt or covert agenda! Then look here and see from original sources, what you will not read in your history books on what principled theists in the Biblical, Judaeo-Christian tradition contributed at bitter cost to themselves to the rise of the liberties you enjoy today. Then, think about what that astonishing silence or even denial on evident and plain facts in turn implies, in light of Plato’s Parable of the Cave, which you can look up as I am running out of my budget for links in any one post).

What Robo said (and cf my own post above and remarks by others):

. . . I really think you are being inconsistent, not in your values such as respecting others, but in your claim TO those values while holding to a materialistic worldview (I hope I am understanding your position correctly).

I think that if you are going to argue for (for example) something being good, I should like to ask you why you think it is so . . .

In short, Robo is asking about the coherence of evolutonary materialism on morality (as I am), not asserting that adherents are not moral in the sense of having and trying to follow moral intuitions. Indeed, it is an inherent part of the Christian worldview as articularted by Paul of Tarsus that all normally funcitoning people, regardless of their worldviews, have such intuitions.

Indeed, echoing Rom 1 - 2 and 13:1 - 10, he went on to say:

My last comment here would be regarding why I believe you to have the values you are clinging to. It is because you are made in God’s image, even though you deny it. According to God (Bible, book of Romans) you actually do know that God is, but you refuse to acknowledge Him as such.

The gap between what Robo said and what you think he said speaks volumes. Please, do not drag the thread off the track of a serious issue into chasing red herrings and burning strawmen; which will only cloud and poison the atmosphere.

GEM of TKI

Daniel King — “I am moral because god has commanded me.

How about morality exist that transcends the will of man?

Time for a few short comments before I go to work.

To Barry: I’m not discussing Nietzsche. You may think he is the spokesperson for materialism, but I don’t.

You write,

Either Nietzsche was wrong and God is not dead; or Nietzsche was right and there is nothing but the will to power and we must move beyond outdated notions like good and evil.

This is a simplistic dichotomy - there is lots of middle ground between these two positions, some of which I tried to express.

However, because you see this as being such a black-and-white dichotomy, there is not much room for dialog with you. In fact, you dismiss my attempts to discuss some of the middle ground by writing,

You, on the other hand, do not seem to have Nietzsche’s courage, so you make up stories to hide behind because you are afraid, afraid of a cold, hostile and indifferent universe in which we are moving away from all suns, perpetually falling with no backward, sideward, forward; where there is no up or down left. You are afraid of the infinite nothing.

First of all, let me point out that I have not claimed to be describing my own personal views - rather I have been trying to explain how many materialists (real live people, not dead German philosophers) have reasons other than pragmatism to respect others, and more generally to seek to live moral lives. So it’s not me we are talking about, but rather a whole class of people.

But you dismiss such people as lacking courage, of making up stories, and of being afraid of the infinite nothing. Many a materialist would respond that it is the theist who is making up stories in order to avoid a courageous acknowledge of the human condition. As long as people are committed to such dichotomous views and such an unwillingness to accept that people are going to come to different conclusions about such matters, constructive dialog will continue to be difficult.

Jack Krebs:

If you fly to Rome, you can enter St. Peter’s Basilica and find, off to the right of, and just short of the main altar, the body of Pope John XXIII. It’s in a glass sarcophagus. It doesn’t look air-tight, although it probably is. There are no tubes connected to the sarcophagus, no lines, no nothing. How would you explain the fact that his very material body lies incorrupt there in St. Peter’s 44 years after his death?