One of our regular commenters explains why they stick with ID:
ID is a perfectly reasonable alternative to “it just happened, that’s all.”
Yet that “reasonable alternative” is just “it happened like that because it was Intelligently Designed“. ID as yet has no specifics as to who, when, what, how, why etc.
So it seems to me that said commenter has just replaced “it just happened” with another phrase that means exactly the same thing but now they can be an intellectually fulfilled theist.
It just happened == It was just designed that way
It adds nothing to our understanding, but presumably it counts as an explanation to ID supporters whereas “it just happened” does not. And as it’s mostly about point-scoring in the non-reality based community this appears to be sufficient for them to satisfy their intellectual thirst for “truth”. Or am I wrong? Is their search for “truth” a sham, they already know the answers?
ID seems mostly concerned with what evolution cannot do. As such it has no explanatory power of it’s own to detail what actually happened. So this seems to undercut the claim that it’s a perfectly reasonable alternative to “it just happened”.
Given that there are as many versions of ID as there are ID supporters I’d ask each specifically what it was that “just happened” and how ID is a reasonable alternative to that? Do ID supporters actually consider ID an actual explanation for anything at all? If so, what? And how does that compare to the reality based community’s explanation for the same thing?
I’ve been deliberately coy about the thing it was that “just happened”. In fact, the commenter who made the claim made it without reference to a specific “it”. I want to encourage IDers to identify for themselves that “it”, and explain why adding “it was designed” adds to our knowledge, why what is described is a perfectly reasonable alternative to and detail who is saying in the first place that “it just happened”, whatever “it” happens to be.
phoodoo,
And what are the Intelligent Design answers to those questions?
What is your answer to those questions then? How are decisions made in phoodoo world?
To give Mung an assist here is EvolutionNews talking about RNA world:
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/02/putting_the_rna/
Their conclusion?
Yes, indeed. That certainly seems like ID is a reasonable alternative to “it just happened”. The article talks about all the issues facing RNA world, e.g. RNA just “falls apart”. But rather then talk about how Intelligent Design solves these problems they just state that Intelligent Design does solve these problems. Yet in that article they say:
Huh? But I thought that they used intelligence? And despite using intelligence hundreds of chemists failed? But the conclusion states that such problems are solved by intelligence, and here we are with a problem that could not be solved by intelligence. It’s almost as if they are talking out of both sides of their mouth, depending on the conclusion they want you to draw.
So yes, it does seem like Intelligent Design is a reasonable alternative to “it just happened” but only if you don’t ask for any more detail then “it was intelligently designed as intelligent design solves these problems” and as long as you pretend that people actually say “it just happened” as an explanation.
And these are the people that Mung sends money to! Heh.
My dad meeting my mum was an event of some significance to me. Are the only two alternatives for preceding causality ‘it just happened’ and ‘an intelligent entity*** willed it’?
*** let’s exclude them, shall we?
It’s not a “premise”, it’s one of three possible conclusions. It’s a fundamental problem in philosophy called the Münchhausen trilemma.
It’s a true trilemma. Either something is explained by something else (which immediately raises the same question for that “something else”).
Or it doesn’t have an explanation.
Or there is a circle of explanations that goes back to where it all started somehow.
There isn’t a fourth option. That is how it has to be. There either is an explanation for everything, or there is not an explanation for everything. If there is not an explanation for everything, then something must be a brute fact.
But! Some times, we are not in a position to tell which one of the three options is the case. In such a case, we just don’t know. We (can) try to work it out, but it takes time, and until such a time that we have worked it out, we don’t know. Tough shit, we need to get over it. We actively work to find out what the answer is, but so far we haven’t solved it. I haven’t solved it. Physicists haven’t solved it. You haven’t solved it. Theologians haven’t solved it. Philosophers haven’t solved it.
Theists who posit an explanation in God to account for the particular values of the fundamental constants of physics, are in effect positing the brute-fact option of the trilemma. But rather than a brute fact terminating in the laws of physics (the values “just are” for no reason), theists haven’t really solved the trilemma, they’ve just pushed it back a step.
Between our ignorance and the values of the constants, they insert God. God here has the attributes it needs to account for the laws. This ‘accounting’ for the laws goes something along these lines: God wanted to make the universe so that humans based on carbon chemistry could exist, and stars could form and burn for a long time and sustain life on Earth (and possibly elsewhere).
But we see the trilemma come back immediately. Why does God have these (curiously very convenient) attributes? Is there some deeper set of laws that describe God-properties? Or are those attributes of God just brute facts without their own explanation? Or is there some circular relationship between these attributes of God, and the laws they’re invoked to explain?
Whether we’re talking about the laws and constants themselves, or whether we are talking about the attributes of God. The sad fact is that you don’t know. I don’t know. We don’t know. I don’t claim to know. I don’t say, (and no atheist I have ever met, says) that they “just are, poof! for no reason”.
I simply admit that, of this, I am ignorant.
But phoodoo, so are you. Deal with it.
What does this even mean? If there are a trillion universes, what relevance does this have to whether there is a deeper set of laws that account for the values of physical constants? Just to be clear, there could be a deeper and different set of laws of physics that account for the ones we know about, whether there is a multiverse or not.
And how do you know if they’re completely outside our existence? Does this not, in effect, constitute an invocation of the brute-fact option? Are you not here really saying, effectively, that you don’t know and we shouldn’t even bother to try to work it out?
Don’t you find it fantastically ironic that YOU are the one engaging in the very behavior that Mung is attempting to scold atheists for?
I don’t disagree with any of this. Which makes it all the more perplexing you’d blather about “the folly of trying to grasp things completely outside of existence”.
No. It might be a practically unanswerable question, and in that sense it might be folly to even try to work it out (but first we have to actually get some indication that it IS folly, I’m not going to just assume that). Regardless, it doesn’t make the question nonsensical.
I literally just read your words saying the question was nonsensical, but now you’re saying that the mere fact that I admit to not knowing the answer doesn’t “nullify” it. Phoodoo, may I suggest you take a step back and work out for yourself exactly what you’re trying to argue? It seems to me you haven’t really decided what position you’re advocating for here.
Commonly descended puffs of smoke? How does that work? Sounds fascinating hahaha
Sure. While none of those two are based in observation, reason or evidence, I understand the difference. Theists believe in the former, nobody believes the latter.
Theists literally posit Poof! and there it was. No atheist does. There is no quotation of any materialist / naturalist / atheist / scientist anywhere saying that Poof! and there it was, constitutes an explanation.
ONLY theists say this.
I wonder how steady state would fare if you changed universe to multiverse.
Unless the Creator of physics is constrained somehow, why create a mechanism that requires constant ad hoc adjustments?
Allan Miller,
Gah, in my rush to mock Vincent’s familiar tendency to puff authority I forgot that Hoyle did not in fact get a Nobel. I actually think he should have.
Rumraket,
Thanks for bringing the Münchhausen trilemma into the conversation! I’ve taken a really strong interest in ancient Greek and Roman skepticism lately. In tandem, and for different reasons, I’ve decided to spend some time this summer (oh the blissful life of the academic) to read some books on Buddhism. Lo and behold, there are two books (at least) on Buddhism as an influence on ancient skepticism!
It really should be stressed that ancient Roman skeptics such as Agrippa used the Trilemma to argue that no claim could be justified, not that there must be brute facts. In order for any claim to be justified, it must be backed up by some other justified claim. (If I say that I know Trump will be impeached, and then I give as my reason that a neighborhood squirrel told me so, am I really justified in belief that Trump will be impeached?)
But then we have either the regress, or the dogmatic appeal to “self-evident truths” (which is really just table-thumping), or the circle of coherentism.
The result is that we are never justified in having any of our beliefs; hence we should aspire to live without any beliefs at all. This is what ancient Greek skeptics like Pyrrho and Agrippa taught. It is actually very similar to Buddhist teaching, and I’m not surprised there’s literature on this connection.
Conversely, if any beliefs are justified, then there must be a way of avoiding the entire Münchhausen trilemma (and not just one of its horns).
Rumraket,
Try again, I said nothing about proof, who expects to have proof in this lifetime?
I am talking about what is the most reasonable and logical conclusion to draw. So you entire Munchhausen diatribe completely misses the mark. man yearns to know the best explanation for the universe and its constituents.
The materialist ONLY has a meaningless puff to fall back on, whilst the theist has a plan, an intelligent intention. Just because the exact plan and purpose can’t be know in this lifetime, one can choose from the more likely. meaningless dust made us aware of the meaningless dust, or something intelligent led its structure.
Two completely different scenarios for which one can choose to lay their odds on. I would call materialists extremely poor observers and analysts. But also I would say many are academics cowards, for refusing to admit intellectually that their analysis ultimately comes down to meaningless dust poofed for no reason whatsoever. Their believe can never be more profound, or nuanced than this, no matter how desperately they try to disavow that with empty denials.
The man who, with Wickramasinghe, finally exposed the fraud that is Archaeopteryx. Of course the Darwinists simply wouldn’t admit it.
Oh, it’s those sorts of antics that many think kept him from getting a Nobel, and is that really a good reason? But it is a good reason to realize that Hoyle was really pathetic when discussing biologic origins. Great physicist, but not much better than the creationists we get here on biology.
I do think it’s a credit to Archaeopteryx as a transitional form (not ancestor of today’s birds) that Hoyle and Wickramasinghe tried to paint it as a fraud, however.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
He was overestimating his own authority before Dunning even met Kruger.
Theists good. Non-theists bad.
But to be fair, it’s a well-crafted ad hominem.
I still fail to see how an unenumerated reason is better then none at all.
I didn’t say anything about proof either, so I don’t need to try again.
Impress me with your logic, then. Draw conclusions using logic. Olé!
Just a quick reminder: Mere assertion counts for nothing.
Yes, we yearn for explanation. Some of us just admit when we don’t know. I don’t feel this need to make shit up just to fill in gaps and comfort myself.
Take it up with the materialist then. I’m pretty sure he’ll disagree, I’ve seen enough writing from materialists to know that much.
Completely ad-hoc and unverifiable, but yeah you may call it a plan. What we see is what God wanted.
How could that be empirically falsified? Well if everything we see is what God wanted, then it couldn’t be falsified. You can claim it for anything. Even for a dead and random cosmos with fluctuating laws and a nonsensical chaotic mess, you could still say “God wanted to make that”. Welcome to Justnowism.
Wait, if the plan and purpose can’t be known in this lifetime, what lifetime can it be known in, and how do you even know this if you’ve yet to live that life?
Dude, just think for a moment before you post. The scariest part about all this is that I suspect you alread did, and that crap is the best you could come up with.
More likely? Are you telling me you have successfully calculated the prior probabilities of those two options?
Also, who are these people who believe that meaningless dust made us aware of meaningless dust? Quote them.
What are their odds and how do you know? Don’t talk to me about odds if you can’t even ballpark it. And if you’re just going to extract numbers from your arse (and let’s be clear, you are), don’t bother showing me your shit.
That’ll surely make them cry and come to Jesus. Almost works for me.
So the farts of invisible wizards did it instead.
Look, we can all make a caricature of the other person’s presumed position. You’re not actually arguing here, you’re just taking an opportunity to inform us of your beliefs with some colorful language. In effect, you’re basically just saying “I don’t like it”.
I don’t care, phoodoo.
Thank you for once again telling me that you like something less than something else.
How profound and nuanced you personally find something isn’t a useful guide to truth, I’m sorry to report.
“Theists good. Non-theists bad.” This reminds me of a line in a song,
Or am I what I hate in others
Only seeing things my way
That’s what I’m gonna ask myself today.
(Lobo, 1974)
We have two groups here, the theist attempting to find intellectual fulfillment, and the atheist attempting the same. Every time one throws an apparently intellectual arrow, the anti-arrow applies to himself.
How do we get past the self-aggrandizing rhetoric and see the other as our intellectual equal?
brucefast,
Wouldn’t it be better to see others as our intellectual equals when they are our intellectual equals, but not otherwise?
brucefast,
The issue that matters is using the proper means of finding answers.
It is quite possible that utilizing consistent means of interpreting actual evidence really is the best way. While I do not think this is exclusive to either theist or atheist, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with preferring good epistemology over bad, including when most of the theists on the forum are using the latter.
Glen Davidson
Live and let live, I suggest. You’re in Canada, though, Bruce aren’t you? I’m in France. The US has a problem with Christian fundamentalism and politics.
It’s not difficult. An ID supporter names a thing then shows how ID is a reasonable alternative to the materialist explanation of “it just happened” for that thing. Thus demonstrating the intellectual ability to put their money where their mouth’s been running for some time.
Oh? Theists seem to have many ideas about what the exact plan and purpose is. What sort of flavour of theist are you? I’ll be happy to look up you precise plan and purpose according to that religion and let you know. So?
And how do you know that there is a plan and purpose but not know what it is? What religion has revealed that there is a plan and purpose but not what it is? Are you a vaguerian or something?
keiths, “Wouldn’t it be better to see others as our intellectual equals when they are our intellectual equals”
Well said. How do you know who is your intellectual equal? Evidence has it that “they agree with me” proves that they are your intellectual equal. They disagree, ergo, they are lesser.
Allan Fox, “Live and let live, I suggest. You’re in Canada, though, Bruce aren’t you?” How astute. I spent 10 years in the USA, and felt so much freer when I returned home.
OMegain, “An ID supporter names a thing then shows how ID is a reasonable alternative to the materialist explanation of “it just happened” for that thing.”
OMegain, your entire argument seems to be “Designer did it” is equal to “it just happened” therefore “it just happened” is a fundamentally better explanation than “Designer did it”. These two explanations seem equal, so I fail to get why your position is superior.
I don’t think that’s his position. Sounds to me more like “much of what happens can be explained in coherent ways that lead to accurate predictions and so are probably nearly correct, and much of what has happened has unknown causes (if any) and in those cases it’s better to admit ignorance than fabricate an imaginary “designer” and consider it an explanation of anything.”
Which is something rather different from “it just happened”. Modest ignorance is better than boastful knowledge of what is simply unknown.
I disagree with part of your premise here, Bruce: I don’t think the two groups are after the same thing. That is, I don’t think both the (ahem) more conservative theists and the more liberal theists/atheists (I do believe there some science/evolution proponents here who are not actually atheist, but I digress…) are seeking the same sort of answers or fulfillment. Look at the last couple of exchanges between Rumraket and Phoodoo as a pretty good summation of the dichotomy here: Rumraket is arguing about Phoodoo’s lack of intellectual and logical vigor and consistency and Phoodoo is noting Rumraket’s lack of purposefulness and emotional appeal. And the fact is, both sides see the other as ignorant and empty because the other side is pretty much incapable of grasping the details of the issues the other side is actually arguing. We are talking (or rather posting) past one another. Part of that, I think, is that the two sides really don’t care all that much about the other side’s POV. Speaking for myself, I have gotten to the point where I don’t even care what most theists are concerned about this point, let alone what their particular point on any given subject is.
And so the same arguments get recycled over and over because each side has a really tough time (if not impossible time) actually discussing what the opponent is actually discussing.
My 2 shekels anyway…
Robin,
Robin, that is the most thoughtful post I have ever read on this site — mine included. Yes, these two sides are fundamentally asking different questions, and inherently getting different answers. Yes, neither side seems to be able to grasp the valid perspective of the other.
Flint,
Flint, “Modest ignorance is better than boastful knowledge of what is simply unknown.”
Oh, I long for modest ignorance. I see none, not from either side of this debate.
I strongly disagree. For example, phoodoo claimed that some unknown intelligence willing to produce a life permitting universe is a better explanation for a life permitting universe than “it just happened”. Rumraket addressed that specific claim, he said that nobody here believes “it just happened” is a satisfactory explanation, that it’s a blatant misrepresentation of the opposing view. He brought up the Munchausen trilemma. He pointed out how appealing to a deity’s will only pushes the problem one step further.
What I saw is Rumraket addressing phoodoo’s argument in his (phoodoo’s) own terms, and tons of hand-waving and straw-manning on phoodoo’s part
Why should anyone accept an appeal to emotion is an acceptable approach to rational discourse when it’s a logical fallacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
The unnamed ID supporter quoted in the OP is making the argument. I’m asking what happened and how is the ID alternative superior?
I personally am not making the claim “it just happened”. I’m only interested in an ID supporter actually giving that reasonable alternative that is supposed to exist.
I watched Rumraket argue for modest ignorance at some length. Perhaps you regard the phrasing “I don’t know and you don’t either” as immodest? I personally regard the invisible, indetectable, in-principle-untestable purpose-giver as intellectually unsatisfying and non-explanatory of anything, if not immodest.
You may not have understood Robin’s point. Phoodoo is seeking what he FEELS is emotional satisfaction, and he regards religious gods as satisfying. I think Robin is suggesting that if Phoodoo cannot be logical and satisfied at the same time, then he’s made the understandable choice to be satisfied. If his satisfaction entails misrepresenting the positions of those unsatisfied by what satisfies him, then so be it.
Flint, I have not had much interaction with Rumraket. (S)He has not dialoged within my discussion, I don’t think. “I don’t know and you don’t either” is immodest, I think it highly appropriate in the discussion.
I rile at comments like: keiths, “Wouldn’t it be better to see others as our intellectual equals when they are our intellectual equals” Hardly immodest. These shrill voices of superiority drown out reasonable dialog.
First, let me say that the theist’s view towards science is not, “we know that it happened without theistic aid, how?” as the atheist’s is. Rather, the theist asks, “I wonder if there are clues as to how God did it”. The latter question allows for the possibility that God left no clues, but inspires us to continue the search for the unanswered.
You ask “how is the ID alternative superior?” In the search for scientific answers, I don’t believe that it is superior. Albeit as stated above, I think that the theist’s search for “how God did it” gets the theist to the same place as does the atheist.
However, science is not the beginning and the end of knowledge and of life. We have some simple possibilities.
It could be that there is a God who did some amazing stuff like create the big bang, and either set up conditions for life to spontaneously develop, or directly tinkered to make life happen. Or it could be that there is no such god.
If there is no such god, and a person takes a theistic perspective (after all it got ingrained in him by natural selection), well, no harm, no foul.
It could be that there is a God that did some amazing stuff, even that guides evolution quite intimately (yes the data still strongly suggests this possibility) but that the God doesn’t give a rat’s ass about us and what we think. If so, then whether one takes the theistic perspective or atheistic, it makes not a hoot of difference.
However, if as most theists suggest, there is a God, and that God wants to be known. If it is better for you in the long run to know God, then the atheist’s position is not so good.
(I know you argue that if God wants to be known, why does he make himself so invisible? I say, to me he doesn’t.)
So the summary truth table looks like this:
If no god: atheistic and theistic perspectives are equal.
If God who doesn’t care: atheistic and theistic perspectives are equal.
If God and he values being known: theism wins.
brucefast:
keiths:
brucefast:
What evidence is that? I certainly don’t think that mere agreement makes someone my intellectual equal, nor that disagreement proves they are “lesser.”
Are you projecting, perhaps?
I think a much healthier attitude is to recognize honestly that people (and their arguments) are not necessarily equal intellectually — a fact which should be obvious to even a casual observer of humanity — and that our task, if we care about the truth, is to evaluate facts and arguments as objectively as we can.
It’s counterproductive to embrace a clear falsehood — in this case the idea that our opponents are always our intellectual equals — as if to do so were somehow virtuous. Phoodoo and his arguments are not intellectually equal to, say, Rumraket and his.
That doesn’t mean that phoodoo won’t someday prevail in a scientific debate with Rumraket. Each argument stands or falls on its own merits. But it it actually happens, it will be very, very, surprising, given phoodoo’s dismal track record.
It’s possible to assess your opponent’s argument objectively even when you don’t regard him or her as “intellectually equal”. Why embrace a supposedly virtuous falsehood when it isn’t necessary?
You managed to attain a position that makes you feel superior to both sides.
Good work!
Glen Davidson
Glen, to brucefast:
Bruce’s “shrill voice of superiority” is drowning out reasonable dialogue. 🙂
That’s not a truth table, that’s a consequence table. A Pascal wager table, so to speak.
If truth is what matters, and there’s no God, atheism is true, and it wins. I could also make a case for a consequential win: If there’s no God, atheists who didn’t waste precious time speculating about what that purported deity might want also win
You’re also ignoring plenty other options. What if there was a God but she doesn’t value whatever you think he values, and he thinks you deserve eternal punishment for that? What if he values reasonable doubt and finds skeptics deserve being rewarded?
Please note I don’t believe any of that. It’s all just for the sake of argument.
GlenDavidson,
There are three sides. I manage to hold the position that is superior to both. However, regarding the third side I said:
“Robin, that is the most thoughtful post I have ever read on this site — mine included.”
and
“I don’t think. “I don’t know and you don’t either” is immodest, I think it highly appropriate in the discussion.”
There are three groups here:
The atheists calling the theists idiots, the theists calling the atheists idiots and those who are attempting to have a rational, respectful dialog.
brucefast,
Actually, a big problem with your whole self-righteous act is that many of us don’t give a damn about atheism, but do care about epistemology, science, and honest standards. Both for the sake of doing science, and for teaching honestly.
I see that you don’t even recognize those important matters. Considering your meaningless little table of arguments from consequences, I’m not surprised.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
The question in this thread seems to be how we respond to those things that the scientific community has not found an explanation for. This ultimately is addressed by epistemology. However, standard scientific epistemology holds to “methodological naturalism”. It seems to do so because there is a belief, unfounded in my opinion, that religious theories are not permitted because they are not falsifiable.
Generally the approach is to keep researching. Deciding that some unknown supernatural entity must have done it lost favor over 300 years ago.
Right now oogity boogity! isn’t accepted because there’s zero positive evidence for it. Unless you know something no one else on the planet knows.
Since when? How often does “methodological naturalism” arise in science papers? What supernatural claims that can be tested are ignored because of “methodological naturalism”?
Just because people yammer about it doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with science. “Methodological naturalism” doesn’t mean anything by itself, and ultimately can only resort to empiricism in order to mean something. But we already have empiricism, so we don’t need “methodological naturalism” for anything.
Glen Davidson
And you go that completely wrong…ironically enough.
The usual answer is, let’s gather all evidence that seems relevant, generate tentative testable hypotheses, and start testing them iteratively.
Religious claims may well be correct and nobody will argue that they are necessarily false simply because in principle they cannot be tested. Instead, the argument is that such claims are unhelpful as explanations, however helpful they may be for the peace of mind of some people.
Other people find arbitrary untestable claims unsatisfying. Not wrong, but unsatisfying.
Which is a patently absurd contention. Religious claims are entirely helpful, if that is what appears to be the most likely explanation.
Do you think that just because we might be able to look and guess that perhaps there was a big bang 14 billion years ago, that this tells us anything about how or why? There is nothing inherently better about materialist speculations than immaterial ones. Both are just trying to figure out the closest thing to truth.
How does positing evidence free POOF! MAGIC! help anybody? How will it lead to further understanding, problem solving, or further discoveries?
Good question, ask some materialists.
I guess they feel they can’t be blamed for being unable to explain their beliefs. Rumraket says we can’t know anything, that’s his excuse.
Where did I say that? Quote me.