On liddle gods and THE BIG DESIGNER IN THE SKY

In a recent post here at TSZ Elizabeth Liddle made the following statement:

What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer.

Odd, I thought. Surely she knows better. All that time spent over at UD and never a case for a designer?

This was later followed by yet another comment from Elizabeth:

I haven’t really taken to the “atheist” label, much although I don’t reject it – but it [the atheist label] implies that my non-belief in god or gods is something categorically different from my non-belief in unicorns or toothfairies, or in the proverbial orbiting teapot.

It’s not, of course, Elizabeth would say. But it is categorically different. For example, no one believes orbiting teapots design anything, and an orbiting teapot would be an instance of design, not an instance of a designer.

As this has now become a topic of discussion in the original thread I think it deserves it’s own thread. Well, not just that, I also think Elizabeth is being dishonest [EDIT: but not deliberately misleading: dishonest, defn. not worthy of trust or belief].

Elizabeth’s claim that there is no case for a designer should be understood as a claim that there is no case for the existence of God.

Elizabeth Liddle:

Can you give me some arguments for the existence for a god of some sort?

Elizabeth Liddle:

…compared to the time when I acted as though it were true that an omipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God existed, I am no longer faced with the problem as to why bad things happen, nor how a person could possibly think, feel or act or experience after their brain had ceased to function. So I now have a more parsimonious model, which means that not only do I not have to fill my head with unnecessary non-useful beliefs, I no longer have to solve the problems that those earlier assumptions presented.

It’s not that there’s no case for a designer [God], but that now Elizabeth doesn’t have to think about what the existence of a designer [God] entails. It’s not that she did not have a model based upon her beliefs, but that now her model is “more parsimonious.”

And now for the kicker…

Elizabeth Liddle:

I know there are such arguments. I find none of them persuasive.

Directly contradicting her earlier statement.

Discuss.

62 thoughts on “On liddle gods and THE BIG DESIGNER IN THE SKY

  1. Alan Fox:
    Richardthughes,

    Well, Mung can still contribute here, though I’ve temporarily amended her/his status to contributor which limits the ability to edit and publish OPs. It’s Lizzie’s blog of course and she may take a different view.

    I’m happy to let Mung continue as author. I understand why you edited his OP, but I think I would restore it.

  2. Elizabeth: I’m happy to let Mung continue as author. I understand why you edited his OP, but I think I would restore it.

    Done.

  3. Alan Fox: Done.

    Thanks.

    The rules will however apply to comments, which can be guano’d in full. I’m just squeamish about edits.

    I think people should stand by their words, and where possible, those words should remain in context. The furthest I want to go, I think, in altering context, is moving them in full from the thread.

    If the software was more tractable, I’d also leave a breadcrumb trail, but it’s too cumbersome in WordPress.

  4. Erik: Perhaps you could add the little arithmetic thingy to every login attempt the way it is over at UD. This way you two, UD and TSZ, would mirror each other ever more perfectly. The arithmetic thingy should be able to reduce spammers.

    I suspect that it doesn’t work at UD as Barry intends. There must be thousands of IDists who can’t comment there when the answer exceeds their number of toes and fingers.

  5. Erik: (Emphasis mine.)

    Is “idied” a typo or something esoteric? How to parse it?

    – died?
    – idled?
    – ID’d (designed intelligently)?
    – flatlined?

    It’s Apple’s new brand of murder. It’s very popular.

  6. Acartia: I suspect that it doesn’t work at UD as Barry intends. There must be thousands of IDists who can’t comment there when the answer exceeds their number of toes and fingers.

    heh.

    I frequently mess it up.

  7. Elizabeth wrote:

    I’m happy to let Mung continue as author. I understand why you edited his OP, but I think I would restore it.

    Compare and contrast this with the reaction from Barry Arrington if anyone accused him of dishonesty. One of these people values freedom of expression and isn’t afraid of what others may say. The other is a sleazy lawyer from Colorado.

  8. For what it’s worth, I think you should add attempting to brow-beat people into submission to the list of items discouraged by the site rules.

    [Although, as an honorary member of The Hypocrite Society, I enthusiastically invite all of you to join me in brow-beating Salvador. After that, perhaps we can join together to draft the new rule.]

    As a personal message to Elizabeth, thank you.

    I did not mean to say [or even imply] that I thought you were a habitually dishonest person. Perhaps disingenuous would have been a better choice.

Leave a Reply