Does atheism lead to anything positive?

[ThinkingSapien]

OK. Then the post is not an argument but merely an observation, interesting but trivial as it has no explanatory power.

It’s an expanded illustration of a concept that is part of what thus far appears to be an unanswerable question.

How do you differentiate between things that occur naturally [without designed]

and those that do not?
Bradski;14598624:

I want to know how you differentiate between what is designed by God and what has occurred naturally [without design]

. That is, according to the laws of nature [physics, chemistry, so on].

Text in royal blue added my me.

That question has received responses but it hasn’t received answers.

 

[inocente]

It’s an expanded illustration of a concept that is part of what thus far appears to be an unanswerable question.

Text in royal blue added my me.

That question has received responses but it hasn’t received answers.

I can answer this one. The general rule is that nice things are designed and nasty things aren’t.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s an expanded illustration of a concept that is part of what thus far appears to be an unanswerable question. …

I do not see a concept in the post. Would you elucidate the concept you see? Here’s an illustration of an observation.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s an expanded illustration of a concept that is part of what thus far appears to be an unanswerable question.
Text in royal blue added my me.
That question has received responses but it hasn’t received answers.

I hate to be the guy that begs the question, but if
(1.) One were to believe in a God that created the universe and
(2.) One assumed that in some way God designed everything He created (In other words, God’s designs are original), then
(3.) How could anything exist that falls outside of God’s providence of design?

Looking at Bradski’s pile of leaves - they “exist” from a theists perspective because God designed a tree to shed leaves which was blown into a pile by winds that were created by God’s systemic design of solar heating within an atmosphere.

The bird builds its nest because it was directly designed to innately do it or was designed to be able to learn to do it - or some combo of the two.

How could one be able to philosophically distinguish between the designed and not-designed? Where would the measuring stick for that even come from?

Even when we perform evil, we use our designed “free-will” to act within the context of designed natural laws to create an outcome that is deemed as evil. I see nothing here that violates a generic theistic concept of design.

Am I missing something?

 

[inocente]

(3.) How could anything exist that falls outside of God’s providence of design?

,…]Am I missing something?

UK national treasure David Attenborough revealed this week that he gets hate mail from creationists for not crediting God for the wonders of nature in his documentaries.

“They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds,” he told Radio Times magazine. “I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs.” - newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/01/eye-burrowing-worms-national-t.html

 

[Vonsalza]

UK national treasure David Attenborough revealed this week that he gets hate mail from creationists for not crediting God for the wonders of nature in his documentaries.

“They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds,” he told Radio Times magazine. “I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs.” - newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/01/eye-burrowing-worms-national-t.html

That’s at least the second time I’ve seen that cut-and-pasted.

And David Attenborough is right. That worm is part of the design as well.

 

[inocente]

And David Attenborough is right. That worm is part of the design as well.

And that’s why atheism leads to something far more positive than religious fanaticism ever can.

 

[o_mlly]

The term evolved doesn’t cover what we are talking about.

OK.

If you are washed up on a desert island and there are lots of trees, then they obviously evolved there.

What? You just said we’re not talking about that!

As an aside, down under, isn’t a desert island with a lot of trees an oxymoron?

And perhaps this question will draw a distinction worth talking about: If a man plants a tree for shade or food then is that tree an unnatural tree in your scheme?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I can answer this one. The general rule is that nice things are designed and nasty things aren’t.

lol. Your response makes me laugh. Unless I’ve missed an answer it appears to be the only answer that’s been given to the question, and one that I see being applicable to past experiences. There are other responses to the question that don’t appear to attempt to answer it.

I hate to be the guy that begs the question, but if
(1.) One were to believe in a God that created the universe and
(2.) One assumed that in some way God designed everything He created (In other words, God’s designs are original), then
(3.) How could anything exist that falls outside of God’s providence of design?

That came up earlier very briefly in #48 and #50. There do exists those that think that God (or a god) created the universe but don’t necessarily believed that all that exists within the universe is intended, but may be a side effect of other things. Some deists are among such people. But like you mentioned, that’s begging a question; if someone hasn’t already assumed that conclusion then it doesn’t get them far.

I think we might be more inclined to see intentions and designs where there are none. I think we’ve all had personal experiences of thinking that there were someone there only to later to find that there was no one. When the first quasar was discovered the initial conclusion was that the electromagnetic radiation being emitted from it was a signal sent from another intelligence. A great question that came out of that (which is closely related to Bradski’s question) was if we were to send a signal to an alien world what could we send so that they would conclude that the signal came from another intelligence. The Golden Record was one attempt at answering that question put into practice.

Spacecraft - NASA Science

The identical Voyager spacecraft are three-axis stabilized systems that use celestial or gyro referenced attitude control to maintain pointing of the high-gain antennas toward Earth. The prime mission science payload consisted of 10 instruments (11 investigations including radio science).

voyager.jpl.nasa.gov

I do not see a concept in the post. Would you elucidate the concept you see? Here’s an illustration of an observation.

I don’t quite know what it is for which you are asking for clarification. Bradski’s example assumes that if you encountered a birds nest and encountered a pile of leaves with random arrangement that you would come to the conclusion that a being intentionally arranged the components of the birds nest and that the pile of leaves were not the result of a being intentionally arranging them.This is a more concrete example agency detection; a concept that while not named until now has been present throughout many pages of this discussion.

Can you give a method for recognizing whether or not something was done with intention or without intention? Can you describe a method for determining whether or not an arrangement of items occurred with design or without design?

 

[Vonsalza]

And that’s why atheism leads to something far more positive than religious fanaticism ever can.

I wasn’t aware that we were discussing religious fanaticism; quite a jump you’ve made.

I think we might be more inclined to see intentions and designs where there are none.

I think it’s just an extrapolation of the “Un-caused Causer” within the “Big Bang” to the cosmos (order) that is readily seen within the universe.

If the BB is potentially “of God”, then so is the low degree of entropy found within the universe - a la “design”.

Even where disorder seems to exist, like where many computer systems derive “authentic” random number generators, one could argue that the thermal variations generating the random numbers are still strictly ordered - they’re just complex and “quick” enough to be generically labeled as chaotically random.

I don’t quite know what it is for which you are asking for clarification… This is a more concrete example agency detection; a concept that while not named until now has been present throughout many pages of this discussion.

Good point. But what would “agency detection” from God look like if the entire universe was a derivative of that God? There would be nothing extant that is simultaneously observably “apart” from that God (so as to generate distinction), yet “indicative” of that God (so as to generate allusion).

Can you give a method for recognizing whether or not something was done with intention or without intention?

As it pertains to the divine, absolutely not. I think that’s sort of the point. It’s all intended or none of it is.

Can you describe a method for determining whether or not an arrangement of items occurred with design or without design?

Roughly the same answer. It assumes that there can be a God in a universe where things occur beyond His/Its design. I guess that’s a question for an open theist that separates God from “The Fates” - He/It would be a reactionary just like you and I - albeit a far more capable one.

That, unfortunately, is a view that you will seldom, if ever, authentically encounter within wider Christendom.

 

[Bradski]

OK. Then the post is not an argument but merely an observation, interesting but trivial as it has no explanatory power.

It’s an observation that leads to a question. How do you tell what is natural if everything is designed. The explanation is required from you.

And as an aside, I have lost count, as the other guys probably have, of the fatuous statements along the line of: ‘Isn’t nature wonderful’. It seems no-one can see beyond warm woollen mittens and whiskers on kittens. Even as a kid I used to wonder about ‘All things Bright and Beautiful’ sung at church. I used to think - are you kidding me?

Doesn’t anyone watch National Geographic? Most creatures spend their waking hours trying not to get eaten.

And perhaps this question will draw a distinction worth talking about: If a man plants a tree for shade or food then is that tree an unnatural tree in your scheme?

You’ve never seen an orchard?

You are still missing the point. The leaf is natural, the nest is not. The silica is natural, the iPad is not. The tree is natural, the orchard is not.

But some would say that it is all designed. Again…how do you differentiate in that case. There is no meaning available for the term ‘natural’ if everything is designed.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s an observation that leads to a question. How do you tell what is natural if everything is designed. The explanation is required from you.

I do not see a distinction in beings as natural and designed. Mother nature is responsible for all beings, or as theists call it, Father Nature.

You’ve never seen an orchard?

You are still missing the point. The leaf is natural, the nest is not. The silica is natural, the iPad is not. The tree is natural, the orchard is not.

If the distinction makes a difference then the tree in the orchard would have or not have a property possessed by the tree not in the orchard. It does not. Therefore, the distinction is without a difference.

But some would say that it is all designed. Again…how do you differentiate in that case. There is no meaning available for the term ‘natural’ if everything is designed.

Why do you think we have to differentiate? What utility does such a distinction provide? What does it explain about the universe that is otherwise hidden from us?

If some intelligence is causal to a thing’s being then that being, in your scheme, is unnatural. If a tree’s fruit falls to the ground, decays and the seed within takes root then the tree which grows from that seed is natural. I buy that. Insert some intelligent agent into the causal chain and, in your scheme, presto: the tree becomes unnatural. So, does the bird who ingests the fruit and excretes the seed miles away on a “desert island with lots of trees” cause an unnatural tree? Does the castaway who plants seeds from his pocket grow unnatural trees on that same island? And how does it become “obvious” to others who arrive years later to the island after the bird flies away and castaway is rescued that all those trees are “obviously” natural? I can’t buy that.

 

[Vonsalza]

But some would say that it is all designed. Again…how do you differentiate in that case. There is no meaning available for the term ‘natural’ if everything is designed.

If “all is designed”, then there wouldn’t be a basis for that differentiation between “designed” and “non-designed”, would there?

And I think you alluded to quite the revelation concerning the word “natural”. It appears to be substantially more subjective than you may think.

When the Galapagos finch cracks open a nut shell with its beak, you may consider that process as “natural”.
When the ape cracks open a nut shell on a nearby rock, you may also consider that process as “natural”.
But when a man does the same thing with another tool, it’s not natural?

-another-

A million termites construct an enormous colony mound so large that it can be seen for miles - what a wonder of nature!
But a million people construct an enormous city so large that it can be seen from space - what a bastardization of the naturally pristine!

At what point does a species stop behaving “naturally” and starts behaving “non-naturally”?
I think any answer to that would be rather arbitrary…

---

I don’t see the relationship between “natural/non-natural” and “designed/non-designed”, if that’s what you’re ultimately alluding to.

 

[inocente]

That’s at least the second time I’ve seen that cut-and-pasted.

Yes, an intelligent design fan posts the quote every so often, which is how I first saw it.

And David Attenborough is right. That worm is part of the design as well.

With a bit more time today, I found the article posted by the intelligent design fan, and the full quote:

*"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind. And , ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy" - skeptical-science.com/atheism/atheism-coping-grief-sir-david-attenborough-case-study/

The idea that God designed this worm for the good of the souls it has blinded for thousands of years, and to make the world a better place, is even worse than the usual intelligent design mantra that nice things are designed and nasty things aren’t.*

 

[Vonsalza]

The idea that God designed this worm for the good of the souls it has blinded for thousands of years, and to make the world a better place, is even worse than the usual intelligent design mantra that nice things are designed and nasty things aren’t.

My personal judgement on whether the worm is “good” or “bad” is immaterial to the concept of design.

I’m sure we agree that the reality of something is not dependent on our attitudes. I can think The Nike of Samothrace is hideous. I can think it’s awe-inspiring (as I actually do).

Regardless - if it exists, it does so completely independent of my feelings.

---

The universe came to be in a state of extremely low entropy, in spite of “what should have occurred” per most astrophysicists. Some choose to view this as evidence of design.

Whether I think some of these things are “nice” or “nasty” could not possibly be less relevant to the topic.

 

[Bradski]

I do not see a distinction in beings as natural and designed. Mother nature is responsible for all beings, or as theists call it, Father Nature.

Not God directly? Or did He light the blue touch paper and let it all unfold via the auspices of Mothe Nature?

IIf the distinction makes a difference then the tree in the orchard would have or not have a property possessed by the tree not in the orchard. It does not. Therefore, the distinction is without a difference.

One of the properties would be position. Just like a leaf in a nest is exactly the same as one that has randomly fallen to the ground, then a tree in an orchard is exactly the same as one growing by itself in a field. But just as you recognise design in the layout of leaves in a nest, so you would recognise design in layout of trees in an orchard.

IWhy do you think we have to differentiate? What utility does such a distinction provide? What does it explain about the universe that is otherwise hidden from us?

It shows design. If we can differentiate between that which is natural and that which has been designed then we have an Intelligent Designer.

IIf some intelligence is causal to a thing’s being then that being, in your scheme, is unnatural. If a tree’s fruit falls to the ground, decays and the seed within takes root then the tree which grows from that seed is natural. I buy that. Insert some intelligent agent into the causal chain and, in your scheme, presto: the tree becomes unnatural. So, does the bird who ingests the fruit and excretes the seed miles away on a “desert island with lots of trees” cause an unnatural tree? Does the castaway who plants seeds from his pocket grow unnatural trees on that same island? And how does it become “obvious” to others who arrive years later to the island after the bird flies away and castaway is rescued that all those trees are “obviously” natural? I can’t buy that.

I don’t want examples of when you CANNOT tell. I want examples of when you CAN. The rosemary bush at the front of my house could have grown there quite naturally, but it didn’t. I planted it there for a specific purpose. But you couldn’t tell. But you could tell that the lime tree in the garden was intentionally grown in that specific position.

You need to tell me if the leaf in the nest or the tree in the orchard was designed. And how you know.

If “all is designed”, then there wouldn’t be a basis for that differentiation between “designed” and “non-designed”, would there?.

Quite. Please tell the Discovery Institute that they are wasting their time. I’m sure it could be better spent doing something else. Looking for Elvis perhaps.

At what point does a species stop behaving “naturally” and starts behaving “non-naturally”?

We are not talking about naturally occurring species. We are talking about evidence of design, or has been suggested, intentionality. So your examples of termite mounds and cities are exactly the same. Both have been built to serve a specific purpose.

Likewise the nuts. If you see nuts lying on the ground, that is entirely natural. If you come across many that have been cracked open, by whatever means, and the contents eaten, there is a recognition that it was done intentionally.

But has the nut been designed by God just like the eye? Or do they both occur naturally?

 

[vz71]

It shows design. If we can differentiate between that which is natural and that which has been designed then we have an Intelligent Designer.

And if we cannot differentiate then…?

 

[Vonsalza]

Quite. Please tell the Discovery Institute that they are wasting their time. I’m sure it could be better spent doing something else. Looking for Elvis perhaps.

Wonder of wonders, we agree on something. I think theirs is a fool’s errand. They eye, as complex as it is, evolved RAPIDLY because even minor improvements were total flippin’ game changers. The better sighted member of the species wouldn’t have competed better. It would have been more like dominated better.

We are not talking about naturally occurring species. We are talking about evidence of design, or has been suggested, intentionality.

The difference of “intentionality” between to tree producing the nut and the creature with the capability to eat (through natural appendage or intelligence derived tool) is the same: they’re doing what it is they do. Yours might really be a question of sentience.

Concerning “evidence of design”, it’s either all or nothing. You’d have to find something apparently not-designed to compare to something that apparently is. For those who subscribe to a God with all the “omnis” included, there’s no such thing as “not-designed”.

If you see nuts lying on the ground, that is entirely natural. If you come across many that have been cracked open, by whatever means, and the contents eaten, there is a recognition that it was done intentionally.

The passing finch or ape no less intentionally eats the nut than the tree intentionally grows it - especially birds with nut-oriented beaks. They do what they do.

But has the nut been designed by God just like the eye? Or do they both occur naturally?

They occur naturally as part of God’s designed universe. It’s not an “either/or”.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Well Atheism is a skeptics approach using a case of evidence being needed for claims so I would say its biggest benefit is pointing fingers at religious claims and pointing out the flaws, and making the religious reflective. If for an example your a moral man or woman of the Christian traditions say the Roman Catholic one and say their support of slavery in the Spanish and other Catholic nations slave trades was there and its not a issue since the Bible condones it, then I question their morals. It should bother them. As one example of others I could give.

 

[Bradski]

Wonder of wonders, we agree on something. I think theirs is a fool’s errand. They eye, as complex as it is, evolved RAPIDLY because even minor improvements were total flippin’ game changers. The better sighted member of the species wouldn’t have competed better. It would have been more like dominated better.

The difference of “intentionality” between to tree producing the nut and the creature with the capability to eat (through natural appendage or intelligence derived tool) is the same: they’re doing what it is they do. Yours might really be a question of sentience.

Always a good thing to have common ground.

I started off my last post using ‘sentience’ but backed from that. I’m not sure termites could be described as such. But they do intend to make a termite mound just as a spider intends to make a web. I’m pretty certain there’s no conscious descision involved.