[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]
I’d say rather that even useful models have limits or ranges of applicability.
My repeatedly unanswered question to William is not about models, though, it is about data that the model purports to explain.
Do you or do you not, William, have objective, empirical evidence for the existence of a deity?
I think our varied uses of the terminologies of “true”, “describes reality” and “useful” are difficulties of semantics. I only care about the usefulness of a model, not whether or not what it refers to is true. I’m not making claims that the models are true (which is, in my mind, synonymous with “describes reality”), but only that they are useful.
An example would be that Apollo pulls the sun through the sky on a schedule set by Zeus. For the practical purpose of keeping appointments and telling time, the model is useful. Is it true? Does it describe reality?
I wouldn’t say it describes reality so much as it is useful in a practical sense.
What do my models purport to explain? The only thing I can think of that my models “purport to explain” is my behavior.
In any event, I’ve directed you to the evidence you’ve asked for several times – the fine-tuning evidence.
Again, I agree. Actually I have no problem at all with any of this.
What is bizarre to me is your apparent rejection of perfectly good models that describe how life came to be. They are useful, and have good predictive power; in contrast, ID has none.
So given your utilitarian approach to model evaluation, which I share, why reject scientific models of life in favour of ID?
You are using a deity in your model. If there is no objective, empirical evidence for such an entity, your model is nonsensical.
I have been asking you this question for several days and do not recall you providing any such answer. Please link to where you did so.
Whether the model is “nonsensical” by your standards or not is irrelevant to the purpose of the model, which is to help me enjoy life and be a good (enough) person.
Disregarding your characterization of what is “scientific” and “not scientific”, I reject non-ID models because they don’t help me be a good (enough) person, nor do they help me enjoy life. In fact, they do the opposite. We may both be utilitarian in this, but we have different ultimate purposes our models are intended to be useful towards.
You don’t find the ID model useful for your purposes. I find it very useful towards my purposes.
If you want to delude yourself for your own reasons, that’s your business. Are you admitting that you do not have any objective, empirical evidence for the existence of a deity?
There is no objective, empirical evidence described in that comment.
If you don’t have any, please just admit it.
What is the ID model?
That something did something at some time in some place?
William : What is the Uncaused choice?
Uncaused cause, or the demiurge as the creative nature of god.
Of course, like God , your free will is the uncaused cause which chooses to create a “world”.It is your decisions which determine which ” world ” it is. Is that close to the process?
If so, where does the criteria for the particular decisions come from? It seems to me the particulars of the God are determined by these decisions. A bottom up approach. In other words, are these criteria only personal choices or is there and ” empirical ” basis for the particulars?
Whether or not you consider the fine-tuning evidence to be objective and empirical isn’t relevant to the fact that I, and others, do consider it to be such.
I’m inclined to side with WJM on this.
Scientific theories often have what are called “theoretical terms” or “theoretical entities”. We normally accept those on the pragmatic virtues of the theory. We don’t expect to find objective empirical evidence that is independent of the theory, though sometimes we might get lucky.
So, if WJM is adopting his theism only for its pragmatic virtues, then I don’t think he needs to deal with that issue.
If WJM is attempting to persuade me to adopt the same theism, then he must first persuade me that there are pragmatic virtues in it. I don’t think he has attempted such persuasion. Or, if he has, then he has been unsuccessful at it. I see no pragmatic virtues in his theism, so I have no reason to assume his deity. But if WJM sees pragmatic virtue for the way he leads his life, then he has reason enough to assume his deity.
There is no “fine tuning evidence” presented in that comment.
Sure, but that’s not the same as what I understand William to be doing in his model. What I hear is “I’m going to choose to believe in this entity despite there being no objective, empirical evidence whatsoever for it, in order to gain some personal benefits from my self-delusion.”
If it works for him, fine, but it doesn’t make the concept of a deity any less nonsensical.
Thanks, Neil, and no, I am not attempting to persuade anyone to adopt my idiosyncratic theism.
If were to attempt to translate this into an attempt at making a general case, it is that it may be that some, many or even most other people may find theism useful – or even necessary – to live a good, productive and enjoyable life. I would prefer that if they need or want to believe in a god, they believe in as benign, loving and good a god as possible, and not one that wants us to burn witches or fly planes into buildings or else we’re going to suffer eternal damnation.
To continue on my hypothetical general case, I would say that the fact that religious belief is so widespread and has been for so long, even from a materialist perspective, is that it is in some way useful or necessary – or, at the least, has been in the past, and still is for many people today. The problem is that the useful and productive – even necessary, for some – qualities of theism have been (IMO) buried under or infected with counter-productive memes that can cause more harm than good.
While the theism I’ve built is idiosyncratic, I think it’s general structure lends itself to usefulness for others who wish to be theists and who might apply it as a sort of template for a productive theism. However, I certainly wouldn’t try to convince anyone it would be good or useful for them – only they can determine that.
I think wr tend to label a model as true if describes or predicts yet to be observed phenomena.
I can’t remember ever having rules for my kids.
Lizzie, to WJM:
The condition his condition is in.
From Wikipedia, “Fine-tuned Universe”.
A complete list and cited references appears at: http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-in-the-universe.
The empirical, objective nature of quantum phenomena have led some physicists (and philosophers) to the conclusion that mind is primary – IOW, evidence for a god of some sort.
That the evidence is objective is really indisputable in any reasonable sense, and that some or many have found it to be evidence for a god of some sort is also indisputable.
It would only qualify as a delusion, I think, if I actually believed it to be true.
I find it a bit strained to say one believes something without believing it to be true.
I suppose there’s an informal sense of the word believe and informal senses of the word true. Millions of people accept the famous letter about the existence of Santa Claus, and millions believe it is a good thing to tell children about Santa Claus.
Whether it actually is evidence for a deity is highly disputable. The leap from “Gee, if these constants were different then physics would be different (and possibly inhospitable to life).” to “The universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god who is very concerned about the sexual habits of one species of primate on an small rocky world orbiting an unremarkable star in an arm of an unremarkable galaxy.” is pretty large.
The usual response to the fine tuning argument is that we don’t know enough about physics to know if those constants could be different or if they are independent. My favorite response is that if those constants were different, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it (aka the puddle fallacy). Regardless, objective, empirical evidence for a deity it ain’t.
What is the semantic difference between “believing” something and “believing it to be true”? They seem to mean the same thing.
I have defined my use of belief in this forum (not in this thread) several times to mean that I act as if the proposition is true.
I said as much in that post I linked to. Whether or not you or others dispute it is irrelevant to the fact that the evidence is objective and empirical, and that many – including me – consider it to be supportive of the proposition that a god of some sort exists.
The term fine-tuning in physics means that some phenomenon is only possible if the input parameters of a model are carefully chosen; it does not occur if the parameters are generic. It’s usually an indication of our ignorance.
You mention how Newton thought that our solar system, with planets orbiting in the same plane, could not have arisen naturally. It turns out that he was wrong. There are natural model where planets form generically, i.e., without fine tuning.
Do you believe that the claim “a deity exists” is true or do you just choose to act as though it is true?
If the latter, I am reminded of George Bernard Shaw:
“The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”
But I don’t see why you could have all the benefits of your model without rejecting a scientific model of how life came to be. You don’t have to posit an God who has to step into creation at crucial points in order to ensure it turns out as planned in order to posit a good and loving one.
What on earth has your chosen God got to do with whether evolutionary theory is a good predictive model or not?
You seem to be making a case that “evidence for” something is only “evidence for” something if that thing turns out to be true. There has been “evidence for” all sorts of scientific theories and propositions that later have turned to be either incorrect interpretations of the facts, or incorrect inferences made from the facts.
The fact of the sun moving through the sky is evidence in support of the theory that the sun orbits the Earth, even if in fact the sun doesn’t actually orbit the Earth. The fine-tuning evidence is, IMO, clearly evidence in favor of a intelligent designer even if it turns out not to be the case.
Tangentially … I wonder how many finely tuned fundamental principles are required in order for just to have planets form and follow orbits around suns in elliptical planes?
Why would I care if a model is scientific or not? That’s one of your criteria, not mine.
ID doesn’t necessarily “posit a God who has to step into creation at crucial points in order to ensure it turns out as planned”. Some ID advocates may posit that. I believe in ID because the idea that we and the universe are intelligently designed to fulfill a divine purpose greatly aids my enjoyment of life and my capacity to be a good (enough) person.
A good predictive model for what? My enjoyment and goodness?
So,under the working definition of “believe” I just gave you, you just asked me:
“Do you do you just choose to act as though the claim “a deity exists” is true or do you just choose to act as though it is true?”
I choose to act as if it is true. I certainly hope its true, I don’t think there’s any reason it cannot be true, I think that good logical arguments can be made for it and I think it’s supported by an immense amount of evidence whether it’s actually true or not, and it comports with my actual experience.
I don’t, however, claim it is true, or is not true, nor do I hold it in my mind as being actually true, or actually false.
I hope that answers your question.
William J. Murray,
There is presumably something that leads you to plump for ID rather than (say) theistic evolution. This implies an opinion on the sufficiency of organic change ‘left to its own devices’ to explain organic diversity.
Is Liz asking me why I argue for ID instead of Darwinism?
WJM,
I hope you can appreciate the fact that science does not concern itself with metaphysical consequences. Figuring out the true nature of gravity or evolution may, indirectly, cost some number of people their faith, as it may lead some others towards it. For you, accepting evolutionary theory would cause harm to yourself or those around you. That’s terrible and I sympathize with your plight. However the truth is part of God, and if knowing that truth causes you to suffer, you are to bear that suffering, not reinvent God to suit your selfish needs.
Blind as they may be to other aspects of the truth, at least atheists are willing to see this much with unblinking honesty. Your blindspot, though located elsewhere, is no less limiting.
That’s not the ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory (IDT) of the IDM. That’s the lowercase ‘intelligent design’ same as ‘the design argument.’ Do you not see a difference, WJM? If not, open your eyes to what difference a ‘theory’ makes. (This is explained somewhat in Dembski’s 2004 book “The Design Revolution.”)
*All* Abrahamic theists accept ‘the design argument,’ but only a small few, mainly right-wing evangelical conservative (RWEC) Protestants, largely USAmericans by citizenship, and an even smaller few non-Christian (whatchamacallit) theists like yourself subscribe (with undying devotion!) to IDT.
The remaining vast majority of Abrahamic theists, both in the USA and globally, reject IDT as a quasi-scientistic figment of the imaginations of a few folks funded by RWEC’s in Seattle, Washington, USA to ‘renew’ USAmerican culture from secularism. Is the reality of this social scenario making sense to you?
I’m asking you why you argue for ID instead of standard scientific evolutionary science. It seems that your chosen God is perfectly compatible with standard evolutionary science, so you must have some additional reason for arguing ID.
My own understanding of the fine tuning argument is that there is no bias toward producing humans. Life chugged along for billions of years without producing humans, and might well have continued that way for billions more, apart from cosmic accident.
I think about this when considering SETI. I don’t expect to see anything like us in the part of the universe observable by us. Even if life is easy to originate and common.
I find it interesting that someone can say, with no hint of irony, that we cannot reinvent God to suit our needs. Isn’t the claim that God is rational an invention? Lots of people have believed in capricious gods.
I would be interested in hearing those arguments. Despite being raised in a conservative Protestant sect and participating in discussions on this topic for far too many years, I have never been presented with even one.
I would also be interested in seeing a summary of this “immense amount of evidence”. Is it objective, empirical evidence that clearly supports the claim that a deity exists or is it more along the lines of the fine tuning argument?
It does, thank you.
I find it interesting that someone can say, with no hint of irony, that we cannot reinvent God to suit our needs. Isn’t the claim that God is rational an invention?
WJM is foremost concerned with his own needs, and builds his model of truth and God from there. The method prescribed by the Cathecism (quoted earlier, re: Faith Hope and Charity) places the needs of God first, and calls us to understand truth and God for what it is regardless of our needs in this life.
Gregory, the majority of Abrahamic theists are IDists. Have you forgotten about Islam? It’s a growing influence in your precious Europe. And elsewhere. Your academic freedom is in more peril than is the academic freedom of Texans.
Scientific reasoning is a minority position in the U.S. Even among those opposed to fundamentalism and biblical inerrancy. There are lots of people who accept technology and who can recite facts about the age of the earth, but who have little knowledge of or affection for careful methodology.
What puzzles me is, if that is the case, why does he feel the need to tell anyone else about it?
You don’t see a bit of circularity there? I appreciate the objective of abjuring personal bias, but you still have the institutional bias. You start with an assumption that is only an assumption.
No pun intended.
Do you have any evidence to back up that ridiculous claim? No. It is just your twisted fantasy, far from reality.
IDism is almost non-existent in Islam. I’ve asked Muslims who’ve never heard of IDT. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
Look, petrushka, the ‘death-is-the-end’ atheist angst at your age is understandable. But do you really claim to be a representative of ‘scientific reasoning’ just because you counselled abused children for 10 years? What ‘scientific’ qualifications do you actually have, petrushka?
Show me a biology textbook published in a Muslim country that teaches evolution.
Just one title and I’ll concede the point.
“the majority of Abrahamic theists are IDists.”
Is there any evidence for this, petrushka?
William,
Why redefine the word ‘believe’? ‘Assume’ communicates your meaning more accurately.
You assume that God exists and you act accordingly.
‘Assume’ also communicates your disregard for the evidence.
As for my credentials, I testified as an expert witness in child custody cases.
As the Wizard of Oz might say, that doesn’t make me right, but it makes me an authority, and most people can’t tell the difference.
Alan Fox, I agree. My guess is that he feels the need to aggressively defend his ‘goodness’ which he feels is directly and immediately threatened by evolution theory. I think that is the same motivation that drives Ken Ham, though his theology is bible based.
petrushka, I also agree. When it comes to faith, at some point circularity is unavoidable. I know that doesn’t really answer your question, but that’s the best I can do. Of course science has its own presumptive faith — that when reality speaks for itself, it speaks the truth.
“As for my credentials, I testified as an expert witness in child custody cases.”
And that’s supposed to make you a champion of ‘scientific reasoning’?! I’m sorry, but boo hoo. You demonstrate ideological scientism, not scientific credibility. And certainly not wisdom, which would require elevation.
I have nothing against personal faith. I actually admire William’s openness about his. I think sites like this might dry up if there were no political threat from anti-science.
I do understand that parents don’t like the state undermining what they teach their children, but I see no good solution for that. I could devise a curriculum that would teach the historical context for the controversial scientific theories. It would probably wallow in triumphalism, but I would like to teach evolution from the point of view of someone living in Darwin’s time. That’s kind of what I had in ninth grade science, prior to courses in biology, chemistry and physics.
I would also like to see geology taught in high school.
And you have credentials in what science?
ETA: good job of noticing the irony in my post.