We Will if You Will

_{Barry Arrington

March 18, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

In response to Dr. Torley’s post here, commenter Graham asks: “Can we now drop the pretense and just declare UD/ID to be religious”?

Well Graham, let’s think about that. ID theory posits that some observations are best explained as the result of the acts of an intelligent agent. The theory does not posit any particular agent and the agent need not be a deity. It could, for example, be the aliens Dawkins speculated about in his interview with Ben Stein.

To be sure, many ID proponents believe the intelligent agent is God. But that is a possible implication of the theory, not part of the theory itself.

Neo-Darwinian evolution (NDE) posits that unguided material forces are sufficient to produce all that we see and thus there is no need for a designer. The obvious implication of the theory is that atheism is a valid scientific conclusion. Again, Dawkins: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Many proponents of NDE are atheists. But atheism is a possible implication of the theory, not part of the theory itself.

You ask if we can declare ID to be religious because some people take ID and run with its implications in theological directions. Well, a lot of people take NDE and run with its implications in theological directions. (Atheism is nothing if not a “religous” position)

Tell you what, I am happy to call ID religious if you will also call NDE religous to the same extent. Deal?

Comments

* The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. o Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4 * A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its area of applicability. Therefore the deep impression that classical thermodynamics made upon me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts. o Albert Einstein (author), Paul Arthur, Schilpp (editor). Autobiographical Notes. A Centennial Edition. Open Court Publishing Company. 1979. p. 31 [As quoted by Don Howard, John Stachel. Einstein: The Formative Years, 1879-1909 (Einstein Studies, vol. 8). Birkhäuser Boston. 2000. p. 1] * Nothing in life is certain except death, taxes and the second law of thermodynamics. All three are processes in which useful or accessible forms of some quantity, such as energy or money, are transformed into useless, inaccessible forms of the same quantity. That is not to say that these three processes don't have fringe benefits: taxes pay for roads and schools; the second law of thermodynamics drives cars, computers and metabolism; and death, at the very least, opens up tenured faculty positions. o Seth Lloyd, writing in Nature 430, 971 (26 August 2004) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thermodynamicsbornagain77_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Muramasa, you mean this article: A second look at the second law http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/AML_3497.pdf ,,If true, why did they retract? was there a proven violation of the second law and somebody forgot to inform every newspaper in the entire world that the most rigorous law in all of physics was violated?bornagain77_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

KF at 65: "PS: Thanks for the update on a broken link. Dr Sewell must have moved a page. I’ll have to go hunt it down. Hope I don’t have to go all the way to the Internet Archive!" If the article you were trying to link was the one from Applied Mathematics Letters, you won't find it. The journal retracted it.Muramasa_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

KF: "We are discussing information-rich organisation of an energy conversion device, not mere order. In fact for injected energy to do more than increase disorder — cf my analysis on Clausius’ energy exchange of “open” subsystems in a wider isolated system — there needs to be a coupling mechanism that converts energy to work according to a pattern." Also, part of the mutual misunderstanding may be that people, on both side, are using the term ‘order’ equivocally (whether intentionally or not). When one speaks of a crystal as being ‘ordered’ one is speaking of something very different -- opposite, in fact -- to the ‘order’ of life processes, or the order of a clean room before ‘entropy’ (probably also being used equivocally) ‘disorders’ it. The ultimate ‘order,’ in the sense of the ‘order’ of a crystal or of compressed data, is death.Ilion_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

QuiteID: "But I had thought arguments about evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics had long been discredited." Without myself taking a position on that question, I'd like to point out that when Darwinists "discredit" a challenge to Darwinism, what they mean is something like: "We've ignored that for a time, then denied that it has any present relevance (on the grounds that it is “old news”), then mocked (and, when possible, used the power of the state against) the persons advocating the view. So, why are you asking about this now?"Ilion_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

QI: Pardon me, I am not upset or angry with you. I am -- pardon directness or "uncool" intensity, I am here speaking as a physicist looking at people playing games with the integrity of my native science (happening in several fields, like people have never heard about "blowback" . . . ) -- quite fed up with willful distortions by people who should or do know better, who play at games with "open systems," and strawmannise those who they object to. I am quite aware of what YEC's have said, indeed I had a fair correspondence with the late Dr Henry Morris some 15 years ago. He impressed me for his gentlemanly behaviour and attitude. I also have the Gish book on rebuttals, which goes into a fairly lengthy response on the subject. You will see that the immediate antecedents of my remarks are: 1 --> Clausius, on talking a closer look at just what is happening with his key examples. (In turn this builds on a remark in my thermo-D textbook on open and isolated systems, on whether or not the universe is an isolated system.) 2 --> The discussion in TMLO, which pointed me right. 3 --> Aspects of Robertson [rooted in Jaynes et al], which put the question of links from thermodynamics to information theory firmly on the table. Of course, I am also looking at the basics of comms theory as I learned, used and taught it many years ago too. (You will see some excerpts from Connor's series of short books, from BEFORE the debates over ID.) I do understand why YECs would shy away from the hornet's nest, and this is a topic that gets technical real fast, e.g. with partial differential equations marching away across the chalkboard or page. (Look what happened when I took it up as a part of the foundations of ID blog posts series, here.) But in fact, they had a point back in the 70's - 90's and still do. Just, since the pivotal issue as pointed out by Thaxton et al from a design view is the type and source of the energy converter in question, and this just happens to be pivoted on functionally specific complex information, it makes sense to go to the easier to handle information based view. Except, that the thermodynamics issues have not gone away, and in fact lie underneath the issue of isolated islands of function in large configuration spaces -- which is a cut down version of phase or state space. And, it turns out that a lot of the evo mat argument, especially on OOL, boils down to thinking the bare possible is empirically credible, in the teeth of the config space challenge identified. The infinite monkeys analysis shows us why there is no informational free lunch. Thanks GEM of TKI PS: Thanks for the update on a broken link. Dr Sewell must have moved a page. I'll have to go hunt it down. Hope I don't have to go all the way to the Internet Archive!kairosfocus_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

OT: The most inspirational painting I've ever seen; Painting the Resurrection - Education Videos http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KLLLZWNXbornagain77_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, are you upset at me? I was asking a serious question and was surprised by the intensity of your response. A little context. Back when I as a YEC, I learned from other YEC's not to use the second law argument because it was not worth defending. Now, as an ID advocate, I try to use only sound arguments, and I'm wary of using arguments that I'll have to give up later. That's why I asked. I'm reading your suggested link and the articles you link to, and the arguments seem somewhat different from the YEC one I used to hear. Thanks. (By the way, one of the links goes to a 404 Not Found page -- you might want to fix that.)QuiteID_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

This video is SO COOL! Not only do Atheists have beliefs, but their beliefs are exactly opposite of the truth! From Atheism to Theism In Reverse http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=9C2E1MNUbornagain77_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

BA and Brent: Observe carefully in that vid, the dismissive argument, that there is "no evidence" pointing to the existence of God. This is of course, Sagan's "extraordinary claims require ~~extraordinary~~ [ADEQUATE] evidence" fallacy, based on Clifford's hopelessly self-referentially incoherent evidentialism. What it boils down to is a declaration of brazen selective hyperskepticism. begging he question on steroids, as Craig in part pointed out. The fallacy lieth here: "whatever evidence you can bring forth that points to God, I will reject because it cannot meet arbitrarily high standards of warrant." (Standards that significant claims in history, psychology, science, and in some cases even mathematics -- post Godel -- cannot meet. Double standards, in short.) So, the proper epistemological rebuttal is to first diagnose, point out and correct the self-serving closed mindedness locked up in such selective hyperskepticism, then -- take a slow read there, please -- bring such a person to the table of comparative difficulties analysis on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power in light of first principles of right reason and basic warranted credible truths such as the Roycean self-evident truth that "error exists." (This last is actually a surprisingly powerful truth. to try to deny it ends up giving an instance of its truth, so it is undeniably true on pain of reductio ad absurdum. From this as a corollary, truth exists, though we may make mistakes about it, and knowable truth exists. Knowable to in this case an utterly stringent standard of warrant that to reject it is to immediately fall into absurdity. Entire popular worldviews and their popular talking points fall before just this one WCT: e.g. knowable truth exists so it is nonsense to imagine there is no more to truth than what seems true to you or me.) Once that is dealt with, then the actual state of evidence can be addressed, starting with say the implications of the radical contingency of our observed cosmos [i.e it credibly had a beginning at a finite point in the past, often said to be 13.7 BYA] and its status of being exquisitely fine-tuned in many complex, interacting ways for C-chemistry, cell based, intelligent life. Such demands a necessary being -- thus, one beyond the world of inherently contingent matter and energy -- of great power, knowledge and skill as the source of our cosmos, and such a being is at once the best candidate to explain the functionally specific complex organisation and information we find in life. An interesting cluster of evidential factors if you ask me, and pointing in an interesting direction, if you ask me. No wonder that Lewontinian evolutionary materialists are busily trying to question-beggingly redefine science to be only naturalistic explanations of observed phenomena. As in:
To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.]
The game's afoot! And, like rabbits are said to, it is running in circles . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

QI: Please do not confuse dismissive rhetoric with what is well-warranted analysis. The usual "open systems can increase their order" rebuttal is a strawman tactic. We are discussing information-rich organisation of an energy conversion device, not mere order. In fact for injected energy to do more than increase disorder -- cf my analysis on Clausius' energy exchange of "open" subsystems in a wider isolated system -- there needs to be a coupling mechanism that converts energy to work according to a pattern. The key question, therefore, is the energy conversion device, and such a device that exhibits FSCO/I is only coming from one known, observed source: intelligence. Sure, something like a hurricane is self-organised due to planetary scale convection forces and Coriolis forces, but it does not exhibit Wicken's functional complex organisation on a wiring diagram, nor does it create FSCI-rich organisation of the targets of the physical work it does. Notoriously, it breaks up and destroys organisation! Similarly, and as Orgel and Wicken point out, and as Thaxton et al build on, the thing to be explained for living cell based things is the origin of functional, complex, specific, information- rich organisation, not mere increase in order like in crystallisation, or in complexity like in a random tar. Orgel and Wicken put those issues on the table between 1973 and 1979! Polanyi raised some of the same concerns and issues in the 1960's!!! As I specifically discuss with an example here, raw energy injected into a system that does not have a coupling mechanism to create shaft work towards organisation, will strongly tend to INCREASE the disorder, by natural processes linked to the statistical view of teh second law of thermodynamics. The discussion and videotape here, will be helpful at a simpler level. Pardon, but I am sick of strawman tactics and dismissive misleading rhetoric by evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers. It is high time that a serious, sober and sound discussion was entertained instead. At the relevant levels, no wedge can be driven between information origins concerns and thermodynamics issues. And,the point was adequately made as long ago as 1984 in TMLO, chs 7 - 9. That's right, the very first design theory technical level work. So why is it, 25 years and more later, we are still seeing strawman tactics? Methinks we are owed a serious explanation by those who are still playing at strawman tactics over a 1/4 century later. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

jurrasicmac,
You are simply misdefining atheism. Theism is the belief in a God, atheism is the lack of belief in a God, it’s as simple as that.
No, atheism is the positive belief that there is no God.Clive Hayden_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

BA, nice vid... really feel sorry for that Wolpert guy though. He sorta got spanked in that clip. Love how patient Craig was. - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Bornagain, after seeing another video where WLC has to keep from pulling his hair out over the unbelievable inconsistency, I noticed that almost all atheists do the same thing. Before that I think I remember noticing only one, possibly two, instances of this in various discussions. I guess I just never caught it before, but it's amazing. There isn't one whit of logic that supports atheism.Brent_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Brent, 'coincidentally' I just saw Dr. Craig have to correct an 'atheist' that he, from his lack of providing arguments for his 'belief', was really an agnostic. It is at the 2:00 minute point in this video; William Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert 10/12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBXYL9XdGV0bornagain77_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

It seems to me that atheists are increasingly backpedaling into agnosticism these days, and are continually in need of being told what they (claim to) believe. Atheism is defined by taking a position, a stand, that says God does not exist. But since this position just isn't defensible, they must always become reluctant agnostics and say, well, I guess it's possible . . . This is embarrassing, of course, so the recent trend is to pedantry: "a" = lack of, and "theism" = God, so atheists aren't making any claims, they just don't believe. Too silly!Brent_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

F/N: My comment at the MF blog is here.kairosfocus_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, this is very interesting and helps me (as a lay reader). But I had thought arguments about evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics had long been discredited. I'm reading the link, which may help clarify.QuiteID_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Joseph (and others): Over at MF's blog, they have triumphalistically taken up the claim that CSI is an ill-defined, meaningless concept as MG kept on insisting on in a now closed thread here at UD. Your summary at 43 above is an apt reply. In my own IOSE course survey page, I have also now taken time to add the Orgel cite from 1973 that introduced the concept "specified complexity," and have drawn out the infinite monkeys result discussed in an earlier UD thread on ID founds 4, the CSI concept. The infinite monkeys result shows how, beyond a certain point, given the exponential growth of configuration spaces as number of contingent items goes up, the likelihood of origin by random walk and blind trial and error selection on an arbitrary initial point, falls to a practical zero. By the same principles -- the cite from Wiki quoting Kittel is absolutely precious! -- that ground the second law of thermodynamics, in its statistical form. (Cf my own discussion here in my always linked, which was itself recently updated to bring out how order easily reduces to chaos as raw energy is pushed into a system, and how such disorder is not easily or naturally reversed.) GEM of TKI PS: Pardon if this is a bit directish, but somehow, I wonder if MG has seriously addressed such statistical thermodynamics, in her repeated demands for mathematical grounding for the concept of CSI, and dismissals of the actual calculations and analysis that have been repeatedly offered. Similarly, after repeated requests, she has not yet come back on the question of whether Orgel and Wicken were making meaningless noises when they raised the issues and concepts of CSI and FSCI, in the 1970's.kairosfocus_{March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

KF: “I find it a bit amusing to see the now old “atheism is absence of belief in god or gods” - notice the lower case, as is usual - dodge. . And, dodge it is.” Indeed, it is a[n intellectually dishonest] dodge. It is the attempt to disguise the assertion, "God is not," as a non-assertion which therefore needs no defense. KF: “Belief/non-belief in God - notice the uppercase - is a worldview level core belief about fundamental reality, as God in this context is a term that refers to the Creator and ground of the cosmos.” The affirmation or the denial of the reality of God is, as I like to put it, The First Question -- for, all other questions one may ask about the nature of reality, and all other beliefs one may hold about the nature of reality, follow from the answer one adduces to the question, "Is God?"Ilion_{March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Well we can start out with: paragwinn, If I may: What is Intelligent Design?

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.-- William A. Dembski
Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
IOW ID claims that Complex Specied Information, not Shannon's "mere complexity", is an indicator of agency involvement. IOW just as archaeologists claim that artifacts require an artist and just as forensic scientists claim a murder requires a murderer, ID claims that CSI requires a designer.
Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL
In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information. In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.
So science asks the question: "How did it come to be this way?" and ID claims that agency involvement was required.Joseph_{March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped, I dont understand how your comment relates to mineparagwinn_{March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

F/N 4: Craig further explains: _________________ >> Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists. So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God. But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists). As Antony Flew confesses,
the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. [In short, ther eis a definitional switcheroo game afoot] Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew) [This is of course before Flew became Deist under the impact of the evidence for design in the cosmos.] Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God. One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in. >> __________________ Craig's answer? In effect, the redefinition is a rhetorical trojan horse that works to create the impression that one can in fact assume the claim that there is no God, by default, i.e. without having to provide positive warrant for it. NOPE. EVERY worldview stands before the bar of comparative difficulties, in the face of first principles of right reason, warranted credible truths and the challenges of factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. And, evolutionary materialism does not do particularly well before such a bar . . .
kairosfocus_{March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: A better general-level definition of science (informed by Newton's Opticks, Query 31):
science, at its best, is the unfettered — but ethically and intellectually responsible — progressive pursuit of the truth about our world (i.e. an accurate and reliable description and explanation of it), based on: a: collecting, recording, indexing, collating and reporting accurate, reliable (and where feasible, repeatable) empirical -- real-world, on the ground -- observations and measurements, b: inference to best current -- thus, always provisional -- abductive explanation of the observed facts, c: thus producing hypotheses, laws, theories and models, using logical-mathematical analysis, intuition and creative, rational imagination [[including Einstein's favourite gedankenexperiment, i.e thought experiments], d: continual empirical testing through further experiments, observations and measurement; and, e: uncensored but mutually respectful discussion on the merits of fact, alternative assumptions and logic among the informed. (And, especially in wide-ranging areas that cut across traditional dividing lines between fields of study, or on controversial subjects, "the informed" is not to be confused with the eminent members of the guild of scholars and their publicists or popularisers who dominate a particular field at any given time.) As a result, science enables us to ever more effectively (albeit provisionally) describe, explain, understand, predict and influence or control objects, phenomena and processes in our world.
F/N 3: Wm Lane Craig on the absence of belief dodge: here. (This debate vid excerpt shows how the redefinition rhetorically conflates atheism with something significantly distinct: agnosticism, the position that one does not know that God exists, and doubts the existence of God. Of course, some go on to the further idea that is one doubts, one may dismiss. But in fact, very few real-world knowledge claims indeed are beyond dispute or possibility of doubt or correction; high confidence and tested reliability to moral certainty -- it would be irresponsible to act as though the matter was not true -- are not proof beyond possibility of correction. There are literally millions across the ages and today who claim to know God personally, in miraculous life transforming ways, on grounds at least as credible as those on which we accept that others around us have real minds, and act towards us out of love, e.g. our mothers.)kairosfocus_{March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

F/N: Plato's analysis, from The Laws, Bk X (made after first carefully and subtly distancing himself from the pagan myths of his day): _______________ >> Ath[enian Stranger]. [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . . [[I]f impious discourses were not scattered, as I may say, throughout the world, there would have been no need for any vindication of the existence of the Gods-but seeing that they are spread far and wide, such arguments are needed; and who should come to the rescue of the greatest laws, when they are being undermined by bad men, but the legislator himself? . . .[[Jowett translation. >> ________________ Why, that Bible-thumping fundy! NOT: 360 BC, Athens. It would be interesting to see the response to his onward argument and inference on the cosmos to its designer, as is discussed here. Then, we can turn to the modern, scientific discussion, e.g. here for starts. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

H'mm: I find it a bit amusing to see the now old "atheism is absence of belief in god or gods" -- notice the lower case, as is usual -- dodge. And, dodge it is. Belief/non-belief in God -- notice the uppercase -- is a worldview level core belief about fundamental reality, as God in this context is a term that refers to the Creator and ground of the cosmos. A worldview, per that ever handy secularist-leaning crowd-source, Wiki testifying against interest, being:
A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[1] The term is a calque of German Weltanschauung [?v?lt.?an??a?.??] ( listen), composed of Welt, 'world', and Anschauung, 'view' or 'outlook'. It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it . . .
Point being, "non-belief in god . . ." NEVER comes in isolation, from other worldview level commitments, visions, ideas, agendas and consequences; contrary to pretences that are often made. For instance, we may see Richard Lewontin confessing in his infamous 1997 NYRB review article that shows how a priori atheistical evolutionary materialism as philosophy now systematically distorts origins science, which is then -- in a grand question-begging circle -- used to prop up the system and dress it in the holy lab coat:
To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.]
In short, we are really dealing with a priori evolutionary materialism, often imposed by the back-door of so-called methodological naturalism; which last question-beggingly redefines science as making NATURALISTIC [= evolutionary materialistic] explanations of observed phenomena. The gostak distims the doshes and the doshes are distimmed by the gostak. A wiser approach to science, science education and general discussion and public policy analysis, would take diversity of worldview commitments seriously, and would address issues in light of comparative difficulties analysis across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory elegance [as opposed to ad hocness and/or being simplistic]. Once that is done, we are back to Plato and co "on the way back" as usual, here from The Laws, Bk X. For, it turns out that an evolutionary materialistic view inescapably has in it no IS sufficiently strong to support the weight of OUGHT. That is, it is inescapably amoral and radically relativistic, in Plato's words, ending in the conclusion that the honourable is one thing by nature and another by the laws of man, where on such a view, "the highest right is might." Plato's onward point is that from this arises factions and tyranny, as the amoral and radically relativistic -- as a class -- gain and hold power. BUT, WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE REAL WRONGS, AND REAL RIGHTS. (Is it ever right to torture young babies, or to slit their throats while they sleep, even in a place called Ithamar?) So, in the end the only morally credible and tenable worldviews are those that can adequately ground such moral truth. The best candidate for that is: the good Creator God. And, to -- in the face of the evidence of a fine-tuned, C-chemistry life-supporting cosmos that had a beginning, the implications of the reality of morality, the implications of the credibility of mind, etc -- try to say that one finds "no evidence" -- the usual phrasing, one reflective of ideologically laced, deeply polarised closed-minded selective hyperskeptical dismissals of inconvenient evidence -- that there is such a God, is ludicrous. No, the truth is a little different: one REJECTS the evidence and constructs a more "comfortable" view of reality. Whether that can stand up to the credibility of mind, the reality of morals, the origin of a fine-tuned cosmos, etc, are a different matter entirely. So, please, let us lay such sophomoric rhetorical gambits as the question-begging strawmannish redefinition of atheism as "absence of belief in god . . ." to one side. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Matteo, You pretty much summed up everything that I think is wrong with the first generation of cybermormons that have started to take any chance they can to spam on about non-belief. I'd explain the origins of that conjunction, but it would require linking to a video that might not fit the tastes of UD. To the mods on UD: Is it okay if I link to a video featuring a consistently swearing agnostic ranting against atheists (aka "...the Jehovah's Witnesses of Youtube")? @ NielBJ-"His reasoning may be flawed, and it is certainly legitimate to point out where he has gone wrong." Then by all means, please do so. --- I do have a question though about what exactly distinguishes an IDer from a non-IDer. Here's the definition that I typically refer to: http://www.discovery.org/v/2 Now let's say I do feel that taking a design-theoretic approach leads to a far greater understanding of physical features than non-telic alternatives, but don't actually hold that a designer actually exists. Under this view I would hold that agency is sort of like the typical textbook atom diagram which while not correct, does allow people to understand what someone is actually working with. Am I no longer in the ID camp if I take this sort of view?Jeffrey Helix_{March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Have I missed anything?
Yes. You missed: "['Seeing a broader purpose to the evolutionary process'] makes you someone willing to accept some bad arguments in an attempt to prop up antiquated religious beliefs that should have been abandoned long ago, but that is a different sin. Creationists are well-deserved targets of derision and contempt." and "[Dr Eugenie Scott] said in an interview that graduate admissions committees were entitled to consider the difficulties that would arise from admitting a doctoral candidate with views “so at variance with what we consider standard science” ... "That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination “on the basis of science.” and ""Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them - my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure - but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart." – Prof Paul Meyers, University of Minnesota as quoted in a forum advertised as "The World's Largest On-Line Community dedicated to Science".Upright BiPed_{March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

So the essence of Intelligent Design theory is something like: a)vjtorley - More Catholic than the Pope? > "Intelligent Design theory claims that life, and indeed the cosmos, can only be explained as the work of an intelligent agent", "Is an unnamed Designer closer to God than inanimate matter? Of course." b)William Dembski - The Conway Morris Disclaimer > "Speaking for myself, I’ve been saying this till the cows come home that (1) design can be implemented through an evolutionary process (albeit a non-Darwinian one) and (2) design does not require supernatural intervention." c)David Klinghoffer - The Universe Is Haunted: Reflections on the "Nature of Nature" [Evolution News and Views] > "You could put it this way: The universe is haunted. Haunted not by ghosts but by a source of ancient, unseen, immaterial agency. Whether agents or one Agent, you simply can't tell from the scientific evidence", "Whatever its nature, such an intelligent force must have set in motion the 13.75-billion-year history of the cosmos and guided the unfolding of life from its origin 3.7 billion years ago." d)Barry Arrington - We Will if You Will > "ID theory posits that some observations are best explained as the result of the acts of an intelligent agent. The theory does not posit any particular agent and the agent need not be a deity. It could, for example, be the aliens Dawkins speculated about in his interview with Ben Stein.", "You ask if we can declare ID to be religious because some people take ID and run with its implications in theological directions. Well, a lot of people take NDE and run with its implications in theological directions. (Atheism is nothing if not a “religous” position) Tell you what, I am happy to call ID religious if you will also call NDE religous to the same extent." Have I missed anything?paragwinn_{March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

Ilion:
what these “atheism is simply lack-of-belief” people/parrots-for-Dawkins are having a problem with is the intellectual honesty business end of it.
I'm confused. You're obviously talking about me, so are you of accusing me of actually believing in God, but lying about it? I don't know what I can do besides assure you that that is not the case. I used to believe in God, i.e. I used to think that the proposition "God exists" was true. Now, I don't think that proposition is true. I could be wrong about the existence of God. That would be a pleasant surprise, He was a nice guy as I understood him. But as I have tried to explain, (or will have tried to explain, once my comments go through moderation,) is that it is not 'religious' in and of itself to reject a religious claim. It is not 'religious' to not believe a proposition due to lack of evidence. I do have a positive belief about belief in God; I think it's incorrect. I don't think it's stupid, I don't think it's ignorant, and I don't even think it's irrational. It's just that I'm not convinced, due to lack of evidence. I don't 'hate' God, I didn't have a tragedy in my life that made me turn away (my life is pretty great, if I must say) I simply am not convinced by the evidence at this point. I don't know what more to say on the topic.jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply