John McLatchie, a celebrity ID-ist according to TSZ, and Alex O’Connor had a debate titled “Theism vs. Naturalism: Which is a Better Account of Reality?”
The actual debate starts at 14:08 with John McLatchie’s opening statement.
McLatchie’s “Evidence for Theism”:
- The Universe had a beginning.
- The fine-tuning of the laws of physics.
- The evidence of biological design.
- The evidence for the truth of Christianity.
McLatchie focuses on biological design in his opening statement first, and second on some scattered remarks on Christianity apparently from some Anglo-American evangelical angle.
This is boring because the title of the debate is “Theism vs. Naturalism” and none of McLatchie’s points are on theism. His first two points are cosmology, the third is biology and the fourth is Christianity. Evangelical Christianity is just one parochial/provincial form of theism, whereas McLatchie seems to care most about ID-ism which does not properly qualify as any sort of theism, even though McLatchie presents it as if it did.
ID-ism – as in McLatchie’s third point, evidence of biological design – is an argument about the nature of biology. The argument has no direct implications on theology, which is why it does not qualify as a theistic argument. Yes, biological organisms and their functions appear designed because they are complicated and purposeful, but this might mean that the designer is even more complicated, so who designed the designer? Richard Dawkins would agree that biology has hallmarks of design all over, but posits that the design is fundamentally derived from non-design. That’s how little connection biological design has to theism.
(As an aside, I recall that according to its advocates ID-ism was supposed to be sheer science, nothing sneakily religious or theological. The truth of course is that ID-ism was always meant as a sneaky way to get God into school textbooks and this is now – openly in a non-sneaky way – manifest in McLatchie’s presentation.)
The topic of theism requires properly a philosophical or theological approach, so luckily we have Alex O’Connor, a student of theology, who starts his opening statement at 34:25.
O’Connor’s first point against theism: “The inescapable God” (Psalm 139) is not a universal experience.
According to O’Connor, naturalism (atheism) would be a better explanation given:
- Hiddenness of God
- Geographical statistical arrangement of religious belief
- Problem of gratuitous suffering
I find the first point the strongest against theism. When a sincere seeker is not rewarded with results, it is a bummer for sure. However, there is a solution to it that O’Connor does not consider. Namely, some self-reflection is in order after a failed quest. You may think you are truly perfect and God should accept you as such, but are you really and should he really? In principle, God doesn’t have to obey your criteria or play according to your rules. Or, if you really are absolutely fabulous and wonderful, then there may be a better God in store for you instead of the geographical statistical average as per your local whereabouts.
O’Connor should really consider some self-reflection along those lines, because philosophy and theology are rather sophisticated pursuits, particularly when your intellectual level is above the average Joe. As for average Joes, O’Connors first two points weigh equally against atheism as against theism: Most interesting science and thoroughly matured atheism are as inscrutable for common folks as philosophically consistent theism and theology are. And you find more atheists in certain places and not in others, if that’s supposed to mean anything.
I leave O’Connor’s third point, the problem of suffering, be. In my opinion, the theists for whom the problem of suffering poses a problem are actually doubters, not believers. For me, the problem of suffering never was any sort of problem. But supposing that suffering is a problem, atheism doesn’t solve it. Atheism only asserts that gratuitous suffering is okay, “natural”. Which far from solves it.
In summary, the debate was more on topic by O’Connor, because his approach was properly philosophical. McLatchie’s ID-ism, as ID-ism in general, is basically off topic when it comes to theism. However, on this website ID-ism is very much the topic, so discuss.
So now your god does physics? I always laugh at how you god-bothering preachers always blame atheists, as though lack of belief influenced anything. Nobody here is a “desperate atheist” but some of us know something anyway.
Huh? Why is his statement that the only cause of complex, workable machines is via a designer a relgious statement? It seems like yours is a religious statment by claiming that.
Robin made the claim that we if we stumbled upon the pyramids we could know they were built by humans, because we could see tool marks supposedly. So they only thing we know of using tools is humans, so we should assume its humans right? Because rainstorms don’t make tool marks? Falling meteors don’t make tool marks? Oh, and by the way, meteors and rainstorms and falling rocks don’t make perfectly symmetrical perfectly flat, visually balanced objects, exctly the same on every side, do they? Or shaped like Sphinx’s faces?
One would need to look up really really close, and try to figure out exactly what kind of tools could have made the pyramids, to know they were in fact made, because AS SOON as they walked past them, they wouldn’t be thinking, Huh. I wonder if humans made that? Now would they?
I mean, if we really couldn’t deign design from chaos, we wouldn’t even need to investigate the pyramids further. would we? We would just walk right by them, and say, Gee, those are different looking mountains here, oh, well, better go find water. But that doesn’t happen, does it?
And you think physics is an accident of chaos? Physics has no cause, it just is?
Flint,
So you don’t believe in desperate atheists then either? You think when people write books, make documentaries, joins organizations, have conventions, start blogs, make their entire careers based on their “not belief” in something, they aren’t desperate atheist in need of that “non belief”?
How many other non-beliefs do people spend so much time, energy, and money on? Can you think of any? Any?
This is hilarious! Creationism is blind but materialism is NOT?
LOL!
What a fantastically executed own goal!
Of course human designed artifacts don’t look anything like living organisms precisely because our technology is so inferior.
Life’s design is akin to magic precisely because the skill required to build life is beyond our comprehension.
ToE has been materialism’s attempt to falsify design. Likewise emergence. To date, neither has succeeded in debunking the design of life precisely because the soft and hardware engineering of life outclasses human capability by light years.
Own goal indeed!
My statement IS an observation, contrary to what you say.
Watch …
1. I OBSERVE within Human Technology that we have many systems which consist of multitudes of machines working together as coordinated wholes.
2. I OBSERVE within Nature that we have the same thing — multitudes of machines working together as coordinated wholes.
3. I OBSERVE within the first domain that these machines and the coordinated wholes that they form only come from INTELLIGENCE. Intelligence is always involved and is never not involved.
4. I INFER that maybe these Natural machines / wholes might also only come from INTELLIGENCE.
So there’s mostly observation going on and a little bit of inference at the end.
I like how you have begun to preface your comments with a description of what is to follow. This is a splendid initiative!
*snicker*
You may want to go back a little and read KN’s comment. It seems quite relevant here:
I don’t find this argument persuasive or meaningful in the least. It is the opposite of what you think it is. Essentially what it is sayng is that “Ok, sure we have no real idea how, but never mind that, we just know it can’ be designed, even if life is precise, even if life is supremley complicated, even if it is coherent and logical and way more sophisticated than anything any human could ever create, forget that. Its can’t be designed…please say so…”
If that is not desperate atheism, then its desperate teleology hiding in plain site.
What it is saying is that the original argument, that there is an analogy with human design, is flawed: the organisation of living organisms is clearly different from what we humans have designed. You (and many others) try to salvage the analogy by invoking the superior skills of our mystery Designer (I wonder who it could be?). You somehow fail to notice how this weakens the original argument. To my ears, it sounds like: “Organisms are so different from manmade contrivances, they must be designed”. If the mystery Designer is, let’s say, omnipotent then there is absolutely no reason to suppose that organisms should resemble manmade artifacts. After all, we are dealing with someone who does not have to bother with manufacture.
Now, the Watchmaker analogy was a decent argument in 1802, when natural theology was still a respectable branch of natural philosophy. However, since 1859 there is an alternative explanation for the fact that life is “supremely complicated, coherent and logical and way more sophisticated than anything any human could ever create”. Like it or not, this alternative won out. If you want to turn back time, you need to demonstrate how Design is a better explanation for the existence of (complex) adaptations. As it now stands, your compatriots have denied that there are differences between organisms and machines, that adaptations exist and that there exists an alternative explanation to Design. These are denials of facts that even 19th century creationists had no issue accepting. Not very persuasive.
It’s 2022 dude. Even the catholic church has issued a statement that evolution is not inconsistent with the notion of creation. Time to let this weird animosity towards atheists go. Peace!
What it is not, though, is a remotely accurate description of the position you are opposing. Your straw men ought to at least resemble men in some way.
I am perplexed at how anyone can even call this argument at all. “Well, humans don’t design humans, so…” What the hell kind of nonsense is that? That negates design? Huh? Whether they are different or alike is a totally meaningless point. They are all the shape of and function of designed things.
I mean, you might as well say, I saw something that looked like a painting on a wall. But it was made from bananas and horsehair. I don’t think humans paint with bananas and horsehair, so, its unlikely a human did it. And besides it was a painting of a tadpole-who paints tadpoles!
I almost feel as this argument, that humans design different than a God designs life is just some kind of joke. No one would really make this dumb of a claim of refutation would they? Humans use fiberglass for wings not feathers, so..how can it be designed!
Are you serious?
Why would I want to make an argument against Design? Intelligent Design is supposed to be a scientific argument, so the burden of proof lies with you. “It all looks Designed to me” doesn’t quite cut it for me. Sorry.
Are they now? In what way? They all consist of multiple interdependent parts? They all have properties that appear to further some goal (i.e. surviving and reproducing)? Are you sure there is no alternative explanation for those superficial similarities?
I am sure I am not the first to tell you these things.
Nobody denies that an omnipotent deity can “design” living beings. The issue is whether this is the best scientific explanation for the existence of adaptations and biodiversity, given what we know about organismal structure and natural history from diverse disciplines like genetics, physiology, ecology, paleontology, etc. The current consensus says no.
You are still free to believe that God created all life, but you would do me a huge favor if you just relied on faith, just like non-creationists and stop insinuating that evolutionary biology is some devious atheist conspiracy.
I was going to respond to this in full, but Corneel already hit all the points I was going to make with distinct flair! Own goal indeed! LOL!
This was the best though:
Hahahaha!
If this and HMGuy’s claim that nature’s design process is way beyond our imagination, then clearly there is no rational or valid way to infer any kind of similarity or relationship between the two.
2 above is not an observation. It’s merely your assumption. And thus far, it is not a well-grounded assumption as it is based (as has been shown) on fallacious thinking
Ha, at least you are keeping some humor in the conversation.
Certainly 😀
Robin,
Nature doesn’t have multitudes of machines working together as coordinated wholes? What?
Not as far as I can tell. Certainly not by definition:
ma·chine
[məˈSHēn]
NOUN
an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task:
“a fax machine” · [more]
synonyms:
apparatus · appliance · instrument · tool · utensil · device · unit · contraption · contrivance · gadget · mechanism · engine · motor · lever · pulley
Agreed.
“I OBSERVE within Nature that we have the same thing — multitudes of machines working together as coordinated wholes.”
The point I was trying to make earlier is this: perceptual consciousness is a process guided by the contribution of sensory input (on the one hand) and background beliefs, memories, and expectations on the other.* There are plenty of biologists and engineers — some on this very website! — who do not observe biological systems as containing “multitudes of machines”.
And I’ve frequently quoted Talbott (among quite a few others) as bio-philosophers who think that mechanistic thinking has severely distorted our understanding of what life is.
Notice that it would be disaster to allege that the reason why we don’t observe life in mechanistic terms is because of our atheism — since the Official Story of intelligent design is that ID is committed to agnosticism, since ID doesn’t entail anything about the identity of the designer.
If ID is committed to agnosticism and perfectly compatible with atheism, then it surely cannot be atheism which prevents one from seeing biological systems as multitudes of machines working in concert.
(BTW, not that it matters, but I’m not an atheist. Haven’t been for a few years now. I haven’t mentioned it at TSZ for the same reason I don’t talk about my politics: because it’s not relevant to what we talk about here.)
* Quoting from paragraphs 25 and 26 of The Role of Imagination in Kant’s Theory of Experience by Wilfrid Sellars.
Robin, you are not in a coma right?
I am just asking, because that seems the only way one could think that doesn’t exist in nature.
Good grief, Phoodoo…
Not a single living organism on this planet (or likely any other planet for that matter) operates via mechanical power.
The things found in nature are called “organisms”, phoodoo, not machines.
The only people who call them machines are creationists who are trying to smuggle a designer into the discussion.
And why use the term “nature” if it is all designed?
Historically speaking, this is not quite correct.
But in terms of contemporary discussions, pretty much.
Oh, I see, you mean like…horsepower.
If only we had enough spare horse parts, we could probably keep the damn things running a lot longer.
Huh? Is there a point there?
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Mechanical_horsepower
Horsepower (hp) is a unit of measurement of power, or the rate at which work is done, usually in reference to the output of engines or motors. There are many different standards and types of horsepower. Two common definitions used today are the mechanical horsepower (or imperial horsepower), which is about 745.7 watts and the metric horsepower, which is approximately 735.5 watts.
The term was adopted in the late 18th century by Scottish engineer James Watt to compare the output of steam engines with the power of draft horses. It was later expanded to include the output power of other types of piston engines, as well as turbines, electric motors and other machinery.[1][2] The definition of the unit varied among geographical regions. Most countries now use the SI unit watt for measurement of power. With the implementation of the EU Directive 80/181/EEC on 1 January 2010, the use of horsepower in the EU is permitted only as a supplementary unit.[3]
Your attempted point was what exactly?
Yes, and it’s not very complicated. Organisms like horses proved inferior for our purposes than machines because of the vast difference between the two. Actual horses were more expensive to maintain, more difficult to repair when they broke down, andf couldn’t all be made alike.
I thought your snarky comment was an effort to equate horses with machines because of the word “horsepower”. I went along with this gag, and complained that if horses were machines, they’d be more useful and easier to maintain.
Interestingly, the main difficulties with horses were the huge amounts of manure in the streets and that horses were often overworked to death, leaving a huge carcass that was difficult to move off the street. So one might say that the problems with animal labor came about from treating animals as if they were machines, and ‘de-animalizing’ them in the process (much as treating a human being as a disposable machine is dehumanizing them).
Flint,
What the hell do horses dying have to do with it. They means they don’t use mechanical power, because they die. or as KN brilliantly wants to argue, because horses leave behind manure, so gee, they can’t use mechanical power.
This is so utterly stupid, again I have to assume its a joke.
Robin gives a definition of machines, horses match that definition perfectly, and then you guys argue, yea, but what about the manure, what about parts replacement…
And then you think you should be taken seriously when make other arguments?
KN, is this how philosophy works? No thanks.
Phoodoo, you’re just wrong. Horses do not meet the definition of machines. They do not operate on mechanical power. They operate on metabolism and ADP -> ATP conversion.
Here’s what mechanical power is:
and
Mechanical power
You’re grasping at absurd straws…
I have to wonder what the world looks like to someone whose only skill is to deliberately and flagrantly misrepresent what everyone else is saying. In all the time I’ve been reading here, phoodoo has never once actually addressed what anyone else meant. I’d find mocking what others never said to get tiresome after a while…
I am having this deja vu.
Why do you keep playing this pointless game? If you would somehow succeed in us accepting your bizarre private definition of “machine” that includes organisms, then the result would be that you have succesfully collapsed the design argument from analogy. Under your definition, we can no longer claim that all machines are known to have a designer. What you would achieve is that you establish as a scientific fact that machines can arise spontaneously and evolve.
ETA: clarity
Corneel,
Perhaps you can explain why living things don’t use mechanical power-since Robin can’t seem to. What about the defintion of mechanical power negates living things? Because they produce manure? Where does the defintion state that?
We are still waiting for you to prove that part. Been waiting quite a while frankly.
Flint,
Manure.
Don’t you go pulling a Nonlin on me: Creationists that pretend to have trouble distinguishing living organisms from man-made artifacts end up looking very silly. I know you can tell the difference just fine and that deserves as much attention as the similarities do.
Corneel,
I also can tell the difference between a leaf blower and a blender. That means they aren’t both machines?
Robin failed showing why living things don’t use mechanical power. I will include you as also being unable to do so.
I am fine with leaf blowers and blenders being both machines. Just don’t try to make smoothies in a leaf blower while insisting that the definition of blender does not exclude leaf blowers.
Wow, your argument is getting worse and worse.
recap: Why don’t living things use mechanical power?
Actually, I successfully demonstrated that living organisms are not evaluated in terms of mechanical power. James Watt invented the measure of horsepower to try to relate to people unfamiliar with machines how they metaphorically compared to horses. And, specifically draft horses. But no one in the horse world measures horse activity using horsepower. I know…my wife rides competitively. You’re simply being obtuse, Phoodoo.
But hey…feel free to show how HP is used to quantify the performance of quarterbacks in the NFL or pitchers in MLB. Nothing? Can’t imagine why. Or what about the HP rating of sharks as an indicator of their swimming performance or prey capturing capability? Still nothing? Odd that…
But no matter…
Here, from Merriam-Webster:
ma·chine | \ mə-ˈshēn
\
plural machines
Definition of machine
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a : a mechanically, electrically, or electronically operated device for performing a task
an espresso machine
The store sold treadmills and other exercise machines.
… manufactures machines for the processing and packaging of pharmaceuticals …— Rosie Fitzmaurice
b : conveyance, vehicle especially : automobile
Throughout the auto industry, the move is toward bigger engines and seductive ad campaigns pitched at motorists who yearn for the thrill of driving a mean machine. — David Pauly et al.
c : a coin-operated device
a snack machine
d(1) : an assemblage (see assemblage sense 1) of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a predetermined manner
(2) : an instrument (such as a lever) designed to transmit or modify the application of power, force, or motion
e : any of various apparatuses formerly used to produce stage effects
f : computer especially : personal computer
You might think that your files are safe on your Mac and Windows machine. But hard drives are not perfect. Data can become corrupted, and it’s easy to delete the wrong files by mistake. — Andrew Uh
A firm-owned laptop is configured with the security software and applications the user needs to perform their job. Relocating the laptop to the home network preserves the security of the computer, making it safer to use than the typical home machine. — Sharon D. Nelson and John W. Simek
See any examples of living organisms anywhere in the above? No? How odd that Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.
And finally, I particularly like Dr. Nicholson’s take:
https://phys.org/news/2016-01-machines.html
The takeaway:
Dr. Nicholson:
The intrinsic vs. extrinsic purposiveness distinction is meant to encapsulate most (if not all) the major differences between organisms and machines by appealing to what prima facie appears to be their most obvious similarity, namely the fact that they operate towards the attainment of particular ends. However, the key point is that they do so in fundamentally different respects. A machine is extrinsically purposive in the sense that it works/functions towards an end that is external to itself; that is, it does not serve its own interests but those of its maker or user. An organism, on the other hand, is intrinsically purposive in the sense that its activities are directed towards the maintenance of its own organization; that is, it acts on its own behalf.
I get that you hold the opinion that there is no difference between man-made machines and living organisms, but it does not appear that your opinion is based on anything credible or valid and it does not appear folks who actually work in the world of machines and living organisms agree with your assessment.
Robin,
Thanks for that interview with Nicholson! I’ve read a few of his papers and he’s definitely been a major influence on why I think that machine conception of organisms has been a disaster. (And though Nicholson doesn’t really go into it, the argument from design requires the machine conception of organisms — because without that conception, the whole analogy collapses.)
At the same time, vitalism has its own checkered and problematic history. The tools needed for overcoming the deadlocked mechanism vs vitalism debate are rather new, and mostly come from systems theory and complexity theory.
You’re welcome! I’m not that familiar with much of Dr. Nicholson’s writings, but I’ve read abstracts from two of his papers. He sounds like a knowledgeable person.
I’m not sure what you are referring to here. I read through the interview and didn’t see anything specifically on vitalism. Maybe I’m missing something or some historic context.
That said, I agree. I’ve read some of the history of vitalism and am aware of some of the criticisms and issues associated with the concept. If I’m not mistaken, vitalism is the reason we have organic vs inorganic chemistry, which personally I find silly at this point. But whatever…
Robin,
Sorry, sometimes I think faster than I type — I wasn’t alluding to any vitalism in the interview with Nicholson — only that there’s historical context in which critics of mechanism tended to veer off to the opposite extreme. I’ve been reading about the history of vitalism and organicism in the philosophy of biology — really quite fascinating stuff!
Man, why didn’t you say so earlier! You wife rides horses, no wonder!
Tough one.
Ahem…
Maybe Dr. Nicholson can help you.
Robin,
I didn’t see any examples of blenders in a single one of your copy pastes. Blenders aren’t machines, I’ll be darn.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_power
Your attempt at equivocation is duly noted.
You are amusingly obtuse, Phoodoo. Funny how you could find a HP conversion for a bicyclist, but couldn’t be bothered to note the HP and/or torque of a blender. Were you remotely trying to make a reasonable or credible point?
Robin,
Yes, but I don’t really expect you to get it, since you can’t even understand why humans use mechanical power.
You also apparently can’t understand why, just because a blender isn’t used as one of the examples of a machine, its still a machine. Ditto for living organisms. They are living machines. They satisfy the defintions of machines, and frankly its fucking stupid that anyone would even try to make some dumb argument that well, no they are not really machines, because they die, or because they leave behind manure, or because its hard to replace human body parts..
The stupidity of these attempts at denying the obvious is so ridiculous. They are machines, cells are machines, flagellums are machines, ..sorry its hurts your worldview so much.
If organisms are machines, then what is a robot?