[Vincent Torley has posted this at Uncommon Descent. As many people who might like to respond, not the least among them Dr. Liddle herslf, are unable to do so directly, I reproduce it here. The rest of this post is written by Vincent Torley]
Over at The Skeptical Zone, Dr. Elizabeth Liddle has written a thought-provoking post, which poses an interesting ethical conundrum about the morality of creating sentient beings.
Dr. Liddle’s post was titled, Getting some stuff off my chest…., and its tone was remarkably conciliatory, as the following extracts reveal:
I don’t think that science has disproven, nor even suggests, that it is unlikely that an Intelligent Designer was responsible for the world, and intended it to come into existence.
I don’t think that science has, nor even can, prove that divine and/or miraculous intervention is impossible.
I think the world has properties that make it perfectly possible for an Intelligent Deity to “reach in” and tweak things to her liking – and that even if it didn’t, it would still be perfectly possible, given Omnipotence, just as a computer programmer can reach in and tweak the Matrix.
I don’t think that science falsifies the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity – at all.
Apparently, Dr. Liddle’s main reason for disbelieving in an “external disembodied intelligent and volitional deity” is a philosophical rather than a scientific one: she is “no longer persuaded that either intelligence or volition are possible in the absence of a material substrate.” Fair enough; but Dr. Liddle should tell us what she means by the word “material.” Does she mean: (a) composed of visible and/or tangible “stuff”; (b) having some (non-zero) quantity of mass-energy; (c) spatially extended, and inside our universe; (d) spatially extended, and inside some universe; (e) composed of parts; (f) behaving in accordance with the laws of Nature; or (g) behaving in accordance with some invariant set of mathematical laws? What is Dr. Liddle’s definition of “matter,” and why does Dr. Liddle believe that an intelligent being has to conform to that definition?
But the most interesting part of her post came in two paragraphs where she made it clear that while she regarded the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient deity as quite compatible with science, it was ludicrous to suggest that this deity might also be omnibenevolent:
I do think that the world is such that IF there is an omnipotent, omniscient deity, EITHER that deity does not have human welfare as a high priority OR she has very different ideas about what constitutes human welfare from the ones that most people hold (and as are exemplified, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), OR she has deliberately chosen to let the laws of her created world play out according to her ordained rules, regardless of the effects of those laws on the welfare of human beings, perhaps trusting that we would value a comprehensible world more than one with major causal glitches. In my case, her trust was well-placed…
I don’t think that it follows that, were we to find incontrovertible evidence of a Intelligent Creator (for instance, an unambiguous message in English configured in a nebula in some remote region of space, or on the DNA of an ant encased in amber millions of years ago) that that would mandate us in any way to worship that designer. On the basis of her human rights record I’d be more inclined to summon her to The Hague.
This is a little inconsistent. On the one hand, Dr. Liddle declares that she values “a comprehensible world” with no “causal glitches”; but at the same time, Dr. Liddle wishes that the Intelligent Creator, if she exists, would do more to promote human rights and alleviate suffering.
At any rate, here is the question I would like to ask Dr. Liddle. Suppose you were the Intelligent Creator of a world containing life. Suppose also that you have decided that your world should contain no “causal glitches” whatsoever: miraculous interventions are out of the question. Suppose, finally, that the laws of your world happen to dictate that any sentient beings in it will suffer and die, and suppose, also, that death in your world is absolutely final, with no hereafter. That goes for sapient beings as well: in your world, you only get one innings.
The life-forms that currently exist in your world include not only micro-organisms, but also complex animals, rather like our insects, which are capable of a rich variety of behavioral feats, but lack any kind of phenomenal consciousness: they react to environmental stimuli in a very sophisticated manner, but for them, there is no subjective feeling of “what it is like” to experience those stimuli. So far, everything is unfolding in accordance with your pre-ordained program.
Here’s my question for Dr. Liddle, and for skeptical readers. Given the above constraints, would you regard it as immoral to be the author of a program that eventually resulted in the appearance of:
(a) sentient beings capable of feeling pain, but with no self-awareness whatsoever;
(b) sentient beings with some rudimentary self-awareness;
(c) sapient beings capable of reasoning and language, as well as a rich sense of self-awareness?
Putting it another way, would it be better for an Intelligent Creator not to create a world of sentient (and/or self-aware and/or sapient) beings, than to create a world in which sentient / self-aware / sapient beings existed, but where all of these beings would undergo suffering (and where some of them would undergo a considerable degree of suffering), caused by the inexorable operation of the laws of Nature in that world? Or putting it as baldly as possible: if you were the Creator, would you deny us all the gift of existence, on the grounds that it would be immoral to create beings like us?
If your answer is that it would be immoral to create beings like us, then I would ask you to set out, as clearly as possible, the ethical principle which would be violated by the creation of beings like us.
And if it’s not the existence of suffering per se that you object to, but the degree of suffering, where do you draw the line, and why?
Over to you, Dr. Liddle…
[ETA correction to blockquotes – AF]
This is a blatant violation of the forum rules, and it is deeply and personally offensive.
Yes, I agree. Moved. Gregory, please read the rules. The principle is pretty easy to understand.
Aside from the ad hominem, Gregory’s argument seems to consist entirely in the claim that age confers truth. Or perhaps age plus numbers of adherents. Or perhaps, age, numbers and authority
But that is precisely the conflict that Galileo stirred up, and the conflict that science and empiricism continues to stir up.
There are really two intertwined conflicts.
One is Luther’s claim that each individual is allowed to read and interpret scripture for himself. The second is Galileo’s claim that each person is allowed to read and interpret nature. The first has led to a number of wars, and the second has led to science (and yes, to non-belief).
To answer Gregory’s question about my personal motives, I can only say that I search for the simplest and most self-consistent explanation for things.
Since I have witnessed (as a news reader) the birth of a number of religions, and since several others originated within the lifetime of my grandparents, I have good reason to hypothesize that they are representative of the birth of religions.
Although most modern religions lack the backing of national bureaucracy and military force.
I am interested in what happens to religions when they are no longer supported by coercion and by family and social pressure. My observation, based on acquaintances of my generation, is that belief crumbles, either into atheism or into some form of nebulous mysticism.
Are you really a news reader, petrushka? How wonderful!
Whoops. Miscommunication.
I meant I’ve witnessed the birth of religions by reading about it in the news.
Americans call news readers anchormen, or whatever the gender neutral equivalent is.
lol!
Some time early in American broadcast television, the anchor position came to imply boss as well as reader.
Particularly with Walter Cronkite, there was an understanding that he controlled the content of the show. The term news reader implies a mere employee.
I have no inside knowledge about how this currently works. I do know that my local stations brag about having graduate meteorologists presenting the weather, implying they are qualified to have opinions about the forecast and to write their own material.
“The principle is pretty easy to understand.”
Yes, it’s a dehumanising double standard when you allow personal taunts, but not personal taunts. You post petrushka’s repetitive atheist smack, but refuse alternative approaches. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?page_id=57&cpage=9#comment-39801 – remove a sentence and it is rather tame compared to the #@$*-talk you allow here at TSZ in the name of anti-theism. It has become rather obvious and boring, Elisabeth.
TSZ is a lair of atheists, not a lair of ‘skeptics’, Lizzie.
And the question is relevant: Lizzie why do you CAPITALISE the term ‘Goodness’? You don’t actually believe in ‘Good’ capitalised because that would signify Holy, Eilisabeth, do you?
You’re a self-confessed quasi-Buddhist, pantheist, atheist, ex-catholic non-believer. An eclectic mix of ‘dunno.’ What reason then do you have to capitalise GOODNESS? A humanism that you haven’t yet proclaimed, trying to be secular safe?
Your ‘logic’ is transparently subjective. And you’ve got no one backing you but ‘skeptics’ (who would back almost anything) and emptiness at its root, just like petrushka.
Sure . . . . unless the theism in question is basically a Neoplatonic conception of Being or the Good, rather than any assertion about the existence of a particular being. It’s a crucial difference that’s often overlooked by atheists and non-theists.
No argument from me, although I’d still be interested in the evidence for such a concept.
As a US citizen, I am personally most affected by the fundamentalist evangelicals who have a very specific concept of a deity. There is no objective, empirical evidence for that entity, yet great harm is inflicted on individuals via both political and personal means by those who claim to know what it wants.
Gregory, you would be a better exemplar for your faith if you would discuss ideas rather than people. If I appear rude it is because I am exasperated waiting for you to explain in some concrete detail what is incorrect about evolutionism and what scientific discoveries are being missed as a result of evolutionism.
I am not concerned for the state of your soul, and I’d appreciate you returning that favor.
We are all here to discuss and refine our ideas. Sometimes that involves some lighthearted polemics. I get the impression you don’t do lighthearted. If so, that’s a shame. Humor is a gift best not refused.
Velikovskys“Could you clarify that?”
Gregory No. Do a little exploring yourself.
You said it, I figured you knew what it meant,apologies.
Gregory,
And I have responded in good faith to the part of your post that was “tame.”
I am waiting patiently for you to offer some evidence that atheism or evolutionism is bad. I’m not interested in whether it exists or whether some people are atheists or evolutionists or whether a controversy is raging.
I want your reason for thinking they are wrong, incorrect or bad. Or that they impede science. Examples?)
I have given my reasons for being a nonbeliever.
The evidence for an active deity (rather than a mystical essence) are not compelling.
We know how religions start, because we have observed their origins in real time.
Your favored ancient religions share much with recently invented religions.
Other than fear, there’s no compelling reason to take any given religion seriously.
There are many concepts in science which have no proof – multiverse, dark matter, dark energy, infinite inflation. Why question concept of God alone ? I could claim many people have observed God in NDE experience – so there is observational evidence. Just like many theories aren’t falsifiable in science, so ‘God theory ‘ can’t be falsified but is true.
Er…no. Hallucinations suffered during periods of brain oxygen deprivation aren’t evidence of anything except that hallucinations happen.
Dark matter is a falsifiable concept. To be more precise, there are several specific dark-matter hypotheses, e.g., your relative cold dark matter. These more specific hypotheses can be checked empirically.
Multiverse is a more speculative and less concrete notion, so it is not quite a scientific theory.
That doesn’t make any sense: God can’t be falsified, therefore it’s true?
I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant, but I can’t figure out any other meaning from the words you chose to write.
What on earth is it with your insistence on arguing about/poking at peoples use of and/or lack of capitalization? Why? Honestly, what do you hope to get out of your repeated behavior?
I’ll tell you straight that I refuse to capitalize “god” “him” etc as a deliberate provocation to fundamngelicals in my god-besotted nation. They deserve to have someone puncture their pompous assumption that their god is the only one named “God” and that everyone, believer and non-believer alike, must fall in line to elevate “him” by capitalizing every reference to “him” or “his” qualities. They’ve got an entire planet head-deep in their bullshit, and I’m happy to help, in my tiny way, to blow away some of the bullshit.
But while I expect, and welcome, apoplexy from the Faux News crowd, I’m mystified why a scholar and world traveler such as yourself, Gregory, would remain victim to the brainwashing which claims “god” must be adorned with capital letters. Or that, conversely, capital letters bestowed elsewhere are a sure sign of idolatry.
The multiverse is proposed to solve a problem.
Dart matter is proposed to solve a problem.
Dark energy is proposed to solve a problem.
God?
Seem to me that’s proposed to solve your personal problems, not a problem.
If you hate this site so much, why do you post here? I rarely see any constructive comments from you, only snide and hateful remarks towards the site and its members.
If god is real, and if humans have free will wrt believing in god or not, in what sense can any evidence ever be “compelling”? Rather, wouldn’t the existence of free will dictate that humans have the capacity to deny anything, meaning that no evidence at all would ever actually compel them to believe a thing if they didn’t want to?
It seems to me that free will, should it exists, requires that humans exist in a state precisely like the one you and Dr. Liddle find yourselves in; one where, in your mind, you can (if you wish) dismiss the idea of god. It seems odd that you would expect a god that has (hypothetically speaking) given you the free will to deny its very existence to also have in place evidence (and the corresponding interpretive mental faculties) that would “compel” you to believe in it.
The problem I think you have is that until fairly recently “god” was quite active, setting fire to bushes and making them talk, parting seas and of course bringing the dead back to life etc.
So if I were to have personally witnessed any of that I’d find it fairly “compelling”.
So are you saying back in those days god was happy to suspend the free will of humans by providing compelling evidence for god’s existence?
And if so, why not now?
In the way we normally mean compelling: conclusive to any rational person. The fact that compelling evidence exists for some particular phenomenn does not entail that people still aren’t free to deny it. Fuck, there are FLAT EARTHERS around, despite evidence so overwhelming and compelling even most creationists and evolutionists agree it’s a little bit nuts. So what’s the harm in giving compelling evidence for the existence of god? None at all. We’d still have “free will” to deny it.
Sure, there’s probably no amount of evidence for any imaginable proposition that would absolutely guarantee 100% adherence by everyone at all times. There’ll always be some obscure nut who denies the obvious. That still doesn’t change the fact that there can simultaneously be free will and compelling evidence.
Not at all. How the crap would that work? I can present you with compelling(compelling in the sense that as long as you’re acting rationally, you can’t deny it) evidence for any number of claims and you’d still be free to deny it if you so wish.
Well today he occasionally appears on toast.
In the first place, you seem to have forgotten again I’m not a Christian.
Secondly, if those stories are true, many (if not most) of those who lived at the time didn’t find it particularly compelling. Supposedly only a small percentage of the Hebrews left with Moses out of Egypt. Just because a bush burns and talks doesn’t mean it’s god even if it says so, and apparently even if you can call down plagues on command and part the seas, it still leaves room for doubt and denial.
Even after supposedly witnessing many miraculous events, Egyptians and most Hebrews apparently weren’t impressed. That story, for me, is analogous to people looking at incredibly precise, organized system of integrated nano-technology and corresponding coding in the cell, which appears to be at least as big miracle of chance (just to grate on Liz’s nerves) as plagues that happen to appear or seas that happen to part in coincidence to being foretold or commanded.
There isn’t anything, IMO, that a human cannot deny. Which brings me back to the point: if humans are supposed to be able to deny anything (which the stories in the old testament appear to support, not contradict), why would anyone expect to find compelling evidence of any kind for god?
You seem to miss the point that the denial would seem rational to the person doing the denying. Flat earther’s think they are quite rational.
Evidence that one finds compelling, by definition, cannot be denied – it compels one to agree to it.
No, they are contradictory terms. If evidence can compel one to agree to the truth of a proposition, they cannot be said to simultaneously have the free will to deny it.
You seem to be under the notion that “compelling” is an attribute of the physical nature of the evidence; it is not. It is a characterization of the mental state of the person examining the evidence. I cannot both be mentally compelled to believe a proposition true and also deny that proposition as true. I either find the evidence compelling (my mental state in observance of the evidence) and thus agree the proposition is true, or I do not find it compelling and thus am able to disbelieve the proposition.
You can’t have it both ways.
“Compelling” is not an attribute of the evidence itself; it is an attribute of our mental reaction to examining the evidence. We either feel compelled to accept a proposition as true, or we do not feel compelled to accept it.
I think this is where ideological bias comes in. People often say they find evidence “compelling”, but that is, IMO, because it is in line with what they want to believe – on some level – anyway. Even when they change beliefs. Take Antony Flew – world famous atheist who claimed to “find the evidence compelling” for a god of some sort (deistic, probably). Is it the evidence itself that is “compelling”, or did Antony Flew, in particular, on some level want to believe in god and then subconsciously, allow the evidence to “compel” him to believe?
Yeah, that’s one of the many reasons the claim that these events even took place is highly dubious at best. That would compel most people, particularly at the timeperiod when it’s supposed to have happened. We know, because history shows that much less compellin things managed to impress many more people in much shorter spans of time during various revolutionary periods.
But most people neverheless don’t engage in total wishful thinking in all areas of their lives. Which means most people probably are somewhat rational a significant portion of the time. Even if they occasionally fall victim to certain emotional biases here and there.
The whole idea that the majority of people can be presented with such magnitudes of compelling evidence and yet still deny, is in contradiction with what we know of human nature. Yes, people can deny anything, but for the most part they actually don’t deny the obvious to that extend. See flat earthers, while they exist, they are a tiny, tiny minority. Even within otherwise fringe/crackpot circles (like young earth creationism), flat earthers are still a minority.
Because the events detailed in the old testament would actually be compelling to most normal people, particularly at the timeperiod when it’s supposed to have taken place where there was no CGI and masterful movie special effects people around.
Even today, most people would be convinced by significantly less. Didn’t you watch the show where Derren Brown converted a room full of atheists? He didn’t make pillars of fire come down from the sky, or split the ocean. It turns out compelling evidence to most normal people is actually much less grandiose than these outrageous continental-scale catastrophes god is announced to have orchestrated. In fact, it’s laughabl mundane.
So I submit that should similar such things actually take place, most people would actually find it compelling, even today. And yes, you’d still be free to deny it. But I contend most actually wouldn’t. It simply doesn’t take that much when it comes down to it.
William :No, they are contradictory terms. If evidence can compel one to agree to the truth of a proposition, they cannot be said to simultaneously have the free will to deny it.
People often say they find evidence “compelling”, but that is, IMO, because it is in line with what they want to believe – on some level – anyway.
So free will is an illusion?
I wonder whence comes, for the freely-willed, ideological bias. Is it uncorrelated with anything?
I think, today, I will be ideologically biased in this direction, for no reason whatever. And then I will forget that decision as I sift subsequent evidence in its light.
It’s totally immaterial with respect to the point. Irrational people exist, no matter that they think of themselves they’re being rational. That doesn’t mean they’re right.
So you’ve erected a dictionary-argument centered around a strictly literal interpretation of the word “compel”. So you mean to say that compelling evidence would be so compelling it would transform us into machines and make us believe no matter what. Great, then sure, there can’t be “compelling” evidence and free will. You’ve tried to sidestep the issue of strong evidence that would convince most people by focusing on the word “compel” to mean something that forces us contrary to will to do something.
Then allow me to bring you back on track: Why can’t there be extremely impressive evidence that would convince almost every person but the most irrational ones? Surely an omnipotent and omniscient god would know what it would take to convince most people without violating their free will by forcing belief upon them.
If God is attempting to leave belief entirely up to free will, some would have it that it (surely ungendered?) dropped a clanger by leaving ‘programmed nano-machines’ lying around all over the place, which (along with the heffalump-in-the-room, being born in a strongly Christian country) certainly constrains the free-choice-to-disbelieve of many on th’ID side.
Would that be the evidence in the books that you are proud to note that you’ve not even read?
Crack a book William, then you’ll find you are not as original as you believe you are. Or perhaps that’s the reason why you don’t…
It appears that way to you simply because you have not familiarised yourself with the proposed answer to that question. So a “miracle of chance” is your strawman, because you really don’t have any idea about any alternative to that.
Those books you’ve not actually read, they will change the way things “appear” to you. You should try it!
But, what’s the alternative to a “miracle of chance”? Seems like a designer is even more unlikely then that to me – why don’t you make an effort to make the designer seem like the logical choice? After all, X might be improbable but someone wins the lottery every week.
What alternative are you proposed to a “miracle of chance”? Seems to me your alternative is just “A miracle”.
But of course, you are not here to propose an alternative, that’s obviously beyond your wit or capability. So continue to pick holes in your strawman, it’s obviously satisfying to your intellectual level.
William J. Murray:
So your compelling evidence for god because of “nano machines in the cell” is compelling to you because that’s already in line with what you want to believe?
I can believe that actually.
Try reading what I wrote again. The will is what, IMO, prepares the mind so that evidence one way or another is found to be “compelling” – not vice versa.
I have flatly stated several times that I chose to believe in god, just as I choose all my beliefs. I am not “compelled” by evidence to believe anything.
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO “evidence” is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe?
I don’t recall ever seeing so much artillary brought to bear against a metaphor.
But there is an interesting point lurking or buried within William’s argument. What kind of evidence do we accept?
That is precisely the question science asks. It is the reason for the existence of scientific methodology.
I think this is what frosts believers. Not that science undermines God, but that science undermines and discredits belief. For any new claim, the response is, show me. Tell me how you arrived at your conclusions, so I can repeat the observation and analysis.
In the world of science, fraud and error occasionally occur, but the system eventually spits it out, like a car barfing up a hairball.
Skepticism doesn’t mean a person can’t have confidence in established theories. It means that the establishment of theories requires time, method and consilience.
What science conflicts with is not God, but the methodology of theology.
William, I doubt that anyone here cares about what you believe or why you believe it. Sophistry can be amusing, but quickly becomes boring.
I’d probably stop talking at this point.
Yes you are.
Try standing in a walk in freezer and believe you are warm. Or that you can breathe underwater.
Why do you eat, if not because of the “evidence” that you are hungry? Try believing you can live without food.
Try giving living on light a go?
Actually that’s religion. Why does the Sun orbit the Earth? God wants it that way.
If evidence was what you say it is, nothing would ever change. Yet we know the Earth orbits the Sun. Why would people wish to believe otherwise?
Please, do explain!
Or will you just declare you are “satisfied with the debate” and strut away?
There’s actually quite a few remarkable physiological feats a person can accomplish if they know how and practice mental discipline. I actually worked in a walk-in when I was younger and used some mental techniques so that I didn’t feel the cold. Also, the placebo effect can produce dramatic effects in the body.
What a person believes can dramatically affect their life and their body.
Sure. But, how about you stop eating for 6 months and just live on your convictions. You up for it? 😛
William : Try reading what I wrote again. The will is what, IMO, prepares the mind so that evidence one way or another is found to be “compelling” – not vice versa
Thanks for the clarification, will precedes evidence. Then what is the basis for the free choice of the Will in the first place? The untrustworthy mind?
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO “evidence” is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe?
Survival?
Theology had its head cut off by Galileo. It’s still writhing around.
I don’t care what other people believe, but the methodologies of theology simply don’t lead to consensus across political and cultural boundaries.
Gregory cites thousands of years of Abrahamic history in favor of faith, but faith evolves, and it seems to have evolved into science.
IDists seem fond of claiming that science wouldn’t exist except for its origin within Christianity. If we accept that for the sake of argument, we have to accept also the fact that sincere Christian scholars, searching for God’s signature in nature, have invented methods that produce better results than scholasticism.
Did I say that there is not? There is a chap who can change measurably change the temperature of his hands on command.
Your avoidance of the actual point I made has been noted.
So fine, give us some persuasive evidence for God.
And I don’t mean a biologic metaphor.
Glen Davidson
Well, I’m explaining all this on a fairly casual level. It would take a lot more qualification and quantifying to get into the details of how I see it.
This might help: free will is not free choice. The only truly free choice we have is what we “will”, in an archetypical, primordial demiurge sense, which lays out the basic structure for who we are. After that, our choices are limited to relatively minor customizations of the basic floor plan of our being.
That’s the reason it’s so hard for people to change, or that seemingly where ever they go and whatever happens, they keep playing out the same story over and over.