Religion dressed up as science?

_{Mark

May 20, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

A review of a book titled “The Universe: Order without design” appears in New Scientist. The summary of current ideas has a mythic sound to ordinary readers “a tiny piece of inflating “false vacuum” decays into a fireball, and stars and galaxies congeal out of the cooling debris”. Read it and see what you think.

I have two questions.

First, does description equal causation?

Second, is the invoking of billions of theoretical and eternally undetectable other universes simply to give an atheistic explaination of our one tuned universe, more scientific or rational than believing in an Intelligent Fine Tuner?

Comments

Mr Nakashima, Chance and necessity. Darwinism is not evolution---it is a silly hypothesis that attempt to explain evolution. But chance and natural selection have never been shown to produce anything but the most trivial of useful losses of information.Rude_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Mr Rude, Just to be clear, what part of Darwinism is a farce? If Dr Michael Behe and Dr William Dembski accept the reality of deep time, common descent, and "micro" evolution, what is farcial in your opinion?Nakashima_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

And might not this be why for the secularist too the front line in the culture war is Darwin? They're less worried about the fine tuning arguments and least worried of all about the philosophical arguments for God. Darwin is the sacred cow that must be protected by whatever means, for when Darwin goes the whole secular house of cards collapses.Rude_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

V J Torley 44, Thanks for the reference. I'll have a look at the paper. As for the divine simplicity and transcendance arguments, I've always been skeptical. I would even speculate that philosophical materialism was a creation of the theologians. The more abstract God became, the more he resembled Plato's realm of eternal forms, and the less he was the personal God Scripture. Let me suggest---here for better or worse---that as Intelligent Design gains ground more and more intellectuals will begin to question the old theology (which likely birthed this materialism in the first place). Rather than a timeless template from which reality emerges, I predict God will been seen more and more as a dynamic Agent, a Creator, a Person. Although I enjoy good philosophical arguments for the existence of God, I do not think they are as convincing as some would think---this because they typically begin with presuppositions that might themselves be questioned. I believe that Phillip Johnson was right to recommend that we make biology the centerpiece of our movement. The fine tuning arguments are great---but even if they wind up convincing a majority of thinkers they still leave God far, far away---probably the other side of the Big Bang. On the other hand, when Darwinism is seen for the farce it is, then the devout will be more inclined to invoke the Hebrew God of history right up to the latest speciation events and in our own origin.Rude_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

hazel, That brings to mind A.J. Ayer's example of an unverifiable metaphysical proposition: "...the Absolute enters into, but is not capable of, evolution and progress." (From Language, Truth and Logic, Chapter 1)Adel DiBagno_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

You've got me - that's the point. Trying to apply concepts based on our experience (thought, will, action, etc.) is meaningless. If one accepts the existence of an omni-everything deity, then I think one has to accept the mysterious and unfathomable nature of such, rather than thinking that we can analyze such a deity from our limited perspective.hazel_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

So God neither thinks nor acts. He just is, as his creation just is. He is both complete and still. All that he will ever do he has already done.
If God does not act, how could He have "done" anything?Adel DiBagno_{May 22, 2009
May
05
May
22
22
2009
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Oh, I've been waiting for this topic! :) There is a great saying from the I Ching that the wise man is he who does spontaneously exactly what he would do after great deliberation. God in his omniscience knows everything all at once, and thus has no need, and indeed no capability, for thought. Thoughts as we know them trace themselves out linearly and are composed of parts - various interrelated concepts. God always has complete and full wisdom at hand, so to speak, and thus has no need for deliberation and analysis. Like the I Ching’s wise man, he always acts spontaneously. Another Chinese saying: out of stillness comes action. Some may see this as a contradiction, but I see it as a mystery. Part of my post on the “I have to keep reminding myself thread” fits better over here. There I wrote,
My understanding is that this is the position true theistic evoutionists (TE’s) take about God: since he is omniscient, omnipotent, and most importantly for this discussion, omnipresent, for God there is no flow of time. Everything has already happened - it’s all of a piece through time and space. God had one single act of creation which created all there is, has been and ever will be all at once. However, it looks like there is motion through space and time to us because we can only see locally in both space and time: we see motion because we can only look at a part of the world at a time. God can see globally, and to God there is no change because it all already is.
So God neither thinks nor acts. He just is, as his creation just is. He is both complete and still. All that he will ever do he has already done. In the context of this discussion, he has no moving parts - he is One - and thus concepts from our world, such as motion and time and thought and action, do not apply.hazel_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Rude asked:
Off topic—please forgive me—but V J Torley brings up “the traditional doctrine of Divine simplicity” (which seems to me a kind of theological reductionism – but what do I know) which reminds me of something that (in my aged forgetfulness) I seem to recall that Alan Turing supposedly proved: That there is no computation/cognition apart from moving parts (which if so what does this say of God?).
In response to Rude's question, vjtorley wrote:
I have not been able to uncover any proof that cognition - as opposed to computation - requires moving parts.
vj, Cognition involves the transformation of information received from outside the mind. This would seem to be an inherently dynamic process, at least for a finite being, that would therefore require "moving parts" or the immaterial equivalent thereof. I would therefore expect that an immaterial human mind, if such a thing existed, would necessarily have "moving parts." The question of God's cognition is more complicated. If a timeless God existed, then the very fact of his timelessness would preclude change. Since cognition involves a change in mental state, a timeless God would therefore be incapable of cognition. If God existed within time, however, then any cognition he did would necessarily involve "moving parts", as a result of the same argument I applied to humans above. Yet the doctrine of divine simplicity holds that God has no parts, moving or otherwise. Therefore I conclude that if God exists, he is either incapable of cognition or else the doctrine of divine simplicity is incorrect. Comments?beelzebub_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

In any case, how would you go about demonstrating that the dependence was only extrinsic?
More generally, how would one go about justifying any proposition about the sort of cognition that is not embodied? Seems like a non-starter to me, once one wishes to move past speculation. Moreover, the solutions it offers to problems such as consciousness and intentionality are strictly illusory, as we have even less idea what it means for unembodied cognition to display these properties than we do embodied cognition. Declaring these properties to be intrinsic to unembodied consciousness runs afoul of the same problem of tautology that has bedeviled similar assertions here. Meanwhile the cognition in which we are most interested is our own, which is clearly instantiated in something like brains embedded in social and verbal networks. Animal cognition is interesting as well, both intrinsically and because it displays elements with bearing on the evolution of human cognition.Diffaxial_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

vjtorley wrote:
Regarding your point that it does not matter whether the dependence is intrinsic or extrinsic: on the contrary, I think it matters a great deal. For if there is one kind of living being for whom the dependence is not intrinsic, but merely extrinsic, that at least renders more plausible the idea that there may exist a totally immaterial intelligence.
vjtorley, You've taken my remark out of context. In response to David Kellogg, you had written:
Even for human beings, your argument is mistaken, for you overlook the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic dependence.
I replied:
No. David said that “cognition seems to require a working brain.” That is true for human beings. Disrupt certain parts of the brain and you disrupt cognition. It doesn’t matter whether the dependence is “extrinsic” or “intrinsic”.
Whether the dependence in extrinsic or intrinsic, it is true that human cognition seems to require a working brain, so David's statement stands. In any case, how would you go about demonstrating that the dependence was only extrinsic?beelzebub_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

vjtorley [54], it's true that the claim in my comment is inductive, but that's how science works. Every instance of cognition we observe occurs in things with working brains.David Kellogg_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed [51],
What is it specifically that gives a younger David Kellog more intellectual resolving power than and older David Kellog?
I don't know this person who spells his last name with one g. As for me, I prefer my current self, though I can imagine a situation (senility, for example) where I would prefer my younger self to resolve such questions. In any event, I have developed in the opposite direction from Flew: away from religion, at least to some degree.David Kellogg_{May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Beelzebub Thank you for your post. My last one was rather hurried, as I was in a rush, so I'm sorry if I did not refine my position properly. My original comment in #44 was:
I have not been able to uncover any proof that cognition - as opposed to computation - requires moving parts.
Here I was speaking of cognition per se. The fact that some kinds of life forms require moving parts in order to perform cognitive acts does not establish the truth of general proposition that cognition requires moving parts. Non-human animals are indeed capable of cognition, as you rightly point out, and they certainly require moving parts. In their case, I'd be inclined to say the dependence is intrinsic. My comment to David Kellogg in #50 -
Your argument is true for only one intelligent life form at most: human beings...
...contained an important qualifier: intelligent. I would not call other animals genuinely intelligent, although I understand perfectly well that there is a diversity of scientific and philosophical opinion on this point. Actually, I should have written, "You argument is known to be true for only one intelligent life form at most," rather than "You argument is true for only one intelligent life form at most." That was sloppy of me. Regarding your point that it does not matter whether the dependence is intrinsic or extrinsic: on the contrary, I think it matters a great deal. For if there is one kind of living being for whom the dependence is not intrinsic, but merely extrinsic, that at least renders more plausible the idea that there may exist a totally immaterial intelligence. Finally, I'd like to reiterate that the materialist claim, that cognition requires a brain, is essentially an inductive argument, not an a priori one. It could well turn out to be utterly mistaken, so it is unwise to assume it as a premise when arguing with theists. That's question-begging.vjtorley_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

"But does it follow that your intellectual position has no merit?" I have no idea what you mean. I thought all my intellectual positions have merit even the frivolous ones.jerry_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg wrote:
Cognition seems to require a working brain. I’d say a working brain has moving parts.
vjtorley responded:
Your argument is true for only one intelligent life form at most: human beings.
vjtorley, That assumes that all nonhuman animals are incapable of cognition. There is abundant evidence to the contrary.
I wouldn’t bet all my money on the proposition that all alien life forms have brains - they may have something different.
I think David's point was that they are no known cases of cognition happening in the absence of a material substrate such as the brain.
Even for human beings, your argument is mistaken, for you overlook the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic dependence.
No. David said that "cognition seems to require a working brain." That is true for human beings. Disrupt certain parts of the brain and you disrupt cognition. It doesn't matter whether the dependence is "extrinsic" or "intrinsic".beelzebub_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

DK "Why is the older, theist Anthony Flew more credible than the younger, atheist Anthony Flew?" Mainly, because they are the same person - placed in time. If all other things are equal, and if there is any credence to be given at all, then it is to one over the other - because they are placed in time. But you can answer your question yourself. What is it specifically that gives a younger David Kellog more intellectual resolving power than and older David Kellog?Upright BiPed_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg (#46)
Cognition seems to require a working brain. I'd say a working brain has moving parts.
Your argument is true for only one intelligent life form at most: human beings. I wouldn't bet all my money on the proposition that all alien life forms have brains - they may have something different. Even for human beings, your argument is mistaken, for you overlook the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic dependence. You might like to have a look at this article: Concepts, Dualism and the Human Intellect by Professor David Oderberg, p. 213.
The argument favored by the hylemorphic dualist in favour of an immaterial element in the human being takes its cue from Aristotle's remark that the intellect has no bodily organ (Loeb 1943, 171). The idea is that intellectual activity - the formation of concepts, the making of judgments, and logical reasoning - is an essentially immaterial process. By essentially immaterial is meant that intellectual processes, in the sense just mentioned, are intrinsically indepdendent of matter, this being consistent with their being extrinsically dependent on matter for their normal operation in the human being. Extrinsic dependence, then, is a kind of non-essential dependence. For example, certain kinds of plant depend extrinsically, and so non-essentially, on the presence of soil for their nutrition, for they can also be grown hydroponically. But they depend intrinsically, and hence essentially, on the presence of certain nutrients that they normally receive from soil but can receive via other routes. Something similar is true for the human intellect. To engage in concept formation, judgment and reasoning is to engage in a process not essentially dependent on matter. Nevertheless, the normal operation of the process in the human being - that is, operation in an unattenuated sort of way - extrinsically requires the presence of matter, whereby the intellect operates on sensory information delivered through material channels.
vjtorley_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Mr Nullasalus, While Stenger's arguments are similar, Jerry and I have been discussing a paper by Fred Adams, published last year in a peer reviewed journal. I agree the bar is low! Now is the time to jump in and knock these arguments back on their heels with a more powerful, more detailed study.Nakashima_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
No answers to any of these but all must be solved for their intellectual position to have any merit.
Adel DiBagno:
jerry, Great questions. What are your answers?
Jerry:
The only honest answer is that it is a mystery. All six of them. The biggest mystery is #1.
Jerry, your honesty is commendable. But does it follow that your intellectual position has no merit?Diffaxial_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, I wouldn't tout universe with only quarks either. Are you arguing that stars and quarks are equally probable? The point is that long lived stars form 25% of the time. That is a large prerequisite to life as we know it. So given that we agree that stars are relevant to life, how is a paper about star formation irrelevant?Nakashima_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

vjtorley,
I have not been able to uncover any proof that cognition - as opposed to computation - requires moving parts.
Cognition seems to require a working brain. I'd sa a working brain has moving parts.David Kellogg_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

jerry [34], setting aside the fact that "beg the question" is misused, I don't think anybody has a good answer to #1, which is not a scientific question in any event.David Kellogg_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Rude (#28) You might like to have a look at this paper by philosopher Pete Mandik. Section 2 is especially interesting. I have not been able to uncover any proof that cognition - as opposed to computation - requires moving parts.vjtorley_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

jerry:
The biggest mystery is #1.
What are some examples of anti-ID proponents begging question #1, and why must they solve it in order for their intellectual position to have any merit?R0b_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

That’s a fair question. I would say that the answer is because he learned more than he knew before.
Not to mention that the undeniable evidence for biological design increased substantially during Flew's lifetime.Matteo_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

David, ----"Why is the older, theist Anthony Flew more credible than the younger, atheist Anthony Flew?" That's a fair question. I would say that the answer is because he learned more than he knew before.Clive Hayden_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Adel, maybe the point is that you can't use physical science to address a lot of those questions, and attempts to do so -- whether God is involved or not -- is a religious one. And, with regard to the questions that science can addres-- How did life originate and How did macro evolution occur? -- answers haven't been found. Which gets us to one big problem namely that certain authorities dogmatically claim that science has found answers and is merely waiting for a few minor details to be sketched in.tribune7_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

"Are stars relevant to life?" Yes, but so are protons or quarks but I would not tout a universe with quarks as an example of one that eliminates the fine tuning conclusion just because they are necessary for life. Let us know when you are finished playing your irrelevant games.jerry_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

"Great questions. What are your answers?" The only honest answer is that it is a mystery. All six of them. The biggest mystery is #1.jerry_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply