To the Anti-Religious

[Vile Atheist]

And I'm trying to make my posts more concise, Dune, so that they don't grow exponentially. So here goes:

It's possible for one's cognitive establishment to fail to function properly. Thus, for instance, Christians would say that sin interferes with humanity's knowledge of and attitude toward God. Or perhaps they are functioning just fine but are in a situation for which they weren't designed.

Thing is, humans weren't designed. We know this through evolution.

"God is magnificently powerful and loving"

I'm going to assume you mean "all-powerful" and "all-loving".

If God is all-powerful, then the "all-loving" trait is incompatible because that would restrict God to loving actions. Thus God cannot be all-powerful.

If God is all-loving, God can only act in a loving way (or else we couldn't say God is all-loving), and so God is restricted in his actions. Either God is all-powerful or all-loving, but cannot be both.

No. Indeed, most evidentiary beliefs are weaker than basic ones because they have complex chains of reasoning and metaphysical assumption they must appeal to. Each leg of the argument is only probabilistic, so the more complex the argument, the weaker the whole case becomes.

I get what you are saying. However, some evidence is still better than no evidence at all, regardless of the probability of that claim. I don't know. Maybe I'm just seeing things different than you. But I think evidence is pretty important for determining the truth of a claim. I don't think any claim should be able to slip the ropes of the burden of proof.

Not exactly. I'm talking about the belief I formed at the moment of typing, "There's a computer in front of me." Now perhaps all sorts of experience is required for me to even coherently form this belief. (I need to know what a computer is, how it differs from a TV, and so on.) But given that I have the necessary concepts, my belief that there is a computer in front of me is not based on any evidence whatsoever. Sure, I might have beliefs about what we can do with computers or that we can build them and so forth. But those beliefs play exactly no role in the formation of my belief that there is a computer in front of me right now. None. Not even theoretically. Not by any stretch of logic. Not at all. In no way....

...Why wouldn't they? Those facts are evidence-based. And your experience with those concepts verify them.

 

[Dunemeister]

Thing is, humans weren't designed. We know this through evolution.

Evolution is compatible with design. And if our cognitive faculties weren't designed to obtain true beliefs, we have no particular reason to take any of our beliefs as true, which gives us an extremely powerful argument for global skepticism. Weird.

I'm going to assume you mean "all-powerful" and "all-loving".

If God is all-powerful, then the "all-loving" trait is incompatible because that would restrict God to loving actions. Thus God cannot be all-powerful.

If God is all-loving, God can only act in a loving way (or else we couldn't say God is all-loving), and so God is restricted in his actions. Either God is all-powerful or all-loving, but cannot be both.

This is an interesting, but not altogether coherent way of taking that line. But in any case, the success of this kind of argument would in fact pose a problem for the believer. However, as I said earlier, the strength of these arguments is at best inconclusive. For the believer may simply adjust what he means by "all-X" or he might point out that you're using the terms incorrectly or that they don't apply to God in the way you're using them or whatever. So these arguments aren't really decisive.

I get what you are saying. However, some evidence is still better than no evidence at all, regardless of the probability of that claim. I don't know. Maybe I'm just seeing things different than you. But I think evidence is pretty important for determining the truth of a claim. I don't think any claim should be able to slip the ropes of the burden of proof.

It depends on the claim. Some claims require evidence; others don't. The claim that the butler did it requires evidence. The claim that I see a computer in front of me right now doesn't. The difference lies in what way is appropriate in forming the belief. And, as it happens, it's appropriate, in the vast majority of our beliefs, for them to be formed without evidence. Our cognitive faculties do what they do, and if they're working as they were designed, they furnish us with (mostly) true beliefs.

...Why wouldn't they? Those facts are evidence-based. And your experience with those concepts verify them.

Experience-based, yes. Evidence-based, no. You are still conflating those concepts. To be evidence, a proposition must figure in some sort of argument. But I don't argue from my perception to the truth of my perceptual belief. I don't argue from my memory to the truth of the memory belief. Those beliefs just arise by way of experience. But since those experiences aren't premises in an argument (even implicitly), they aren't evidence.

 

[themadhair]

[size=+5]Absolutely everything, from random processes to mouse farts,[/size] is compatible with design [size=+5]because no one has ever bothered to offer any reasonable metric for differentiating between design and non-design[/size].

Fixed that for you. In case you hadn’t noticed, I think hiding behind the vagueness of the term ‘design’ is rather pointless despite being all the rage these days.

 

[Dunemeister]

Fixed that for you. In case you hadn’t noticed, I think hiding behind the vagueness of the term ‘design’ is rather pointless despite being all the rage these days.

How does the absence of a cogent argument against design constitute my "hiding"? I'm not hiding from anything. I can accept evolutionary theory while still affirming that the universe and life are designed. On that score, evolution is the system. The only thing is that the mutations that occur in nature might not be quite as random as suggested by evolutionary theory; but as far as I can tell, that's not much of a sacrifice. On the other hand, one might well say that the mutations are fully random, but God has still designed those random processes to produce life, culminating in humanity. I don't see why this should cause anyone any ado.

 

[themadhair]

How does the absence of a cogent argument against design constitute my "hiding"? I'm not hiding from anything. I can accept evolutionary theory while still affirming that the universe and life are designed. On that score, evolution is the system. The only thing is that the mutations that occur in nature might not be quite as random as suggested by evolutionary theory; but as far as I can tell, that's not much of a sacrifice. On the other hand, one might well say that the mutations are fully random, but God has still designed those random processes to produce life, culminating in humanity. I don't see why this should cause anyone any ado.

Note how the term 'design' is still too vague to be useful for anything other than hiding against. Basically the word 'design' has become a buzzword that people reach for when they don't have an argument.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I agree with themadhair. We should define "design" before we decide what is and what isn't designed. Just as we have differing definitions of rationality, we just might have different definitions of design.

I define it as "Intended conception for a specific purpose."

Evolution is compatible with design. And if our cognitive faculties weren't designed to obtain true beliefs, we have no particular reason to take any of our beliefs as true, which gives us an extremely powerful argument for global skepticism. Weird.

Evolution is not compatible with (my definiton of) design because evolution is "blind". It's random genetic mutations in an organism either increasing or decreasing its chances of survival or ability to reproduce. If there is a decrease in either, the organism likely dies (and the mutation with it). If there is an increase in either, the organism passes on those traits to its offspring and the trait enhances the survivability/ability to reproduce of more organisms in the population as generations pass. There is no design because the genetic mutation that causes it is random. Furthermore, traits are "selected" not by a divine hand, but by environmental pressures.

If you say something along the lines of "God started evolution", then you have to deny that genetic mutation is random if God's purpose was to create humans. And you would have no evidential basis for claiming that genetic mutation is not random.

This is an interesting, but not altogether coherent way of taking that line. But in any case, the success of this kind of argument would in fact pose a problem for the believer. However, as I said earlier, the strength of these arguments is at best inconclusive. For the believer may simply adjust what he means by "all-X" or he might point out that you're using the terms incorrectly or that they don't apply to God in the way you're using them or whatever. So these arguments aren't really decisive.

Do you not see this is a classic example of moving the goalposts?

Theist of a particular religion introduces a specific argument. Someone else debunks it. So, they use ad hoc reasoning to salvage the argument with no evidential basis. And so the person attempting to debunk can never really win because the goalposts just keep moving.

Experience-based, yes. Evidence-based, no. You are still conflating those concepts. To be evidence, a proposition must figure in some sort of argument. But I don't argue from my perception to the truth of my perceptual belief. I don't argue from my memory to the truth of the memory belief. Those beliefs just arise by way of experience. But since those experiences aren't premises in an argument (even implicitly), they aren't evidence.

Experience is connected to evidence. For example, when looking for evidence for evolution, someone may see a series of fossils exhibiting gradual changes. Seeing that gradual change is an experience. The experience - more importantly, the objective experience - shows any unbiased observer that organisms do exhibit gradual changes over time. They aren't exactly the same thing. But they certainly overlap.

It depends on the claim. Some claims require evidence; others don't. The claim that the butler did it requires evidence. The claim that I see a computer in front of me right now doesn't. The difference lies in what way is appropriate in forming the belief. And, as it happens, it's appropriate, in the vast majority of our beliefs, for them to be formed without evidence. Our cognitive faculties do what they do, and if they're working as they were designed, they furnish us with (mostly) true beliefs.

That last line seems really weird to me, regarding your argument for design. If God is perfect, He certainly would have given us flawless cognitive faculties, would He not? If humans are imperfect in any way, shape, or form, it is God's own doing if you are to use the argument for design. Why would God design us imperfectly and then seek to punish us for the results of the imperfections?

 

[Dunemeister]

Note how the term 'design' is still too vague to be useful for anything other than hiding against. Basically the word 'design' has become a buzzword that people reach for when they don't have an argument.

Of course I don't have an argument. I'm not even making an argument. But as I've been saying all along, not having an argument, in itself, is nothing against my view. I START from the premise that the universe is designed. I don't reason from anything whatsoever to the conclusion that the universe is designed. I just find the proposition utterly convincing.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Of course I don't have an argument. I'm not even making an argument. But as I've been saying all along, not having an argument, in itself, is nothing against my view. I START from the premise that the universe is designed. I don't reason from anything whatsoever to the conclusion that the universe is designed. I just find the proposition utterly convincing.

So if you were presented empirical evidence the universe was designed, you would abandon your view of God? Am I reading that correctly?

 

[Dunemeister]

I agree with themadhair. We should define "design" before we decide what is and what isn't designed. Just as we have differing definitions of rationality, we just might have different definitions of design.

I define it as "Intended conception for a specific purpose."

I can go for that.

Evolution is not compatible with (my definiton of) design because evolution is "blind".

It's only blind if you define it that way. Why define it ahead of time as blind? It may be the case that the mutations are in fact ordered and we have yet to figure out any system of ordering. Or if the mutations are the result of divine decision, there's no particular reason for us to think that we will ever know or understand the reason for this one rather than that one. Or perhaps there is a physical reason built into the system but the system is yet so complex we haven't figured it out yet. Or.... In any case, it seems cheap to simply define a problem into (or out of) existence.

Furthermore, traits are "selected" not by a divine hand, but by environmental pressures.

And these pressures, on my view, are designed into the system by God. Again, I just don't see why there NEEDS to be a problem here. Whether we view evolution as directed by God or as a random process that, for reasons beyond our ken, fulfill God's purposes, it seems that the scientists are in the same position. They have the same problems to solve and the same resources. What's all the fuss?

If you say something along the lines of "God started evolution", then you have to deny that genetic mutation is random if God's purpose was to create humans. And you would have no evidential basis for claiming that genetic mutation is not random.

You're right about the latter claim but not the former. I can still hold that mutation is random yet fulfills God's purposes (even where that purpose might include the creation of human beings). I don't see why that's not possible. But as I've said, I have no evidential basis for saying that genetic mutation is not random. But it may be that the word "random" suffers from the same defect as "design". It's just so darned vague. How do I know the mutations are truly random? Well, presumably they don't follow a discernible pattern. But why consider THAT a case of randomness? Perhaps there's a pattern that is so utterly complex that it is beyond our (present?) ability to discern. Ah, vagueness! It infects us all! Maybe themadhair can fix this one, too.

Do you not see this is a classic example of moving the goalposts?

Theist of a particular religion introduces a specific argument. Someone else debunks it. So, they use ad hoc reasoning to salvage the argument with no evidential basis. And so the person attempting to debunk can never really win because the goalposts just keep moving.

No, the problem may be that you are using terms in a way that's different from a traditional (or other) believer. This isn't a case of moving the goalposts but of clarifying the concepts. (Frequently I find that people don't really understand the theology they are attacking.) Since it's a conceptual matter, evidence doesn't figure into it.

Experience is connected to evidence. For example, when looking for evidence for evolution, someone may see a series of fossils exhibiting gradual changes. Seeing that gradual change is an experience. The experience - more importantly, the objective experience - shows any unbiased observer that organisms do exhibit gradual changes over time. They aren't exactly the same thing. But they certainly overlap.

Yes, they do. Admittedly there's a deep relationship with them. But they are distinct notions that, for philosophical purposes (at least, OUR philosophical purposes) they mustn't be conflated. But when we are saying such things as "all beliefs require evidence" we are conflating the terms. MOST of our beliefs don't require "evidence." Some, such as E: "the present diversity and distribution of organisms is best explained by the historical operation of mechanisms such as genetic mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift" require evidence. Why? Because such beliefs as E don't arise simply through the normal operation of cognitive faculties (although that is presumed). Something more is required: the piecing together of various strands of data and the formation of an argument (or even several arguments).

That last line seems really weird to me, regarding your argument for design. If God is perfect, He certainly would have given us flawless cognitive faculties, would He not?

Why think that? And what would it mean to have "perfect" cognitive faculties? Is the fact that I can't spot a rabbit over a mile away (like an eagle can) mean that my vision isn't "perfect"? Why? And just because I can't do advanced calculus in my brain, does that imply my cognitive faculties aren't perfect? Again, I don't see why. And I don't see why it would be relevant.

If humans are imperfect in any way, shape, or form, it is God's own doing if you are to use the argument for design. Why would God design us imperfectly and then seek to punish us for the results of the imperfections?

He wouldn't. And according to Christian theology, he doesn't.

 

[Dunemeister]

So if you were presented empirical evidence the universe was designed, you would abandon your view of God? Am I reading that correctly?

No, you're not.

 

[Vile Atheist]

No, you're not.

May be because I missed a very important word in there lol.

So if presented with empirical evidence the universe was NOT designed, you would abandon your belief in God?

 

[Smoke]

Evolution is compatible with design.

Actually, it's not. I'd suggest you read Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, by Kenneth R. Miller. I was surprised that Miller, a Roman Catholic, firmly rejected the idea of design. It wouldn't hurt to consider what he has to say. Miller also explains why he doesn't think this has to be a problem for the believer.

 

[Vile Atheist]

It's only blind if you define it that way. Why define it ahead of time as blind? It may be the case that the mutations are in fact ordered and we have yet to figure out any system of ordering. Or if the mutations are the result of divine decision, there's no particular reason for us to think that we will ever know or understand the reason for this one rather than that one. Or perhaps there is a physical reason built into the system but the system is yet so complex we haven't figured it out yet. Or.... In any case, it seems cheap to simply define a problem into (or out of) existence.

Richard Dawkins describes it best in The Blind Watchmaker (a good read, highly recommend). The information stored on DNA is stored in C, T, A, and G (cytosine, thymine, adenine, and guanine, respectively). The language we use is English. 26 letters, 52 upper and lower case characters, plus punctuation. It really doesn't make much of a difference if the system for storing information uses 4 terms or 52+.

Imagine a trillion typists copying the Bible. The first typist is handed the original. The second typist gets the results of the first typist and so on until the trillionth typist finishes. Each typist may make a given number of errors per page. By the time the trillionth typist is done, the original Bible is notably different from the final product of the copying.

DNA does the same thing. It has the property of self-replication. Its aim is to have high copying fidelity, not to intentionally mutate itself because these mutations may or may not be beneficial. In a string of a trillion C, T, A, or G, there may only be a couple different from the original DNA. One may be added, or removed, or substituted with another. The DNA attempts to repair the copying error (just as we would expect the typists to attempt to correct their errors, should they spot them).

By evolution being "blind", I mean that it doesn't have a specific goal in mind. For example, it might not be the case that hundreds of thousands of years from now (if our evolutionary lineage continues) that we grow, say, stronger because we have developed advanced weapons and machinery to fight and do work for us. Thus, we don't need to waste energy on accumulating strength. We perceive more strength to be a positive change. But evolution is concerned with adapting to the environment you live in, not what we perceive to be more beneficial to us.

In the case of advanced machinery, increased strength would not aid or reduce survivability or increase or decrease chance of reproduction. Environmental pressures wouldn't select for strength.

If you make the case that God is in control of the dynamic environment and therefore (indirectly) controls evolution, that's a much stronger case for you than what I've heard some theists -especially Catholics- claim (that God directly controls evolution). And it's certainly an original argument (at least I've never heard anyone make this case before).

I can still hold that mutation is random yet fulfills God's purposes (even where that purpose might include the creation of human beings). I don't see why that's not possible.

Because basically what that says is "God created everything but the arrival of human beings is an accident". There was not any intent to create humans if you maintain that the process was entirely random. Thus humans are accidental. And if you maintain that the process is random, but still fulfills God's purposes, you admit that evolution is not controlled by God and therefore independent of God. You have to admit that if evolution is indeed random, then it fulfilled God's purposes by coincidence and God had/has no control over its development.

The whole "randomness" bit is the rain on the whole parade. Something cannot be random if it is controlled by something else with intent.

He wouldn't. And according to Christian theology, he doesn't.

This is almost the same as the other reply above this one, so I'll respond to both, though I only quote this bit. I really don't want to have to split posts again lol.

Anyways, would you not agree we are imperfect? We sin, do we not? So if God designed us, God must have designed us to sin. If God did not design us to sin, then God's design has a grave flaw in his design.

So it seems a little farfetched for God to "forgive us" for sins that are a result of the flaws in his own design. At least to me. That's what I was getting at. It also indirectly answers that other blurb I didn't quote, the one concerning cognitive faculties.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Actually, it's not. I'd suggest you read Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, by Kenneth R. Miller. I was surprised that Miller, a Roman Catholic, firmly rejected the idea of design. It wouldn't hurt to consider what he has to say. Miller also explains why he doesn't think this has to be a problem for the believer.

Don't be too surprised when it comes to Catholics. Despite their very gruesome history, they accept evolution and big bang which are credits in their favour, even if they attribute them to God. I've been in Catholic schools my entire life (well actually tomorrow is my first day of (secular) university !!!). There was no evolution vs. creationism debate. We were taught the facts of evolution and the big bang.

 

[Smoke]

Don't be too surprised when it comes to Catholics. Despite their very gruesome history, they accept evolution and big bang which are credits in their favour, even if they attribute them to God. I've been in Catholic schools my entire life (well actually tomorrow is my first day of (secular) university !!!). There was no evolution vs. creationism debate. We were taught the facts of evolution and the big bang.

Oh, I knew all that -- except that tomorrow is you first day of university.

But many theists who accept the reality of evolution still look at evolution as God's way of creating us. They still believe in design; they just see evolution as a particular way of executing that design. To give up the idea of design altogether is a pretty radical thing for a Christian, and I don't think Miller is really in line with Vatican teaching on this point. However, his book is much more lucid than anything produced by the Vatican.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Oh, I knew all that -- except that tomorrow is you first day of university.

But many theists who accept the reality of evolution still look at evolution as God's way of creating us. They still believe in design; they just see evolution as a particular way of executing that design. To give up the idea of design altogether is a pretty radical thing for a Christian, and I don't think Miller is really in line with Vatican teaching on this point. However, his book is much more lucid than anything produced by the Vatican.

Of course. That's the point of theistic evolution. I've always found that to be a contradiction because of the element of "design" (which implies intent) and "randomness" (concerning genetic mutations - random meaning without intent or purpose). They clearly conflict with each other. Yet I hear theists argue like this all the time.

Dunemeister's argument of how God controls the environment which indirectly controls evolution is a much stronger argument. In my opinion, at least. It has more merits and cannot be as easily discarded into the trash can as clearly contradictory.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

“I've always found that to be a contradiction because of the element of "design" (which implies intent) and "randomness" (concerning genetic mutations - random meaning without intent or purpose). They clearly conflict with each other. Yet I hear theists argue like this all the time.”

Design and randomness MUST conflict? I am not sure of that. Consider this.

The “design” was intended to produce intelligent life. What physical form that intelligence has – not particularly important. Rather whatever works in the environment at the time. The way to do this is not to produce A form of intelligence but rather ANY form. Evolution doesn’t try to produce a bee or an elk or a human. It tries to produce ANYTHING that works. And it tries ANY solution - any at all. Good and bad and indifferent. But in doing that - trying everything – it assures that some solution WILL be found that WILL work. Several solutions in fact. As we see around us. The mechanism for doing this is random. Just copying errors. No purpose in mind. No attempt to produced anything specific just different. Then natural selection will select those solutions that do work and weed out those that don’t. The only thing this “system” requires is time. Given enough time ANYTHING is not only possible. It is inevitable.

So the “design” uses randomness to produce – Life. And produce it more abundantly. (Sound familiar?)

 

[Dunemeister]

May be because I missed a very important word in there lol.

So if presented with empirical evidence the universe was NOT designed, you would abandon your belief in God?

It's possible. What I say is that such empirical evidence, if I understood it, would constitute a possible defeater for theism. But whether it's actually a defeater for me will depend on several things. (1) Is it a good argument? (2) Do I understand it? (3) Is the evidence truly as you represent it? (4) Does the evidence really refute theism or is theism somehow compatible with it? (5) If the answers are yes, yes, yes, and yes to the first disjunct, do I have other information that rationally outweighs (1) - (4) or casts doubt on it or otherwise weakens it? (6) If the answer to (5) is no, the evidence constitutes a defeater. In that case, I would be put into an intellectual crisis. Either I would have to give up on theism or I would have to reformulate it. If the reformulation strategy leaves me with a conception that is not suitably robust, I will have to abandon theism. At least, as long as it's true that (7) my rational faculties are functioning properly, which means in part that they are not being impeded by emotional or other arational factors.

Suffice to say that it isn't impossible, but as you can see, it's no easy task. Note also that I'm not making the project more difficult than it actually is. I have just outlined what must happen for such an argument to work. Note that it works in reverse. For me to give you an argument for theism, an argument that would cast doubt on your atheism, it would have to do the same thing.

But what sort of evidence could you have (that I haven't already considered)? The only arguments that have been offered for the universe's non-design are (a) well, it's possible it wasn't designed (which I agree with, but nothing follows from this), (b) the positive arguments for design aren't very good (a point I disagree with, but I further agree that the positive arguments at their best are not in themselves sufficient to support full-fledged Christian theism), (c) there are instances of randomness and apparent poor design in the universe (I agree with the first but fail to see the relevance; the latter hangs on the strength of the word "apparent" and human omniscience).

In any case, this is probably not the place to consider the details of your argument. If you want to pursue this line, why not start (yet) another thread?

 

[Dunemeister]

Without experience, evidence is useless.

Agreed, but not on point. The fact is that my experience of my computer is not evidence that I use to arrive at my belief that there is a computer in front of me. That belief arises from the brute fact of the experience. My perception doesn't figure in any evidentiary argument to the conclusion that there's a computer in front of me. If it did, my belief would be very tentative indeed!

 

[Dunemeister]

Actually, it's not. I'd suggest you read Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, by Kenneth R. Miller. I was surprised that Miller, a Roman Catholic, firmly rejected the idea of design. It wouldn't hurt to consider what he has to say. Miller also explains why he doesn't think this has to be a problem for the believer.

It may be an interesting read. However, I just don't think much is gained by gerrymandering definitions ad nauseum. I'm happy to concede CM's definition of design. If others use the word to mean something other than what I use the word for, I leave that to them. I mean what CM means by it. That said, thanks for the recommendation. If time permits, I'll be sure to pick it up.