Design

[tonyrey]

It’s unconscionable to give children a book, which, in your own words, cannot give a scientific answer to questions about biology, to use as a scientific text book. Which is exactly what the DI was trying to do. To introduce their book into the science curriculum.

Good to see that at last you actually understand what the argument was about in the first place.

It is well known that people frequently accuse others of their own faults and defects. Atheists often seek to give the impression, especially on this forum, that evolution is a sufficient explanation of reality which has replaced religion. They regard it as outdated superstition and describe religious education as “child abuse”. The Catholic Church has a far more balanced view in her teaching that our ultimate authority is our conscience regardless of what we claim to believe or disbelieve. It is ironic that some sceptics are more dogmatic and narrow-minded than those who they condemn as prejudiced and old-fashioned. They echo Marx’s view that religion is the opium of the people.

The persecution of Christians and other religious sects in China and elsewhere is undeniable evidence that militant atheism is even now being used to justify atrocities in flagrant violation of human rights nor is this a unique occurrence in the history of mankind. The rejection of Design is not an abstract philosophical issue but a decision which has resulted in needless suffering and death for millions of people. This is not surprising when people believe we alone decide what is good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust - as if we are infallible. The Declaration of Human Rights isn’t based on human decisions but on Christ’s teaching that we all have one Father in heaven. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in particular don’t make sense if there is **no reason **why we exist. Being related solely due to an accident of birth is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. The blind Goddess (or Watchmaker according to Dawkins) is an illusion which does far more harm than any religion because it rejects the value, purpose and meaning of life. It destroys everything and leaves us with nothing whatsoever except regret and despair…

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

The Declaration of Human Rights arises from the reality that we all have one Father in heaven. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in particular make sense because the reason why we exist is to love one another. The further we drift from this true meaning of our lives, the increasingly purposeless our lives become. At a certain point it may all appear to be accidental, a matter of luck. This vicious circle is in contrast to the virtuous one wherein we find that love gives meaning to everything we do and consequently promotes our doing greater good. The concepts of a blind Goddess or Watchmaker are illusions, projections of ourselves into the relationship we have with reality. While most of us carry at least the vestiges of Christian or other moral religious teachings, ultimately, if they are not grounded in truth, especially if that truth is denied, they have no backbone within us, no connection with the Ground of all value, purpose and meaning in life. As a belief system which prohibits the search for truth, regret and despair are atheism’s natural outcome. At that point, however, hope usually spurs us on to look for a higher purpose than that provided by the fantasy that all that there is, are the material processes to which our mind may reduce our very existence.

 

[tonyrey]

:twocents:

The Declaration of Human Rights arises from the reality that we all have one Father in heaven. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in particular make sense because the reason why we exist is to love one another. The further we drift from this true meaning of our lives, the increasingly purposeless our lives become. At a certain point it may all appear to be accidental, a matter of luck. This vicious circle is in contrast to the virtuous one wherein we find that love gives meaning to everything we do and consequently promotes our doing greater good. The concepts of a blind Goddess or Watchmaker are illusions, projections of ourselves into the relationship we have with reality. While most of us carry at least the vestiges of Christian or other moral religious teachings, ultimately, if they are not grounded in truth, especially if that truth is denied, they have no backbone within us, no connection with the Ground of all value, purpose and meaning in life. As a belief system which prohibits the search for truth, regret and despair are atheism’s natural outcome. At that point, however, hope usually spurs us on to look for a higher purpose than that provided by the fantasy that all that there is, are the material processes to which our mind may reduce our very existence.

Atheists accuse religious people of being anthropomorphic but the notion of a blind Watchmaker is a distortion of the fact that the theist’s view of reality is ratiocentric whereas their theory is eccentric because it reduces reasoning to an insignificant mechanistic process. Their rejection of thought as a “little agitation of the brain” is self-destructive whereas Pascal’s belief that it reveals the greatness of man is far closer to the truth and explains the astonishing success of science and the philosophical principles on which science is based. We live in a rational universe and are miraculously capable of understanding how and why we exist, inspired by the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures even though their inevitable limitations lead to tragedies. The immense value of life outweighs its drawbacks to such an extent that no reasonable person believes we should never have existed on this planet.

 

[tonyrey]

There is an excellent, well-balanced article on Design in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The last two sections are particularly interesting:

Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence

1. The Persistence of Design Thinking…

That question is: why do design arguments remain so durable if empirical evidence is inferentially ambiguous, the arguments logically controversial, and the conclusions vociferously disputed? One possibility is that they really are better arguments than most philosophical critics concede. Another possibility is that design intuitions do not rest upon inferences at all. The situation may parallel that of the existence of an external world, the existence of other minds, and a number of other familiar matters…

It is perhaps telling, in this regard, that scientific theorizing typically involves substantial creativity and that the resultant theories are typically novel and unexpected. Design intuitions, however, do not seem to emerge as novel construals from creative grappling with data, but are embedded in our thinking nearly naturally—so much so that, again, Crick thinks that biologists have to be immunized against it. Indeed, design structures seem to be part of the very fabric of science itself. According to physicist Paul Davies:  Science began as an outgrowth of theology, and all scientists, whether atheists or theists … accept an essentially theological worldview. (Davies 1995, 138)  All of that suggests to some that we are dealing with a different category of belief formation and acquisition. And it also suggests that design thinking may be natural to our sorts of intellects.

6. Conclusion

Perception and appreciation of the incredible intricacy and the beauty of things in nature—whether biological or cosmic—has certainly inclined many toward thoughts of purpose and design in nature, and has constituted important moments of affirmation for those who already accept design positions. The status of the corresponding *arguments* of course, is not only a matter of current dispute, but the temperature of the dispute seems to be on the rise. And regardless of what one thinks of the arguments at this point, so long as nature has the power to move us (as even Kant admitted that the ‘starry heavens above’ did), design convictions and arguments are unlikely to disappear quietly.

Kant’s final conclusion about Design is found in his Critique of Judgement:

But we can regard the whole of nature as a teleological system only by employing the idea of God, again only regulatively, as its intelligent designer.

ibid.

Although Kant used the term “regulatively” to avoid committing himself he believed moral laws are “commands of the Supreme Being, because it is only from a morally perfect (holy and good) and at the same time all-powerful will, and consequently only through harmony with this will, that we can hope to attain the summum bonum which the moral law makes it our duty to take as the object of our endeavours.” ibid.

 

[Bradski]

An excerpt from above:

Design intuitions, however, do not seem to emerge as novel construals from creative grappling with data, but are embedded in our thinking nearly naturally—so much so that, again, Crick thinks that biologists have to be immunized against it.

They certainly seem to be embedded in your thinking, Tony. Maybe you should take a leaf out of one of your favourite quote sources and immunize yourself against it.

 

[tonyrey]

An excerpt from above:

Design intuitions, however, do not seem to emerge as novel construals from creative grappling with data, but are embedded in our thinking nearly naturally—so much so that, again, Crick thinks that biologists have to be immunized against it.

They certainly seem to be embedded in your thinking, Tony. Maybe you should take a leaf out of one of your favourite quote sources and immunize yourself against it.

On the contrary, Brad, I have studied and discussed this issue for so many years - and written two theses (on Design and the Problem of Evil) - I’m probably aware of objections that haven’t occurred to you. I enjoy being the devil’s advocate when faced with simplistic interpretations of religion like Calvin’s view that it is certain that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God!

What is more relevant is that “Science began as an outgrowth of theology, and all scientists, whether atheists or theists … accept an essentially theological worldview”. In the Dark Ages it was the Catholic Church that fostered belief in a rational universe and our power to understand it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

On the contrary, Brad, I have studied and discussed this issue for so many years - and written two theses (on Design and the Problem of Evil) - I’m probably aware of objections that haven’t occurred to you.

Hic Rhodus, hic salta! (If you know what that means)

 

[tonyrey]

Hic Rhodus, hic salta! (If you know what that means)

It’s very easy to post a slick Latin quotation learnt at School but to produce a rational argument relevant to the topic of Design is a rather more formidable challenge. How about refuting the following points to demonstrate your knowledge and wisdom?

Attack isn’t the best form of defence when you have nothing to defend and cannot present an adequate explanation of the origin of life and its development from monocellular organisms to rational beings who have insight into the nature of the universe and the power to change themselves and the world in which they live - accomplishments you obviously take for granted without being able or willing to grasp their significance.

The persecution of Christians and other religious sects in China and elsewhere is undeniable evidence that militant atheism is even now being used to justify atrocities in flagrant violation of human rights nor is this a unique occurrence in the history of mankind. The rejection of Design is not an abstract philosophical issue but a decision which has resulted in needless suffering and death for millions of people. This is not surprising when people believe we alone decide what is good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust - as if we are infallible. The Declaration of Human Rights isn’t based on human decisions but on Christ’s teaching that we all have one Father in heaven. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in particular don’t make sense if there is **no reason **why we exist. Being related solely due to an accident of birth is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. The blind Goddess (or Watchmaker according to Dawkins) is an illusion which does far more harm than any religion because it rejects the value, purpose and meaning of life. It destroys everything and leaves us with nothing whatsoever except regret and despair.

It is certainly not only unconscionable but also evil to give children the impression that life is merely the product of random combinations of molecules and fortuitous genetic mutations without any value, purpose or significance as the result of the exclusion.of all non-scientific explanations of reality from the schools’ curriculum. No wonder that in our secular society there have been millions of abortions, unpublicised policies of euthanasia and an increase in depression and the number of suicides.

 

[inocente]

It’s very easy to post a slick Latin quotation learnt at School but to produce a rational argument relevant to the topic of Design is a rather more formidable challenge.

The Latin is the punchline from an Aesop’s Fable, and is asking you to do exactly that - cite your thesis as an argument rather than merely boast of it. - mythfolklore.net/aesopica//oxford/209.htm

*How about refuting the following points to demonstrate your knowledge and wisdom?

Attack isn’t the best form of defence when you have nothing to defend and cannot present an adequate explanation of the origin of life and its development from monocellular organisms to rational beings who have insight into the nature of the universe and the power to change themselves and the world in which they live - accomplishments you obviously take for granted without being able or willing to grasp their significance.

The persecution of Christians and other religious sects in China and elsewhere is undeniable evidence that militant atheism is even now being used to justify atrocities in flagrant violation of human rights nor is this a unique occurrence in the history of mankind. The rejection of Design is not an abstract philosophical issue but a decision which has resulted in needless suffering and death for millions of people. This is not surprising when people believe we alone* decide what is good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust - as if we are infallible. The Declaration of Human Rights isn’t based on human decisions but on Christ’s teaching that we all have one Father in heaven. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in particular don’t make sense if there is **no reason **why we exist. Being related solely due to an accident of birth is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. The blind Goddess (or Watchmaker according to Dawkins) is an illusion which does far more harm than any religion because it rejects the value, purpose and meaning of life. It destroys everything and leaves us with nothing whatsoever except regret and despair.

It is certainly not only unconscionable but also evil to give children the impression that life is merely the product of random combinations of molecules and fortuitous genetic mutations without any value, purpose or significance as the result of the exclusion.of all non-scientific explanations of reality from the schools’ curriculum. No wonder that in our secular society there have been millions of abortions, unpublicised policies of euthanasia and an increase in depression and the number of suicides.

Fidel Castro’s rambling speeches sound coherent in comparison. Your post was certainly wide-ranging - biology, China, UDHR, French revolutionary slogans, blind watchmakers, school education, abortion, a conspiracy theory about euthanasia, depression, suicide - and all in three paragraphs. Because some posters won’t worship the false idol you call Design. Not entirely convincing.

 

[tonyrey]

The Latin is the punchline from an Aesop’s Fable, and is asking you to do exactly that - cite your thesis as an argument rather than merely boast of it. - mythfolklore.net/aesopica//oxford/209.htm

Fidel Castro’s rambling speeches sound coherent in comparison. Your post was certainly wide-ranging - biology, China, UDHR, French revolutionary slogans, blind watchmakers, school education, abortion, a conspiracy theory about euthanasia, depression, suicide - and all in three paragraphs. Because some posters won’t worship the false idol you call Design. Not entirely convincing.

It’s very easy to admire a slick Latin quotation learnt at School but to produce a rational argument which disproves Design is a rather more formidable challenge. How about refuting the following points to demonstrate your knowledge and wisdom?

Attack isn’t the best form of defence when you have nothing to defend and cannot present an adequate explanation of the origin of life and its development from monocellular organisms to rational beings who have insight into the nature of the universe and the power to change themselves and the world in which they live - accomplishments you obviously take for granted without being able or willing to grasp their significance.

The persecution of Christians and other religious sects in China and elsewhere is undeniable evidence that militant atheism is even now being used to justify atrocities in flagrant violation of human rights nor is this a unique occurrence in the history of mankind. The rejection of Design is not an abstract philosophical issue but a decision which has resulted in needless suffering and death for millions of people. This is not surprising when people believe we alone decide what is good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust - as if we are infallible. The Declaration of Human Rights isn’t based on human decisions but on Christ’s teaching that we all have one Father in heaven who knew what He was doing when He created the universe. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in particular don’t make sense if there is **no reason **why we exist. Being related solely due to an accident of birth is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. The blind Goddess (or Watchmaker according to Dawkins) is an illusion which does far more harm than any religion because it rejects the value, purpose and meaning of life. It destroys everything and leaves us with nothing whatsoever except regret and despair.

It is certainly not only unconscionable but also evil to give children the impression that life is merely the product of random combinations of molecules and fortuitous genetic mutations without any value, purpose or significance as the result of the exclusion.of all non-scientific explanations of reality from the schools’ curriculum. No wonder that in our secular society there have been millions of abortions, unpublicised policies of euthanasia and an increase in depression and the number of suicides.

I feel very strongly about the way people are brainwashed by individuals like David Attenborough who use their TV programmes to promulgate atheism by dwelling on the harsher aspects of nature. Even on this thread his reference to worms burrowing into children’s eyes has been used as evidence against the existence of a loving God in stark contrast to the message of Jesus that Solomon in all his glory couldn’t rival the beauty of the lilies. Even educated individuals are taken in by facile arguments which overlook the immense complexity of the biosphere…

Atheists accuse religious people of being anthropomorphic but the notion of a blind Watchmaker is a distortion of the fact that the theist’s view of reality is ratiocentric whereas their theory is eccentric because it reduces reasoning to an insignificant mechanistic process. Their rejection of thought as a “little agitation of the brain” is self-destructive whereas Pascal’s belief that it reveals the greatness of man is far closer to the truth and explains the astonishing success of science and the philosophical principles on which science is based. We live in a rational universe and are miraculously capable of understanding how and why we exist, inspired by the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures even though their inevitable limitations lead to tragedies. The immense value of life outweighs its drawbacks to such an extent that no reasonable person believes we should never have existed on this planet.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It is certainly not only unconscionable but also evil to give children the impression that life is merely the product of random combinations of molecules and fortuitous genetic mutations without any value, purpose or significance as the result of the exclusion.of all non-scientific explanations of reality from the schools’ curriculum.

Oh, how I feel your pain! The horrible practice to remove the superstitions from the curricula of schools? Not one word about demons causing mental problems, the negligence of mentioning demonic possessions. Not even talking about the role of spirits, fairies, ghosts and dragons in the class? What about the power of the mind, which can bend spoons, get to the Jupiter via astral projections? Or read the “auras” of persons? Extra-sensory perceptions? Dowsing? And not one word about them! I am still reeling from nausea when I think about it.

But don’t despair. As soon as you can get in to position of dictating what the schools must teach, I am sure you will get rid of the ridiculous scientific subjects, and open the door for the “stupor-natural”. Or maybe you can open a private school and teach the kids what you want to teach.

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh, how I feel your pain! The horrible practice to remove the superstitions from the curricula of schools? Not one word about demons causing mental problems, the negligence of mentioning demonic possessions. Not even talking about the role of spirits, fairies, ghosts and dragons in the class? I am still reeling from nausea when I think about it.

I went to a secular, public school within a deeply religious area and I was never taught that mental illness was caused by demons. Demons were actually never mentioned. And the area of my upbringing was most certainly not “progressive” by most standards. Quite the opposite, by reputation.

I can’t quite decide if this is more straw-man or red herring… Erroneous for certain. But which best describes your prose here…

But don’t despair. As soon as you can get in to position of dictating what the schools must teach, I am sure you will get rid of the ridiculous scientific subjects, and open the door for the “stupor-natural”. Or maybe you can open a private school and teach the kids what you want to teach.

…and there’s an ad hominem.

I see your rhetoric hasn’t improved despite me introducing you to Stanford’s philo page.

:tsktsk:

 

[ANV]

Whether there is a god, many gods or not it wouldn’t matter, the world is still the same, I wonder how people would be proud to say that there is a loving God with all the suffering that is on, and whether there are gods or not, it is still being the same world around, nothing changes.
I am sure if Gods exist they must be evil.

 

[Vonsalza]

Whether there is a god, many gods or not it wouldn’t matter, the world is still the same, I wonder how people would be proud to say that there is a loving God with all the suffering that is on, and whether there are gods or not, it is still being the same world around, nothing changes.
I am sure if Gods exist they must be evil.

Well, they certainly do at least permit it, don’t they.

But if these gods value free moral agency, what else can they do that doesn’t destroy this agency?

 

[ANV]

Well, they certainly do at least permit it, don’t they.

But if these gods value free moral agency, what else can they do that doesn’t destroy this agency?

I don’t think the criminal’s free will is more important than the victim’s suffering.
Also suffering exists with and without humans, suffering don’t give any value for humans free will.
Also it would be the case like “Heaven” maybe?

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t think the criminal’s free will is more important than the victim’s suffering.

Maybe it isn’t. But you and I didn’t get to set the rules. Suffering is real, moral agency is too, what goes up comes down and so on - all completely independent of how we feel about it.

As I’ve said before, reality isn’t dependent on how I feel about it.

Also suffering exists with and without humans, suffering don’t give any value for humans free will.

Would it not have been rational for these gods to create a system that discourages those that freely elect against them and rewards those that freely elect toward them?

Also it would be the case like “Heaven” maybe?

I think there’s an active thread addressing that very thing.

 

[ANV]

Maybe it isn’t. But you and I didn’t get to set the rules. Suffering is real, moral agency is too, what goes up comes down and so on - all completely independent of how we feel about it.

As I’ve said before, reality isn’t dependent on how I feel about it.

Would it not have been rational for these gods to create a system that discourages those that freely elect against them and rewards those that freely elect toward them?

I think there’s an active thread addressing that very thing.

I believe that if they created such ability of pain, predators and prey, diseases, hunger, fear, sickness are sadistic by nature and definitely not all loving or all powerful, I know I wouldn’t do it of I were a creator, that’s much of a sadist act or a mad scientist would create in his lab, creating it from the beginning is evil, let alone doing nothing to stop it.

 

[tonyrey]

It is certainly not only unconscionable but also evil to give children the impression that life is merely the product of random combinations of molecules and fortuitous genetic mutations without any value, purpose or significance as the result of the exclusion.of all non-scientific explanations of reality from the schools’ curriculum.

Congratulations! Your completely irrelevant post has succeeded in revealing your total inability and failure to refute a single one of my statements. Sarcasm is the last resort of those who are faced with an ignominious defeat on every single count. Not even one of your references has anything to do with the topic of Design but inspired solely by your superstitious and unscientific credulity in accepting the absurd hypothesis that mindless molecules have succeeded in giving you the power to understand that your existence is valueless, purposeless and meaningless - and in a few brief years on this planet everything and everyone will be plunged back into the eternal darkness from which they emerged due to a random sequence of events created by the blind Goddess - commonly described as Chance…

 

[tonyrey]

I believe that if they created such ability of pain, predators and prey, diseases, hunger, fear, sickness are sadistic by nature and definitely not all loving or all powerful, I know I wouldn’t do it of I were a creator, that’s much of a sadist act or a mad scientist would create in his lab, creating it from the beginning is evil, let alone doing nothing to stop it.

According to your argument life on this planet should never have existed and this is the worst of all possible worlds. It is astonishing that you should choose to go on living when you are surrounded by so many atrocities. Perhaps you could present us with a **feasible **blueprint of a world which meets all your specifications since you obviously have great expertise in such matters…

 

[tonyrey]

Well, they certainly do at least permit it, don’t they.

But if these gods value free moral agency, what else can they do that doesn’t destroy this agency?

Obviously it is better to be biological robots incapable of choosing what to believe, how to live and who to love…