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,
Oh?
Seems to me you are the one unable to explain their own beliefs, and you said by yourself in your own words.
He’s repeatedly failed to answer how he knows which option is more likely, too.
How did the deity cause the Big Bang?
Well thank you.
Here’s the kicker of course: since we are coming from two different perspectives and arguing two different concepts, it sounds to our opponent’s like we are being dishonest ‘cuz we are not responding to what that person is talking about. And I’m as guilty of that as the next guy. We defend our position and tear down our opponents with vested determination, not only because we see our opponents as idiots, but also because we see them as dishonest, “bad” people. I’m sure some of that is a result of the anonymity of the ‘Tubes, but some of it is also a result of the current cultural/political climate.
So really, I don’t see any easy or feasible way of changing the basis of discussion/atmosphere here to reduce the self-aggrandizing rhetoric and start seeing the other side as our intellectual equal. I don’t think our world, nevermind this site, as particularly conducive to that atm.
Quel surprise…
LOL!
I have pretty much quit arguing about ID, because I see nothing wrong with it other than it is useless. If someone who takes it seriously could produce some research ideas for experiments or observations that would clearly demonstrate a divergence between the predictions of ID and mainstream biology, I would pay attention.
I don’t see this in Gauger et al. Nor in Behe.
Well, he used some terms that could lead one to that interpretation, but I don’t think that’s actually what Phoodoo implied. Here’s the key part of what he wrote:
So yeah, he uses worlds like “more rational”, but there’s nothing more rational about choosing one unknown scenario from another. That’s just an empty appeal to try to prop up his preferred implication. And that implication is pretty plain to me: he hates, fears, is uncomfortable with, etc the idea that his/human existence is meaningless. He repeats that as the issue three times.
I don’t see Rumraket’s response as responding to Phoodoo on Phoodoo’s terms, but simply addressing Phoodoo’s comment on scientific/logic terms.
One of my favorite points: you cannot rationally argue a person out of a position they did not arrive at logically.
And none of that addresses Phoodoo’s underlying issue.
Those of us who embrace science and prefer an evidence-based approach to understanding the world around us clearly have no reason to accept an emotional appeal. My point is not that I think Phoodoo’s argument or methodology is valid, but rather that he clearly doesn’t see any one’s responses as addressing his points just as we don’t see him addressing our points.
Perfect summary of my point. Thank you. Alas, according to Phoodoo, I am totally wrong in my assessment. Go figure…
Yeah, that’s my perspective too. The only folk being vocal about ID seem to be those wanting a political/social tool against science/ungodliness rather than a perspective of actual intellectual curiosity. I have very little interest in the former at this point.
Who created the deity?
The whole point is that there really is a better position, the one that came from the evidence.
Give that up, and there goes science. I don’t think most of us don’t know where they’re coming from, it’s just completely illegitimate when it comes to science, teaching, and the judiciary. And they want that to change.
Glen Davidson
I’m sure you’re planning on coming back with some substantiation or example of when a religious claim is more helpful than “I don’t know” at some point. Any day now…
Do you think that inserting one of several gods or “immaterial cause” or similar tells us anything about how or why?
Yeah…me neither…
How does religion and/or the immaterial add anything to human understanding of anything?
Not actually. “Immaterial speculations”, whatever those are, may well be trying to figure out the closest thing to “truth”, whatever that is.
Material explanations, otoh, are for the most part simply attempts at articulating assessments of how the universe works sufficiently to make effective and accurate predictions of future events. Period. Material explanations could care less about “truth”; they are pretty much solely focused on “fact.”
Materialist approaches have little, if any, ability to assess “why” things occur the way they do. And for the most part, few materialists care. To most materialists, “why” assessments appear to be nothing more than wild mass speculations and thus are seen as completely irrelevant, impractical, irrational, and thus totally unnecessary.
Robin,
Well, at least we are getting somewhere Robin, you are admitting that materialists claims are no better than religious ones.
But here’s the thing, if someone looks at the apparent design of living things, at the constants of math and physics in the universe, at the existence of consciousness, or simply at the existence of any kind of structure, and concludes, to them, it seems like a God would be the most likely answer, isn’t that a reasonable conclusion? So in that sense religious claims ARE better than, “beats me” , if that’s the logical conclusion one draws from their observations.
Or is it that case, that you don’t think ANY reasonable person could believe that? If that’s what you think, that no reasonable person could ever come to that conclusion, I think you really are blinded by your own beliefs.
Well no, I’m not claiming that actually. They are far and away superior to religious claims when it comes to assessments on how the universe works and making accurate predictions about future events. But anyway…
Reasonable for that person? Maybe, but even that is hard to say. From my perspective, one cannot get from living things, universal constants, consciousness, and/or structure to “design” without question begging or a bad analogy, so I lean towards no. At least, I’ve never seen anyone make a truly, honest, logical, non-fallacious connection between those things and intelligent design and/or theism of some kind.
But then again, so what? Why would a person who looks at such things and concludes they indicate that some god must be behind them care whether such an assessment is reasonable? Clearly the majority of people who do makes such assessments do so because they feel it makes sense, not because of any exhaustive assessment and testing of any evidence or even any exhaustive assessment and testing of the logic, so I don’t see “reasonable” as applicable.
I would go so far as to say that concluding God (or really, some god) given the above is an understandable conclusion. I would not go so far as to agree with reasonable though.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I agreed with your premise above and went so far as to say that concluding God given the items you note is reasonable. I don’t see how you get from that to religious claims are better than “beats me”. “Beats me” is certainly a reasonable explanation, so what makes “God” a better one, even if it is reasonable?
And personally, I’m with Rumraket on “God” just pushing “beats me” back a few paces. Feeling that all sorts of complexity and intricacy of the living things and the universe can’t be an accident and that some “intelligent something that I’ll call “God” is behind it is understandable, if somewhat questionable, but even going that far doesn’t tell you anything about said “God”. So really, how does that assessment actually explain anything? It seems to me that all you’ve done is provided “God” as a place holder for “I don’t know.”
I certainly think there are plenty of reasonable people who do believe that. I don’t think the conclusion itself is particularly reasonable, but then reasonable people are quite capable of making unreasonable assessments.
Unless you are looking for a cure for cancer or designing a bridge that will not fall down.
It’s certainly a popular view. 70% or so of US citizens reckon there is a god or gods of some kind. I’m happy to let folks have the space for their own thoughts so long as they grant that same right to everyone. But there’s this disconnect between inventing “God” as an explanation for life, the universe and everything, and the variable list of attributes that people add (or as I would say, invent). It’s just wishful thinking.
I’d like some answers – but religious explanations just aren’t!
God did it is just another way of saying it just happened. It just happened because god did it. Just a longer way of saying exactly the same thing, as already noted several times on this thread.
Which god? Are all gods created equal then? Do you not mind what god, as long as it’s a god? Why? What if Satan existed and made his own universe? Would that be OK with you phoodoo? Would you worship Satan just because it created the universe?
Does the spelling of any one of the 9 billion names of god really make a difference? As Robin pointed out, ALL of these names amount to place holders for “I don’t know” among those unable to admit ignorance where no explanation is known, or “la la la la I can’t hear you” where explanations are available.
The ‘apparent design’ of living things is itself unprovable. So in that sense, God would not be a more reasonable conclusion than “I don’t know”. A more personally comforting conclusion is not a better one unless it is objectively better at explaining observed phenomena.
Certainly, the site doesn’t seem conducive to respectful dialog, but I bet that you and I could have such a dialog. I obviously think I’m right, as you do, but I know that a compelling case would change my mind. It has in the past. The noise of some of the others on this site, however, probably makes you correct when you say, “I don’t see any easy or feasible way ofchanging the basis of discussion/atmosphere here”.
Ignorance is bliss appears to apply to the disbelievers. So why are they always trying to paint that on to the religious?
Mung,
The Skeptical Zone motto, “Beats me, beats intelligence!”
Or, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible not to think.”
Not to me, not, but phoodoo may not consider himself a satan worshipper.
Mung,
So, ID is religion now?
The point is that it’s unclear why saying “god did it” is not ignorant when saying “it just happened” is ignorant when it’s simply two ways of saying the same thing?
It’s not obvious to me why saying “god did it” cannot be classed as ignorance is bliss. What is the difference between saying “god did it” and “it just happened” Mung?
Also, could you point out specifically who is saying that “it just happened” is an explanation and for what?
phoodoo,
If I were you I’d be wary of extrapolating from a sample size of one.
Remind me again what religion you are, so I can go look up the details you seem ignorant of?
phoodoo,
Said they guy who does not know what the plan is or if it applies to him, but only knows that it exists. Ever stop and think about that?
The reaction of you and Mung has been priceless. I’m simply asking you to justify with an example where ID can be a reasonable alternative to something. It’s your sides claim!
And you perceive that as something entirely other then what it is, that I’m trying to say that my way is better then your way, that dumb luck is better then intelligence etc etc.
No. This is nothing to do with my way, my side or any of that. I’m simply asking a follow up question to something that an ID supporter said. If you want to turn that around into something else, go ahead and do so. It just exposes your lack of answer.
But the fact is that nobody is saying that “it just happened” and ID is not a reasonable alternative to that, it’s exactly the same thing. And that’s what all the misdirection is about. You desperately have to divert attention away from the fact that you know that ID is the same as saying “god did it” which is the same as saying “it just happened”.
If it were not you’d be able to differentiate between ID and “it just happened” by saying why ID is a reasonable alternative to that. Yet nobody has done so.
And so the conclusion stands. ID == “it just happened” as no one can say otherwise.
Nobody says they don’t want to know the answers, rather what we’re saying is we don’t know, and people are actively trying to figure it out. If ignorance was truly bliss, why would anyone even be interested in trying to find out?
All we’re really saying is let’s not jump to conclusions. That we’re not impressed by mere, untestable assertions. “God made it” is an untestable assertion. If God really did make it, then you’re going to have to come up with some way of verifying that to be the case. And if you do, and if it’s verified, then I’m going to believe it. But until that happens, I don’t know what the answer is. Not because this somehow is a blissful state to me that I want to preserve, I want to know as much as anyone. As much as you do. I’m just not as gullible, or as satisfied by untestable placeholder answers with zero explanatory power, as you gentlemen appear to be.
Sorry, my standards are just higher than “somebody said so”. I like the motto of the Royal Society. “Nullius in verba” – Take nobody’s word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba.
Just for the record, I don’t think any comprehensive metaphysical system — whether naturalism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc — can be tested and verified in the same way that specific scientific theories can be.
The idea that claims about the existence and nature of God can be tested in the same way that claims about chemicals and climates are is just one big category mistake.
Science and metaphysics are different.
Arguably one’s metaphysics should be constrained by science (and I would make that argument!), but it takes a philosophical argument to show that one’s metaphysics ought to be constrained by the best available science (and also that metaphysics should be revised as scientific theories are revised or rejected).
But things are otherwise with ID, because ID does purport to be a scientific theory. That’s the whole point.
The conflict between ID and evolutionary theory is about what can be empirically verified according to our best available scientific procedures and techniques.
And that makes it quite different from the conflict between naturalism and theism (or any other comprehensive metaphysical systems), which is not as tightly constrained as theory choice in the sciences.
It’s just sheer confusion to conflate the empirical question (ID vs evolutionary theory vs.all the other alternatives) and the metaphysical question (theism vs naturalism vs. all the other alternatives).
“it just happened’ is pure sophistry…trying to side-step a direct observation…that direct observation being the knowledge that we as an organism, embedded in nature are capable of design, and we can map all elements of our design capability to what happens in human bodies, therefore coming to the rational conclusion that the human body was also designed, albeit with superior design skills,
The fruit of this observation is: “it was designed. Great! Let’s see if we can find more hidden gems of design which we humans can copy to enhance healing skills, communication networks, transportation networks, industrial organization, etc.
…a practical, useful endeavor based on the rational conclusion of design.
The irony of it all is that NGR (no gods required) marketers are the ones hawking an irrational viewpoint masked with scientific MOAB drops.
I’d like to meet the jackass “Designer” who took a horizontally evolved spine and stood it on end so the weight crushes and ruptures the disks. I’d kick him right in his Unintelligently Designed nutsack.
Adapa,
Supposed Bad Design= proof of evolution.
Good Design=proof of evolution.
phoodoo,
Actually, no, that’s your claim. Everything is designed, good or bad. Parasites that blind children – designed. Pretty butterflies – designed.
Except that nothing like that has even happened.
You say “more” but as I note, nothing like that has ever happened. So can you support your claim? What was determined to be designed and how did copying that enhance any of those things?
For your claim to have weight you need to support it.
Said the guy sitting in front of a computer, rather then quill and paper. As I said, the modern world owes literally nothing to “find a designed thing, copy it.”
If it did you’d have named it already.
Than what do you tell the people who have chosen the materialist answer-they are irrational?
You seem very emotional about the subject, I guess it gives you comfort to believe your version.
Well, then please tell, which is evidence for evolution, good design or bad design?
Don’t be so shy.
That doesn’t follow, Phoodoo. Try paying attention to context.
…says the angry creationist.
Aww, but Phoodoo, if it’s any consolation, your wacky comments give me a lot of comfort!
One of the many concerns that I have with this logic is the analogy that I’ve been given many times for recognition of design, that of being able to tell the difference between a stone wall and a pile of rocks.
One clue is that people build stone walls. It’s really the best clue.
Without that kind of clue there are many objects in nature that are indeterminate.
Any examples of ways in which scientific discoveries should/can constrain metaphysical arguments? Perhaps with the advancement in our understanding of subatomic particles?
I’m sure that I have been guilty of this conflation occasionally, but I presume that it has more often been apparent than actual. The fact that most scientists of my acquaintance simply don’t seem to have an opinion about ultimate causation seems to invite the inference of theists that we are ignoring God or appealing to an infinite regress.
I understand the analogy as such. What is more problematic for me is that, assuming an all-powerful Creator, the sequence of base pairs in the human genome and the particular arrangement of the pile of rocks from an eroding glacial boulder next to my house are both products of his creative work. Anything in nature not tampered with by other intelligent agents should, by that logic, be indicative of God’s design and purpose.
phoodoo,
Neither. There is only the appearance of design, so there cannot be good or bad designs.
We could create an artificial metric and rate things against it. For example, tigers are “badly designed” for flying. Otters are “badly designed” for taking down antelope. Most eyes are “badly designed” as they has a layer in front of the light sensitive cells that is behind it in a few eyes.
We may also have a separate set of thoughts about the effects of those “designs”, such as the worms that blind children (that to you are an integral part of your deity’s plan) or the troubles that plague our knees and backs, but those are not scientific claims.
It is you that is the shy one. What religion are you and what are its precepts? How do you know what the plan is? Why is a plan you know nothing about better then no plan at all? Would you worship Satan just because it made your universe? etc etc. Coward.
Glen Davidson posted a link to the DI’s reverence of the Antikythera Mechanism. The DI insists that it’s a great example of what ID is all about: an unknown object that looks designed. It’s actually William Paley’s scenario in actuality!
Sadly, it’s EXACTLY William Paley’s watch analogy! A clearly mechanical device of unknown unknown use and origin lying in the sand. Clearly it was a designed device, indicating that it had a designer (and a waay intelligent one to boot!)
But the catch is that everyone who saw it when it was first discovered knew from the get-go that it was man-made. Was it amazing? Sure! It displayed manufacturing techniques that most thought weren’t around when it was likely made. And after studying it for a bit and modeling it, it displays AMAZING astronomical modeling accuracy. But, it’s not like the scientists investigating it ever applied any ID principles to figure out it was intelligently designed. No one calculated its CSI or anything like that. No one had to.
One of the big problems with ID is that no one actually needs it. The concept itself is of no value.
The only reason that analogies to human design make sense to use is because we know how humans design (and build) things. We have no clue, and more importantly no way to honestly imagine, how any other intelligence might go about designing, let alone building things. So seeing design in nature because it is analogous to human design just makes no sense logically, but is also inherently dishonest.
Fundamental physics has quite deep and interesting problems of its own. Unfortunately I don’t have the mathematical background to understand fundamental physics. The only book on the metaphysics of physics that I’ve read recently was quite difficult for me to grasp.
However, I do have sufficient grasp of neuroscience and cognitive psychology for me to be quite interested in the implications of cognitive science for metaphysics.
In particular I am interested in how one can use cognitive science to re-imagine Kant’s criticism of metaphysics.
To put it crudely: if our experience of the world (“phenomena”) is constructed by our brains, a sort of super-intense hallucination, and that hallucination is constantly updated by causal information just to the extent that we can skillfully navigate the various affordances and solicitations that are relevant to satisfying our biological (however symbolically and culturally mediated) goals, then what happens to the very idea of reality (“noumena”)? But if all we know of the noumena is that we must be able to think of them as existing, then what happens to our view of science? And then, what happens to our view of neuroscience? And, what happens to the neuroscientific of the Kantian critique of metaphysics? If science were to be understood instrumentally or even as kind of fiction, then how would it be distinguished from other fictions? Clearly not on epistemic grounds — but if non-epistemic, then what? But if science would be understood on realistic grounds, then we would need some way of overcoming Kant and saying that we can know the noumena, despite Kantian strictures.
(Nietzsche takes the first option; Sellars takes the second.)
I have trouble grasping with the concept of “ultimate causation” myself. Insofar as it’s not a concept that plays an important role in any scientific theories, I’m not sure why the scientific metaphysics needs to use it. Would be simply because previous millennia of metaphysicians have thought about “ultimate causation”? So that the significance of this concept is due to — what? tradition? custom? habit?
I’m struggling with Graduate Level Quantum Mechanics, so I’m probably worse off in the mathematics department than you are. Could you refer me to the book you mentioned? I have virtually no metaphysics and I’ve always thought of it as a sort of philosophical set of boundary conditions. For example, it has always seemed to me that each new level of subatomic particles is hailed as ‘THE FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCKS OF MATTER’ until the next set is discovered. Any comments on the origin of the Big Bang will likely move in a similar manner if anything of the Multiverse can be reasonably deduced.
My comment about the issue of apparent design was meant to hit on this, but I think I missed the mark. The argument of a ‘fine-tuned’ universe has always been my favorite example of where this conflation is most obviously flawed. If our universe is all that there is, then the likelihood of an intelligence hitting on the nearly perfect set of fundamental values required for us to exist is unimaginably low. However, if that intelligence is also the entity which set the fundamental values, the feat becomes much less impressive. The problem appears to me to be a conflation of a metaphysical argument (God set the values) with a scientific-ish argument (God tuned the universe to the perfect set of values which were already in existence). The idea of a God who also responds to intercessory prayer adds another irreconcilable twist, but that is beside the point.
It is possible that scientific metaphysicists are conditioned to use it by the fact that the first criticism by theists (in my personal experience anyway) is usually an appeal to an ultimate cause.
How vs why!
Why is not a question that science can answer. 🙂
I barely passed Calculus I and stopped there, though I did have to pick up a little bit of number theory in my logic classes in grad school.
The book was called Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. I thought the first chapter was quite excellent but then it gets into trouble. I’m afraid that it’s written for academic philosophers; one won’t understand it if one isn’t familiar with philosophers of science like Bas van Fraassen, Hilary Putnam, and Daniel Dennett.
Here’s what’s interesting about their approach, though: they think that scientific metaphysics involves looking closely at the metaphysical assumptions and implications of fundamental physics, as well as the relation between fundamental physics and the other sciences.
They define fundamental physics in purely formal terms: a hypothesis belongs to fundamental physics if any measurement taken anywhere in the history of the universe could confirm or disconfirm that hypothesis. That’s why general relativity and quantum mechanics belong to fundamental physics — because any measurement taken anywhere in the 13.5 billion year history of the universe could confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis derived from the principles of those theories.
Where things get weird is that they end up defending a view that’s called structual realism, according to which what’s really real is not any kind of “stuff” or “things” but structures. I will confess that I find this claim utterly baffling, no doubt due to my meager capacity for conceptualizing abstract objects.
I agree that there’s an important distinction between scientific and metaphysical questions or problems, but I’m not enthused about the idea that it’s sufficient to indicate that distinction by using the words ‘how’ and ‘why’ as you suggest. There are plenty of cases where scientific problems can be usefully indicated with ‘why’ questions, and conversely plenty of cases where metaphysics can get off the ground with ‘how’ questions.