ID folk have more in common with classical atheists than with “theistic evolutionists”

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 23, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a recently judged contest, one of the contestants (Bantay) included Bradley Monton‘s Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009) as among the 10 most significant for ID.

The design community (and society generally) needs to hear more from intellectually aware atheists – read and discuss their work – and pay less attention to “new atheists” foisting their tantrums on crowds raised on mindless slogans and poorly thought out causes.

Curiously we also have much more in common with classical atheists like Monton – and Raymond Tallis and Thomas Nagel for that matter – than we do with the Christian Darwinists at BioLogos. Bantay, or anyone reading, do you feel as offended as I do when I am told that I ought to embrace Darwinism for the sake making the Gospel more acceptable to intelligent people? Even a limited exposure to orthodox Christian teaching yields the news that I ought not to embrace, defend, or propagate anything that I reasonably believe to be false and foolish for the sake of making the Gospel more acceptable to intelligent people.

For one thing, these more intelligent people should not accept anything I say about the Gospel at all if I tack it to a false, utterly alien theory in science, whose best recommendation is that it currently offers higher social acceptance and greater career safety than factual theories do.

That is hardly how to begin living the Gospel. And what would it say for me that I was so willing to mislead people in the Gospel’s supposed defense?

The folk at Biologos are not morally at fault. They believe so much in the rotting hulk of Darwinism that they are willing to sail it themselves! But that excuse does not cover those who know better.

See also This Christian conference is a scandal and a waste of time

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O’Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

Comments

So we're back to epistemology again. How do I know? The naturalists get their ontology wrong because they have a faulty epistemology. They (in my experience) do not understand the power of reason or logic and a result do not give conclusions from reason much credence. Thus we find ourselves in the unenviable position of arguing with people who allege intellectual integrity but don't really even understand what it means. They use reason to explain data but they deny reason when it points to an uncaused First Cause (God) or the existence of a real yet immaterial aspect of the universe. For the naturalist, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. First of all, wouldn't you agree that our sense experience can be deceiving? Think optical illusions, for one class of examples. Second, and this is the key question for you, how do we know that our senses deceive us? If we are just, only, physical beings with neurons firing in response to physical stimuli then how do we know that parallel lines never meet even when it looks like the train tracks meet 4 or 5 hundred meters off in the distance? Think about it. If all we know is what we sense then that's all we know. We would have no reason to know that a pencil doesn't bend when it's dunked in a glass of water. We'd just see a "bent" pencil and that would be the end of it. But we do know differently. That's because there is more to us than neurons firing in response to stimuli. We are reasoning beings. We manipulate symbols with our minds freely, purposefully, logically, in accordance with local language rules. There is NO naturalistic (read physical) explanation for that process. There can't be. It's impossible. For naturalism merely denies the existence of free will, purpose, and mind. In other words, the very things that make us what we are. That good, smart, educated, thinking, patient people (in other words, not me) keep explaining this time after time after time in an effort to help the lost see the light is an amazing thing to watch. Maybe someday the light will go on for someone who previously lived in the dark. That alone makes it worth the effort.tgpeeler_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

So we're back to epistemology again. How do I know? The naturalists get their ontology wrong because they have a faulty epistemology. They (in my experience) do not understand the power of reason or logic and a result do not give conclusions from reason much credence. Thus we find ourselves in the unenviable position of arguing with people who allege intellectual integrity but don't really even understand what it means. They use reason to explain data but they deny reason when it points to an uncaused First Cause (God) or the existence of a real yet immaterial aspect of the universe. For the naturalist, I'd like to ask, a couple of questions. First of all, wouldn't you agree that our sense experience can be deceiving? Think optical illusions, for one class of examples. Second, and this is the key question for you, how do we know that our senses deceive us? If we are just, only, physical beings with neurons firing in response to physical stimuli then how do we know that parallel lines never meet even when it looks like the train tracks meet 4 or 5 hundred meters off in the distance? Think about it. If all we know is what we sense then that's all we know. We would have no reason to know that a pencil doesn't bend when it's dunked in a glass of water. We'd just see a "bent" pencil and that would be the end of it. But we do know differently. That's because there is more to us than neurons firing in response to stimuli. We are reasoning beings. We manipulate symbols with our minds freely, purposefully, logically, in accordance with local language rules. There is NO naturalistic (read physical) explanation for that process. There can't be. It's impossible. For naturalism merely denies the existence of free will, purpose, and mind. In other words, the very things that make us what we are. That good, smart, educated, thinking, patient people (in other words, not me) keep explaining this time after time after time in an effort to help the lost see the light is an amazing thing to watch. Maybe someday the light will go on for someone who previously lived in the dark. That alone makes it worth the effort.tgpeeler_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
I do claim that ID is not a necessary inference from the data.
What is a necessary inference? Why do you think that the ID argument relies on a necessary inference?Mung_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

What is?Elizabeth Liddle_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Unbelievable.Mung_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Well, this is interesting, and perhaps explains why Mung was trying to cast one of my statements as a syllogism. A scientific hypothesis is not a syllogism, and although we draw what we call "conclusions" from the results of testing our hypotheses, these conclusions are always provisional. You may not like the way the word is used in this context, but it's the way it is used. Indeed, we even put "confidence limits" around our conclusions, and deliver them, typically, with "p values", which is the probability that we would see our data given the null. In contrast, mathematicians do not write QED (p<.05).Elizabeth Liddle_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Mung: "That a conclusion should be provisional seems a bit odd to me." Indeed. For to call a proposition to which one "provisionally assents" a conclusion is to misuse and misapply the term 'conclusion.' It is a way to claim the status of "truth" for one's "conclusion" while avoiding the necessity of establishing or defending its (alleged) truth-status. A 'conclusion' is a proposition that follows, by means of the exercise of valid logic, from a set of true proposions -- a real conclusion must, definitionally, be true, and cannot be false. To claim that one is presenting a 'conclusion' is to claim that one has started with a set of true propositions, and that one has validly reasoned about these propositions, and thus that one has arrived as another true proposition.Ilion_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

I'm not using it as "an argument against ID" (and lest anyone should think I was, I explictly added: "(which of course is a good thing)". I take a rich variety of hypotheses to be the sign of a theory's health, not of its poverty.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Because, as has been pointed out in many recent threads, there is widespread misunderstanding of the ID case, and, indeed, considerable variance in the ideas of ID proponents (which of course is healthy).
What sort of bothers me about this is that you seem to use this "variance in the ideas of ID proponents" as an argument against ID. Do you think you have done that, and if so why?Mung_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
in science, all conclusions are provisional.
That a conclusion should be provisional seems a bit odd to me.
I do claim that ID is not a necessary inference from the data.
What is a necessary inference?
Actually, I don’t even ask people to agree with me.
Whew!
I am more than happy to defend any assertion I make. If fail to do so specifically in a post, just ask.
Will do.Mung_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Ilion:
… and, if one, being a rational and honest being, learns of reasoning or evidence showing that one was mistaken in one’s reasoning or the formation of one’s beliefs, than one does “due dilligence” to correct the problem.
Indeed. We seem to be on the same page. Good.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Ilion:
LE: “But one also, I submit, has the duty of humility – to remain open to the possibility that, even having done “due diligence”, one might still be mistaken.” In truth, this is just another expression of the passive-aggressive version that you favor of intellectual dishonesty; this pseudo humility that you urge on others and refuse/sidestep for yourself is of no more use to others, nor of interest to me, than is your pseudo-civility or the pseudo-reasoning that you constantly employ.
Well, I profoundly disagree, both with your account of my motivation, and with your assessment of the value of humility. It seems to me that being continually aware of the possibility that one might be wrong is what preserves us from fanaticism. Today might be a good day to ponder that truth.
Moreover, actual humility with regards to one’s beliefs and assertions is *already* covered by “due diligence” and “proper warrant”.
OK. In which case, when faced with someone who disagrees with them, consider it as part of your due diligence to be aware that a) you may be wrong and b) that your opposite number has also done due diligence, and, furthermore, may be correct. That is all I mean by humility. You seem to find it difficult to grok the idea that someone might have done plenty of diligence yet come to a different conclusion. Instead, you assume that due diligence was not done. This is not what I call humility.
To the General Reader: this “duty of humility” that Dr Luddite (echoing other post-modernist “thinkers”) asserts pertains is really just a passive-aggressive assertion of her “right” to “falsify” others’ beliefs and/or reasonings by the mere waving of her non-dainty hands. That is, rather than making an argument against others’ reasoning or belief(s), rather than producing evidence that may logically undercut the rational basis of others’ belief(s), she asserts that she possesses the ability “refute” what others believe or say or reason to be true merely mounting her Moral-and-Intellectual High Horse – “Look at me! I’m so *humble* in my beliefs that I don’t even claim to believe that they are true!” – and then pointing out that these others are not similarly mounted.
I assert this to be nonsense. For a start, obviously I believe I am right, otherwise I'd be making a different case. You seem confused. I do not ask people to agree with me because I might be wrong - that would be idiotic! Actually, I don't even ask people to agree with me. What I try to do is explain to people how I've come to my conclusions, and try to find out how they have come to theirs. It seems a perfectly reasonable, indeed constructive, approach to me.
But, of course! For, if one is a rational and honest being, then naturally one is not on that horse, ever – for if one, being honest and rational, didn’t actually believe that one’s beliefs and assertions are actually true, and that others would do well to do likewise, then one would have avoid believing and asserting them in the first place, and one certainly wouldn’t be urging them on others.
wut?
Yet, EL, while asserting that she does not actually believe that her beliefs and assertions are actually true,
um, no. Remaining open to the possibility that one might be mistaken ~= claiming to be mistaken.
nevertheless asserts (while denying any truth or moral weight for the assertion) that you and I *ought* to “assent” to them being true.
[citation needed]
I guess, because, like, you just never know, they *might* be true. Or something like that. And really, this whole linear logic thing is so “dead white male” and pre-Modern; really! it just doesn’t fit in this post-Modern age.
Oh for goodness' sake.
LE: “Indeed, it’s the reason that science never asserts anything to be true, merely to be evidentially supported.” ‘Science’ never asserts, nor even merely says, anything. Rather, scientistes (by which I mean advocates of, and slaves to, scientism) say, “Science!’’ says Thus-and-Such.” And scientistes are never humble in their assertions … however humble (and self-humiliating) the reasoning behind them is. When there even is reasoning behind them.
Rephrase: in science, all conclusions are provisional. This has nothing to do with "scientism" and everything to do with the nature of the scientific method.
But, you don’t actually believe what you’ve just asserted – and really, almost no DarwinDefender ever does.
On the contrary, I do.
For, if you did believe what you’re just asserted, then your whole approach and attitude would be different.
It would certainly be different to the one you have erroneously attributed to me. It would not be different from the ones I take and have.
For starters, it wouldn’t matter so much to you that DarwinDeniers are not convinced that Darwinism is (as you amusingly assert) “evidentially supported”;
Why not? Obviously I care that a theory that I think is evidentially supported is not considered to be by others. There are several possiblities: that they have missed some of the evidence; that I have missed some of the evidence; that they have fallaciously reasoned from the evidence; that I have fallaciously reasoned from the evidence; that they have misunderstood the Darwinist argument; that I have misunderstood the Darwinist argument; that I have misunderstood their counter-argument; that they have misunderstood mine. What's not to be interested in?
you wouldn’t be trying get others to “assent” to Darwinism being true
Which I'm not. Obviously if someone came to agree with my own point of view that would be gratifying, but, equally, so would being persuaded that Darwinism was false. The idea that someone might actually be interested in the truth, as opposed to winning an argument, seems alien to you, Ilion! Obviously, as I said, I think the arguments for evolutionary theory are pretty well-founded, or I'd have changed my mind already. Obviously I think that ID has flaws, or I wouldn't be tryint to point out what I think they are. But the last thing I want (literally) is "assent". What I'm after, and why I'm grateful to be here, is increased understanding of where we actually differ. Because, as has been pointed out in many recent threads, there is widespread misunderstanding of the ID case, and, indeed, considerable variance in the ideas of ID proponents (which of course is healthy). And, as I have also pointed out, or tried to, IMO there is also widespread misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory actually is. In other words the playing field is littered with straw men from both sides. I'd like to get those cleared away. On both sides. I like my arguments naked.
– you wouldn’t be trying to get others to stop arguing that Darwinism not only is not true, but logically cannot be true,
which I'm not.
if you did not believe that Darwinism is not actually true rather that merely “evidentially supported”.
But, as your premise is faulty, so is your conclusion. Of course I think that Darwinism is "evidentially supported". That means I think it is likely to be trure. Or rather, that means that I think that the Darwinian mechanisms (often written "rm+ns") is a good design mimic, and thus can account for the good designs we see in nature. However, I think the delineation of those mechanisms in practice is far from worked out, and, of course, it cannot account for the first entities capable of Darwinian evolution. As of yet, we do not have an account of that. We may never have one. It's possible that the answer is that the first Darwinian self-replicator was miraculously placed on earth by an Intelligent Designer. It's also possible that that Intelligent Designer regularly tweaks the system, and/or frontloaded the genome with potentially useful genes and alleles. What I think is fallacious is the idea that this can be inferred from nature of living things on the basis that "Chance and Necessity" cannot have produced them. In other words I do not assert that "Darwinism is true". I do claim that ID is not a necessary inference from the data. And I'm willing to say exactly why.
As is so frequently the case with DarwinDefenders, your behavior belies your assertions and pseudo-arguments.
Because you have misinterpreted them.
LE: “It’s why “proof is for math and alchohol, not science”. ” It’s a cute little witticism, and one does understand why persons who wish to passive-aggressively make assertions they have no intention of defending nor of critically examining might be fond of the witticism.
Are you disputing the idea that scientists do not attempt to "prove" things"? That all scientific conclusions must be provisional? That any scientist who claims to have "proved" something has overstepped her brief? And stop with the passive-aggressive accusations of passive-aggression please. I am more than happy to defend any assertion I make. If fail to do so specifically in a post, just ask.
Nevertheless, to the extent that it means anything, it is false; for starters, it misrepresents the meaning attached to the term ‘proof.’
Oh boy. Well, it's a pun of course, when it comes to alcohol, and etymologically, "prove" just means "test" so, yes, in a way you are right, it's a silly witticism. So let me denude it of its wit and state it plain: Mathematicians prove things - they show, by a series of logical steps that given X, Y must be true. It is a non-empirical domain (or used to be - even mathematicians use emprical methods these days), and so there is no fitting of models to data and no room for residuals. Scientists do not do this. Their field is empirical and their data is always subject, at the minimum, to measurement error, and can never be complete. In this sense, scientific hypothesis can only be "proved" in the sense of "tested", they cannot be "proved" in the mathematician's sense of "demonstrated to be logically necessary corollary of the given". The best they can do is fit their models to the data, and compare models for goodness of fit. I hope (I'm an optimist) that that has cleared up some of the misunderstanding between us.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

... and, if one, being a rational and honest being, learns of reasoning or evidence showing that one was mistaken in one's reasoning or the formation of one's beliefs, than one does "due dilligence" to correct the problem.Ilion_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

LE: “But one also, I submit, has the duty of humility – to remain open to the possibility that, even having done “due diligence”, one might still be mistaken.” In truth, this is just another expression of the passive-aggressive version that you favor of intellectual dishonesty; this pseudo humility that you urge on others and refuse/sidestep for yourself is of no more use to others, nor of interest to me, than is your pseudo-civility or the pseudo-reasoning that you constantly employ. Moreover, actual humility with regards to one’s beliefs and assertions is *already* covered by “due diligence” and “proper warrant”. To the General Reader: this “duty of humility” that Dr Luddite (echoing other post-modernist “thinkers”) asserts pertains is really just a passive-aggressive assertion of her “right” to “falsify” others’ beliefs and/or reasonings by the mere waving of her non-dainty hands. That is, rather than making an argument against others’ reasoning or belief(s), rather than producing evidence that may logically undercut the rational basis of others’ belief(s), she asserts that she possesses the ability “refute” what others believe or say or reason to be true merely mounting her Moral-and-Intellectual High Horse – “Look at me! I’m so *humble* in my beliefs that I don’t even claim to believe that they are true!” – and then pointing out that these others are not similarly mounted. But, of course! For, if one is a rational and honest being, then naturally one is not on that horse, ever – for if one, being honest and rational, didn’t actually believe that one’s beliefs and assertions are actually true, and that others would do well to do likewise, then one would have avoid believing and asserting them in the first place, and one certainly wouldn’t be urging them on others. Yet, EL, while asserting that she does not actually believe that her beliefs and assertions are actually true, nevertheless asserts (while denying any truth or moral weight for the assertion) that you and I *ought* to “assent” to them being true. I guess, because, like, you just never know, they *might* be true. Or something like that. And really, this whole linear logic thing is so “dead white male” and pre-Modern; really! it just doesn’t fit in this post-Modern age. LE: “Indeed, it’s the reason that science never asserts anything to be true, merely to be evidentially supported.” ‘Science’ never asserts, nor even merely says, anything. Rather, scientistes (by which I mean advocates of, and slaves to, scientism) say, “Science!’’ says Thus-and-Such.” And scientistes are never humble in their assertions … however humble (and self-humiliating) the reasoning behind them is. When there even is reasoning behind them. But, you don’t actually believe what you’ve just asserted – and really, almost no DarwinDefender ever does. For, if you did believe what you’re just asserted, then your whole approach and attitude would be different. For starters, it wouldn’t matter so much to you that DarwinDeniers are not convinced that Darwinism is (as you amusingly assert) “evidentially supported”; you wouldn’t be trying get others to “assent” to Darwinism being true – you wouldn’t be trying to get others to stop arguing that Darwinism not only is not true, but logically cannot be true, if you did not believe that Darwinism is not actually true rather that merely “evidentially supported”. As is so frequently the case with DarwinDefenders, your behavior belies your assertions and pseudo-arguments. LE: “It’s why “proof is for math and alchohol, not science”. ” It’s a cute little witticism, and one does understand why persons who wish to passive-aggressively make assertions they have no intention of defending nor of critically examining might be fond of the witticism. Nevertheless, to the extent that it means anything, it is false; for starters, it misrepresents the meaning attached to the term ‘proof.’Ilion_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Yes, Ilion, I agree. But one also, I submit, has the duty of humility - to remain open to the possibility that, even having done "due diligence", one might still be mistaken. Indeed, it's the reason that science never asserts anything to be true, merely to be evidentially supported. It's why "proof is for math and alchohol, not science".Elizabeth Liddle_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

“The folk at Biologos are not morally at fault. ...” I disagree: one has the multi-faceted duty to have done “due diligence” with respect to determining the truth of and establishing the rational warrant of the things one chooses to assert are true … and moreso when chooses to attack those who offer cogent criticism of the assertions.Ilion_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

“… I have to say that at least [atheists] believe the false things they say are true.” Some may, and some obviously don’t. But, even of the ones who so obviously don’t believe the false things they assert, few of them really do believe these things – for, among other reasons, if they really did believe the ‘A’ that they assert, they wouldn’t constantly try to deny the ‘B’ which follows inescapably from it. “It follows that anything they say that they believe to be true is not in fact a lie.” There is more to honesty than simply saying what one believes to be true; which is to say, there is more to dishonesty than simply saying what one believes to be not true. One has the duty to have made a “good-faith” effort with respect to the truth and warrant of the things one chooses to believe. George Costanza (“It’s not a lie if you believe it”) was still a liar.Ilion_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

But then, so do classical pagans have more in common with "classical atheists" than with "theistic evolutionists".Ilion_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

In favor of the atheists, I have to say that at least they believe the false things they say are true. It follows that anything they say that they believe to be true is not in fact a lie.Mung_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply