[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 agree with your earlier point that many Muslims are IDist at some level, but evolutionary biology is certainly taught in Muslim countries in secondary school. For example see http://tinyurl.com/nbofnko for a biology syllabus from Malaysia. I don’t have an example of a book published there, but the standard textbooks are widely available.
“I agree with your earlier point that many Muslims are IDist at some level”
Again, on what evidence do you base that claim? I suspect neither you nor petrushka have any evidence.
I could claim “many monkeys are purple.” But that would be absurd without evidence.
So, where is yours?
I’ll concede that Malaysia is multicultural. What I’m not ready to concede is the trend in the middle east and among militants. The problem I see is that fundamentalists around the world have become militant, and in some obvious instances, violent.
I haven’t searched for authoritative references, but this appears to be fairly balanced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution
Strike One for petrushka.
Is there any evidence for this, petrushka?
petrushka answers: most apples are round. Not really an answer, is it?
petrushka,
please don’t get me started on Wahhabis and their beliefs.
rhampton,
A faith whose practitioners ask reality repeatedly, in all manner of different ways, whether they heard it right, and did everyone else hear it too? 🙂
Gregory, Malaysia is a multicultural country having a British style government.
The core of Islam is still in the middle east and in Pakistan. My father-in law was born in what is now Pakistan. My son’s father in law was born in Iran. I am not a southern redneck, nor am I someone who thinks science solves social problems.
Now, I will repeat my question, somewhat chastened. Show me that evolution is taught in Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Iraq, or Pakistan. I’m not sure about Turkey, but I’d like to see what is being taught there. They seem to be in some turmoil.
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5217
Allan Miller,
Still a leap of faith, though the jump may be smaller.
Strike 2 for petrushka. No back-up for what he said. Just empty atheist talk.
Is there any evidence for this, petrushka? Time to put up or shut up instead of changing the topic to Malaysia and a Pakistani father-in-law.
Show us some EVIDENCE that “the majority of Abrahamic theists are IDists.” Where’s the evidence? Use your ‘scientific reasoning’ here.
I’m an Abrahamic theist and not an IDist. And I doubt you have any evidence at all to back up your superficial, frivolous claim.
Ask Gregory. The issue isn’t simply whether there are moderate Muslims, but what the trend is. Christians had their hundred years war and centuries of imperialism and other misbehavior. I hope, almost to the point of believe, that these things will sort themselves out, but I suspect it will take a century or so.
Gregory, I cited nonpartisan research to the effect:
That’s a fairly narrow use of the term evolutionist. I would say that 59 percent constitutes a majority.
I note that half of that 59 percent are not creationists, but I find it interesting that so many are reluctant to accept human evolution. Why would that be? In what way is common descent not established?
Strike 3: the poster at TSZ known as ‘petrushka’ either will not or cannot back up his ignorant statement:
That is simply not true and he has no evidence to show. Sad that he cannot admit this. (It’s as credible as him saying that the entire Denver Broncos football team is right now at this moment dancing naked in his bathroom, including coaching staff.)
I’d guess that more than 99.5% of Abrahamic theists worldwide are *NOT* IDists.
petrushka is fighting a ghost of his own atheist culture war worldview.
Actually, Iran, of all places, is probably the most reasonable of all of those, frankly teaching evolution to 5th graders:
http://www.academia.edu/870964/Evolution_Education_in_Muslim_States_Iran_and_Saudi_Arabia_Compared
Excerpt from link:
As to the situation in the Islamic world overall, I don’t have much of an opinion. Clearly the article shows Saudi Arabia not giving it much coverage, let alone affirmation, but the Islamic world isn’t uniformly anti-science, in any case.
Glen Davidson
I’m guessing Gregory is wrong about this. Even with his idiosyncratic obsession with upper and lowercase ID/id.
By nonpartisan poll, the majority of the people in the world doubt common descent or are unwilling to say they accept it. What’s the alternative?
Including common descent? You could find old earth people at the Discovery institute who accept everything about evolution except common descent.
Well almost everything. There are more than two shades of ID.
petrushka, you can guess, speculate and opinionate all you want. Fact: you’ve failed to answer my simple question and that is openly on display to anyone reading this thread. You provided no evidence – READ IT, ZERO! – for your claim about IDists and refused to take it back when given the chance. And more, you continue to misunderstand IDism and show simple lack of comprehension about or sensitivity to faith and theology. (Dawkins would be proud of you, his unbelieving disciple!)
A fair question. One that I’m willing to address, but not at the atheist-heavy lair of TSZ. There’s monogenism vs. polygenism, common vs. unique descent, MRCA, Adam and Eve, indigenous origins stories, anthropics and anthropocentrism, etc. involved. If not at UD or TSZ or BioLogos, then where? rhampton has at least provided a source.
This is not really that complicated, Gregory. Among the 97 percent of biologists who answer affirmatively to being “evolutionists,” how many doubt that humans are cousins to other mammals?
ETA:
And among the general world population, what percentage of respondents accept that humans are descended from non-human primates?
No need to get into the details of Out-of-Africa controversies and the like.
Perhaps nobody else at TSZ (the majority of whom are atheists) will publically acknowledge petrushka’s failure to answer re: ‘IDists’ or take back his aged nonsense opinions – ZERO evidence. He wants to go on tangents instead and won’t back up his own claims. Nevertheless, the record stands.
Ah, I see I accidentally (not really) used the suffix “-ist”. Let me rephrase in more neutral language: Many Muslims reject the theory of evolution because it conflicts with the teachings of Islam. That’s all I meant by my earlier statement. And there is ample evidence supporting this, for any reasonable understanding of “many”. Do you dispute this?
Who said I feel such a need?
Fair enough.
such badass
very alpha
wow
None of my arguments – that I recollect – have ever been against “the science”, but rather against the metaphysical assumptions hidden in the way that science is presented (random mutations, natural selection). I think certain metaphysical assumptions tend to drive people in contradiction to the divine purpose, which accrues necessary consequences for those people. By arguing against those metaphysics to the best of my ability, even when they are baked into scientific claims/arguments, I am doing what I can to help others avoid their own destruction while respecting their free will right to do that very thing.
Don’t forget that another element of my theism is that there are necessary consequences that follow both moral and immoral behavior.
However, as you may have noticed, my involvement in ID arguments (that involve any kind of science) has pretty much come to an end. I think I can be of more use for the good if I stick to other kinds of arguments and other kinds of activities to do good, which also provide me with a greater sense of satisfaction.
I think there’s a long history — going back to Newton, apparently — of speculating that some phenomena are directed.
That’s the arena of statistics. And now the arena of experimental evolution.
Which doesn’t reveal any weirdness.
Statistics has detected tampering with Lotto balls. It’s pretty good at detecting bias.
Unbelievable avoidance, petrushka. Unbelievable.
Yes it does, Gregory, although much of yours is guano, or will be. I do tend to exaggerate, but in this case I make the following stand, for which I have provided evidence. The majority of the people in the world do not accept the statement that humans are descended from non human primates and are cousins by common descent to all mammals. Many of those who accept biological descent would also stipulate that humans are exceptional, that some part of their being is non-animal.
Your distinction between ID and id does not interest me. All of the people in those categories believe some flavor of intelligent design. The least interventionist of which is a form of fine tuning
I doubt if you can find more than a small percentage of biologists who think that humans would evolve without the timely intervention of asteroids, and the contribution of plate tectonics. In other words, most biologists do not see evolution as inevitably leading to humans.
I’m not interested in winning a debate or in gaining your approval. I have had my claim about Muslims partially deflated, but I still think I’m right about Muslim textbooks. I doubt if there’s a single Muslim published textbook that doesn’t support human exceptionalism.
How can you possibly support human exceptionalism without invoking intervention or design?
Yes, that’s obvious.
No, you have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claim.
This is your claim: “the majority of Abrahamic theists are IDists.”
Where’s your evidence? If you have none, admit it. Stop lying to yourself and others.
I get it. Where are my transitionals?
But just this morning you wrote:
You seem conflicted about whether or not a divine purpose, and hence a deity, exists.
If you’re claiming, as you did earlier, that you choose your beliefs to improve your own life, then your refusal to provide evidence for your belief is of no consequence. However, if you claim that there are necessary consequences to violating a divine purpose, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that such a purpose, and some sort of purposeful deity, exists.
Which is it?
Gregory, what would call the 59 percent of people who do not accept the physical continuity of all animals, including humans.
And how are you coming with providing the name or identity of a Muslim published text that teaches that humans are animals, cousins of chimps?
Can you name or describe a non id or ID alternative to common descent? Your previous list doesn’t address common descent.
Is there any evidence for this, petrushka? You’ve provided NONE.
What’s the problem here? Do you need it written in a different font in order to directly answer it or something?
Gregory, I provided good evidence that the majority of people in the world do not accept human descent from non-humans. At least they will not commit to accepting common descent when surveyed. If that does not at least imply they suspect design,what is the alternative?
Anyone of any faith who believes that there are human characteristics not the result of regular biological processes is in the design camp. Anyone who thinks the universe was fine tuned to produce humans is in the design camp.
Not all design views conflict with science, and I have no objection to views that are consistent with science. I would not that they appear to violate Occam’s
razor. That does not demonstrate they are wrong, but I am not terribly interested in them.
I have lots of patience. I rarely resort to name calling in these discussions. I’ve been at it for fifteen years, and I’m willing to wait another 15 for you to tell us what you believe. You have asserted that 99.5 percent of Abrahamic theists are not IDists. I assume you mean by that that they aren’t followers of the Discovery Institute.
I think I’ve made it perfectly clear that I don’t care a bit about your idiosyncratic labels. ID is a spectrum phenomenon. Even the paid writers at the Discovery Institute engage in minor squabbles. I’ve seen at least a dozen definitions of ID.
The only ones that matters to me is any view that implies that humans are a planned outcome. It could be true, but I don’t believe it. The only versions of ID that I object to are ones that conflict with evidence. That would include any flavor of YEC, irreducible complexity, any mumbo-jumbo involving probability, or front loading.
Are you really such a fool, petrushka?
This is what you said: “the majority of Abrahamic theists are IDists.”
You keep going on and on about other things, wasting your breath on tangents. I’m interested if you have evidence for your claim above or not. Just stick to that. You apparently have NO EVIDENCE.
If you have any, then show it. If you haven’t, then admit it. Your credibility is on the line.
Well, I think you have simply mistaken for “metaphysical assumptions” methodological aspects of science that you do not actually understand, for instance, what is meant, in science, by the words “random” and “natural” (the latter being used only rarely and in the context of evolution, only as a nod to Darwin, who only used it to contrast with human selective breeding).
But I’m glad to hear you are bowing out of that arena. There is nothing incompatible IMO between the theism you have espoused, and “normal” science. What’s wrong with ID is not the claim that the world was brought about intentionally, but that that can be deduced from the natural world itself.
What you think I meant is not what I meant. I have qualified and explained what I meant. When there’s disagreement, it’s rather common practice to clarify one’s position.
For what it’s worth, I think I’m right. I extrapolate from 15 years of online debate in addition to published surveys.But if the win is that important to you, mount my head on the hood of your car and drive away.
And as you do, reflect on the fact that in all your posts, you haven’t actually said anything. There’s not a person reading this who’s learned anything from you.
Because you never say anything positive about your position.
That’s a typical squirm-away answer for ‘skeptics’ empty of hope and dignity.
What you wrote, in simple and plain English, is this: “the majority of Abrahamic theists are IDists.”
Do you retract it or not? It is an obviously silly statement that you made, far from reality. Stubborn pride only seems to stand in your way.
No, I don’t retract it, And I deny categorically that I haven’t supported it with evidence. I give not a damn whether you accept the evidence.
First of all, Gregory, Catholics believe in ensoulment. That’s direct intervention in human history. Whether it be a one time event with Adam, or an every person event, it’s intervention.
I don’t know exactly what Muslims believe, but my understanding is they also believe in intervention in human creation.
Protestants are a surly bunch, but many believe in something like ensoulment. Others are YECs. Some are Deists.
Gregory, you can try to squirm away from logic, but if you believe that humans would not be what they are without divine planning or divine intervention, you believe in intelligent design.
That does not require you to be a young earth creationist or require you reject the timeline of evolution.
No. You just seem to be incapable of holding on to the information that what I am doing here is describing my model and that I act as if it is true, and not making claims about reality. “Necessary consequences” is an aspect of the model and I act as if it is true, which includes – to some degree – doing my part to help them avoid those consequences. I would hardly be a good person, and I would hardly be acting as if true, if I didn’t concern myself at all with the general spiritual welfare of others.
I never said otherwise. My arguments are always against what I see as dangerous metaphysical memes that infect some areas of science more than others. To be fair, there are dangerous metaphysical memes that infect theistic groups and concepts as well – such as, command morality. I think command morality is every bit as dangerous as subjective morality.
You wrote:
That is a claim about objective reality. By making it, you implicitly assert that a “divine purpose” exists and, by extension, a deity having that purpose exists.
What objective, empirical evidence do you have for such an entity?
I think sometimes Murray loses track of what he believes, what he really believes, what he believes is true, what he truly believes and what he believes for utilitarian purposes.
I know I do.
But for the purposes of this forum, I accept that he has devised a cosmic role model that helps get him through the day.
I know very intelligent Jews who are mostly atheists, but who argue openly with God.
I am not a believer, but I argue with the universe.
I guess I get put off when this kind of thing spills over into the methods and results of science.
Liz said:
What difference do you think it makes to me if it’s actually illusory?
Petrushka said:
No, I think it’s rather that people forget who they are talking to and start going into rote interpretations and reactions. I mean, I told people here for months that I wasn’t a Christian, and they still would respond to me or challenge me with stuff out of the bible.
Patrick said:
No, it’s a description of how I think, within the parameters of the model I described. I already told you this. When I tell you that you are in error about an inference or interpretation, the thing to do is accept your correction and move on.
Well, if you think it’s dangerous, and it isn’t, then I’d have thought that would make a difference to how you spent your time.
I don’t care if it’s true or not, Liz. Whether something is actually true is outside of the scope of my model.
The fact that you’re here, continually promoting your view.
Lizzie,
Earlier in the thread, you wrote:
Could you elaborate?
Evolution is a terribly destructive and cruel process. Why would an omnibenevolent God choose this method for creating sentient life?
Hmm.
That’s a bit like a prison guard saying “thank goodness there are criminals and prisons, or I’d be out of a job.” 😉
” if you believe that humans would not be what they are without divine planning or divine intervention, you believe in intelligent design.”
Please read this, it would have saved some time: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=3999&cpage=3#comment-40006
Does anyone else here lump all Abrahamic believers under the label IDism, i.e. that they are IDists? That’s like saying everyone who believes in Creation is therefore a ‘creationist.’ What then about the Abrhamic believers who deny being ‘creationists’ and have never heard of IDT or reject it too?
This demonstrates perfectly why there is a dire need for more people to gain understanding of what ideology is and how it influences the conversation. It’s a social communication issue, not strictly about ‘natural science’ and what it ‘theorises’ or reports about experimental results at any given time in history.