Evidence for Design?

[LittleSoldier]

What does Newton have to do with St. Thomas observing gravity? Does “assuming” that objects fall down instead of falling up invalidate Newton’s and Einstein’s theories? Aw, forget it. Today’s people can always check Newton and Einstein when in doubt.

Being “kind of culturally colorblind” …I bet I am in the minority of people who know the color of the top light in a traffic signal.

Uh, it’s green, right?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Its quite tough understanding Hume if you’re not used to reading 18th century philosophy. Just ask me questions - on a new thread if it’s not about Design - and I guarantee you will understand what he’s driving at!

Thank you. You are very kind. I’m going to see if I can get the basics down and then I will start a thread. Hmmm…which forum should I put it in?

Aha! The Philosophy forum (or sub-forum or whatever it’s called)!! Of course!

 

[LittleSoldier]

He toyed with the idea that we are just “bundles of perceptions” but probably changed his mind when he socialised. He wrote rather touchingly:

“I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hours’ amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther. Here then I find myself absolutely and necessarily determined to live, and talk, and act like other people in the common affairs of life. But notwithstanding that my natural propensity, and the course of my animal spirits and passions reduce me to this indolent belief in the general maxims of the world, I still feel such remains of my former disposition, that I am ready to throw all my books and papers into the fire, and resolve never more to renounce the pleasures of life for the sake of reasoning and philosophy. For those are my sentiments in that splenetic humour, which governs me at present. I may, nay I must yield to the current of nature, in submitting to my senses and understanding; and in this blind submission I shew most perfectly my sceptical disposition and principles. But does it follow, that I must strive against the current of nature, which leads me to indolence and pleasure; that I must seclude myself, in some measure, from the commerce and society of men, which is so agreeable; and that I must torture my brains with subtilities and sophistries, at the very time that I cannot satisfy myself concerning the reasonableness of so painful an application, nor have any tolerable prospect of arriving by its means at truth and certainty. Under what obligation do I lie of making such an abuse of time? And to what end can it serve either for the service of mankind, or for my own private interest? No:** If I must be a fool, as all those who reason or believe any thing certainly are, my follies shall at least be natural and agreeable. **Where I strive against my inclination, I shall have a good reason for my resistance; and will no more be led a wandering into such dreary solitudes, and rough passages, as I have hitherto met with.”

unc.edu/~jjeffrey/Hume%20Files–start%20with%20B3/B1.4.7.html

(My emphasis.) I believe the best test of any philosophy is how it corresponds to the way we live. Jesus said: “By their fruits you shall know them.”

Was Hume paid by the word, like Dickens? My gosh, I don’t think I have EVER seen such a jumbled mass of words (with the exception of one paragraph written by Dean Koontz, a mediocre writer of mixed genres, which describes in microscopic detail: a desk. Yes - a desk. And it has NOTHING to do with the story. I think he was just showing off. He also insulted me in one of his books but I suppose that is off-topic although I’d like to slap him silly for doing it.)

It’s obvious to even me that Hume suffered from OCD and I’m surprised he had any friends at all. His only positive characteristic is that he at least tried to understand why he was so utterly miserable. Be a philosopher, don’t be a philosopher, be a philosopher - what a wishy-washy character! No wonder I don’t understand him! Why couldn’t he write like Augustine wrote? Or Hemingway? Or even Poe?

And why was he so morbid? He wasn’t very happy, was he? It sounds like he was absolutely miserable; skeptical of everything including his own existence.

I don’t think I’m going to enjoy learning about Hume.

 

[tonyrey]

Was Hume paid by the word, like Dickens? My gosh, I don’t think I have EVER seen such a jumbled mass of words (with the exception of one paragraph written by Dean Koontz, a mediocre writer of mixed genres, which describes in microscopic detail: a desk. Yes - a desk. And it has NOTHING to do with the story. I think he was just showing off. He also insulted me in one of his books but I suppose that is off-topic although I’d like to slap him silly for doing it.)

It’s obvious to even me that Hume suffered from OCD and I’m surprised he had any friends at all. His only positive characteristic is that he at least tried to understand why he was so utterly miserable. Be a philosopher, don’t be a philosopher, be a philosopher - what a wishy-washy character! No wonder I don’t understand him! Why couldn’t he write like Augustine wrote? Or Hemingway? Or even Poe?

And why was he so morbid? He wasn’t very happy, was he? It sounds like he was absolutely miserable; skeptical of everything including his own existence.

I don’t think I’m going to enjoy learning about Hume

He wasn’t paid at all! His Dialogues weren’t published until after his death, probably because he knew his scepticism would be ill-received in what used to be a Christian country. He is widely regarded as the greatest British philosopher: I’m grateful to him because my thesis largely consisted of a critique of his (and Antony Flew’s) objections to Design. It’s always easier to attack than defend - although I hope my onslaught has left considerable in the minds of the sceptics about their negativity…

BTW His style is 18th century and takes getting used to but it strikes me as sincere.
His gloominess is understandable considering his scepticism and the fact that he lived in bleak Scotland before they had modern facilities like central heating and electricity - and modern medicine…

 

[tonyrey]

And why was he so morbid? He wasn’t very happy, was he? It sounds like he was absolutely miserable; skeptical of everything including his own existence.

“Admitting your position, replied PHILO, which yet is extremely doubtful, you must, at the same time, allow, that, if pain be less frequent than pleasure, it is infinitely more violent and durable. One hour of it is often able to outweigh a day, a week, a month of our common insipid enjoyments : And how many days, weeks, and months are passed by several in the most acute torments ? Pleasure, scarcely in one instance, is ever able to reach ecstacy and rapture : And in no one instance can it continue for any time at its highest pitch and altitude. The spirits evaporate ; the nerves relax ; the fabric is disordered ; and the enjoyment quickly degenerates into fatigue and uneasiness. But pain often, good God, how often ! rises to torture and agony ; and the longer it continues, it becomes still more genuine agony and torture. Patience is exhausted ; courage languishes ; melancholy seizes us ; and nothing terminates our misery but the removal of its cause, or another event, which is the sole cure of all evil, but which, from our natural folly, we regard with still greater horror and consternation.”

I think you will admit he had a point!

 

[tonyrey]

Hume is probably one of the philosophers who couldn’t decide if and where they existed. I dismissed that group because they were a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

I’m sure they didn’t have too many picnics in Scotland in the 18th century…

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know what “material laws” are, but would be interested in hearing any hypothesis which seeks to show that any aspect of you can ever defy the laws of nature. In the same way that Hollywood does not defy any law of nature by using special effects to make Superman fly in a movie, your brain does not defy any law of nature when you imagine Superman flying, and your mind arises from your brain. (This is far more cogent, and anyway just me saying it gives tony apoplexy ).

It baffles me as to why you are so sure it is far more cogent to believe “your mind arises from your brain”. Perhaps you also agree with Hume that thought is “a little agitation of the brain” which has no significance in the scheme of things. Persons are a much later unintended accretion, of course…

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m sure they didn’t have too many picnics in Scotland in the 18th century…

Haggis doesn’t travel well in a picnic basket. Besides, it’s hard to have a pleasant picnic when people around you are reacting to the eating of haggis.

That’s it! That is why Hume was so miserable. It’s all the fault of haggis. I’m a skeptic when it comes to haggis as I don’t consider it food (and the US government agrees with me). Hume probably ate haggis all the time and, unlike the poet Burns, was appropriately horrified. It resulted in a severe case of cognitive dissonance and Hume’s way of resolving the conflict in his mind was to become a skeptic about everything - including his own existence.

Now I understand!

Please pardon my “Humer.”

 

[tonyrey]

If God constantly worked miracles everyone would be compelled to believe that a benevolent Power exists.

It may sound as if everything in the garden would be lovely if everyone knew for certain that God exists but in fact it would deprive our lives of their meaning and purpose. When we lose our freedom we realise how precious it is. That is why life imprisonment is a far worse punishment than execution. Yet even in prison we can think for ourselves, choose what to believe and who to love.

If we lost our free will we would be incapable of doing that. We would be like animals who act instinctively and are naturally good but they are not innocent! Nor are they guilty because they have no moral responsibility. They are capable of love but not the highest form of love that Jesus expects of us: to suffer and lay down our lives if necessary for those we have never even met. Such love requires self-control and immense will-power which transcend natural behaviour because it is supernatural.

We need to be in the dark to a certain extent in order to be truly independent. That is why God leaves us to work out our own salvation. We do the same with our children rather than try to control them and shelter them from the moment of birth to the moment of death. We know they cannot develop fully unless we allow them to leave home and become exposed to all the dangers and temptations of the world. The analogy breaks down because they know we exist but even so it is still true that independence is more important than anything else.

John Stuart Mill remarked that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied! We don’t have to be philosophers but we do have to be mentally independent if we are to be unique individuals who can demonstrate what we are really worth with our courage, fortitude, dedication and determination - and this would be impossible if we were directly aware of God’s power and glory. The famous atheist Jean Paul Sartre believed consciousness always entails being self-aware (being for-itself). It also entails consciousness of our separation from the world, and hence freedom. If we were aware of our total dependence on God we would certainly lose our freedom and become little more than puppets, yes-men and yes-women incapable of being authentic individuals…

 

[tonyrey]

Haggis doesn’t travel well in a picnic basket. Besides, it’s hard to have a pleasant picnic when people around you are reacting to the eating of haggis.

That’s it! That is why Hume was so miserable. It’s all the fault of haggis. I’m a skeptic when it comes to haggis as I don’t consider it food (and the US government agrees with me). Hume probably ate haggis all the time and, unlike the poet Burns, was appropriately horrified. It resulted in a severe case of cognitive dissonance and Hume’s way of resolving the conflict in his mind was to become a skeptic about everything - including his own existence.

Now I understand!

Please pardon my “Humer.”

It’s delightful and gives much-needed light relief from the intensity of philosophical discussion - although I’m not sure Scots would be impressed by your possible implication that haggis makes men haggard and turns women into old hags.

BTW Hume remained a bachelor although he was attracted to ladies… Perhaps his derogatory reference to “our common insipid enjoyments” was related to a lack of family life. His philosophy is certainly soul-destroying in more ways than one…

 

[LittleSoldier]

“Admitting your position, replied PHILO, which yet is extremely doubtful, you must, at the same time, allow, that, if pain be less frequent than pleasure, it is infinitely more violent and durable. One hour of it is often able to outweigh a day, a week, a month of our common insipid enjoyments : And how many days, weeks, and months are passed by several in the most acute torments ? Pleasure, scarcely in one instance, is ever able to reach ecstacy and rapture : And in no one instance can it continue for any time at its highest pitch and altitude. The spirits evaporate ; the nerves relax ; the fabric is disordered ; and the enjoyment quickly degenerates into fatigue and uneasiness. But pain often, good God, how often ! rises to torture and agony ; and the longer it continues, it becomes still more genuine agony and torture. Patience is exhausted ; courage languishes ; melancholy seizes us ; and nothing terminates our misery but the removal of its cause, or another event, which is the sole cure of all evil, but which, from our natural folly, we regard with still greater horror and consternation.”

I think you will admit he had a point!

I can’t admit anything yet (except that haggis is quite disgusting) but I do have some questions:

(1) What is PHILO? I googled it and only found references to Philomath. Is PHILO an abbreviation for “Philosophy?” There’s one for psychology but my keyboard has no Greek letters as far as I know.

(2) Is Hume saying that pain, even if less frequent than pleasure, is much worse than pleasure is good? If so, I disagree and vehemently so! Vehemently, I tell you! V.e.h.e.m.e.n.t.l.y! The joys of just feeling good are so much better than the displeasure of pain. Feeling good wipes away the memory of pain. A mother who has just finished 36 hours of intense back labor sans any pain medication looks upon her newborn and feels joy in her heart.

(3) Why did Hume refer to pleasure as insipid? I know his language is now archaic but insipid? Quite a strange word to use (I asked Kaelan, my Scottish fold, what Hume meant but he just stuck his tongue out at me and then he hissed and ran away; I think he’s ashamed of his Scottish roots ).

(4) Why was Hume so morbid (I realize I’ve already asked this)? He obviously did not experience the ecstasy of being in the presence of God because if one is given that ecstasy it is so pleasurable that the person must be removed from his body during the experience or he will die - his heart cannot tolerate such joy.

(5) Did you post this because I have chronic pain? If so, thank you because it has opened my eyes. It is true that pain is well, painful and negative and it hurts and it makes me miserable but I am not pain. I am a soul in a body that suffers with pain. My soul, however, exists in God and suffers only when I sin, which I admit is far too often (but I’m working on it). I suppose that Hume was a skeptic about the existence of the soul but he found out he had one once he died.

My soul is far more important than my physical body which is becoming decrepit and is being chipped away at like a statue - half a finger here, a tooth there…but I know that God will replace that missing half finger and tooth and I will be able to run and dance and even fly. I know very little about Hume but I can see a path he might have taken; a path that led into darkness and not light. If one suffers one can either be foolishly stoical about it (there are *always *ways to alleviate suffering) or take measures to decrease the suffering. Hume did neither - it appears that he wallowed in self-pity and tried to drag others down with him. I wouldn’t have played backgammon with him and I like to play backgammon.

Remember that I’m just starting out. I’ve actually picked a philosopher to study and that is Descarte. I picked him for two reasons: (1) he was an idiot who didn’t even understand that animals such as dogs really do feel pain; and (2) the book on Amazon was remarkably cheap. I think Descarte will be much easier to understand than Hume.

My final question (for now):

(6) Did Hume commit suicide?

BTW, you -]plagiarized/-] mistakenly did not list a source for the quote (unless it has something to do with the PHILO thing).

 

[LittleSoldier]

It’s delightful and gives much-needed light relief from the intensity of philosophical discussion - although I’m not sure Scots would be impressed by your possible implication that haggis makes men haggard and turns women into old hags.

BTW Hume remained a bachelor although he was attracted to ladies… Perhaps his derogatory reference to “our common insipid enjoyments” was related to a lack of family life. His philosophy is certainly soul-destroying in more ways than one…

I have a feeling the ladies were not attracted to Hume. I don’t mean in a physical way; I could have fallen in love with Chesterton and I’ve seen photos of him and !!! But his attitude about life was so upbeat and he was such an interesting character that I think spending my life with someone like that would be one great adventure after another. It’s a shame that he and his wife had no children. He would have been a great Dad.

 

[tonyrey]

I can’t admit anything yet (except that haggis is quite disgusting) but I do have some questions:

(1) What is PHILO? I googled it and only found references to Philomath. Is PHILO an abbreviation for “Philosophy?” There’s one for psychology but my keyboard has no Greek letters as far as I know.

The name of the sceptic (representing his views) in the Dialogues.

(2) Is Hume saying that pain, even if less frequent than pleasure, is much worse than pleasure is good? If so, I disagree and vehemently so! Vehemently, I tell you! V.e.h.e.m.e.n.t.l.y! The joys of just feeling good are so much better than the displeasure of pain. Feeling good wipes away the memory of pain. A mother who has just finished 36 hours of intense back labor sans any pain medication looks upon her newborn and feels joy in her heart.

You have anticipated me yet again!

(3) Why did Hume refer to pleasure as insipid? I know his language is now archaic but insipid? Quite a strange word to use (I asked Kaelan, my Scottish fold, what Hume meant but he just stuck his tongue out at me and then he hissed and ran away; I think he’s ashamed of his Scottish roots ).

And again! My theory is partly a lack of family life and love.

(4) Why was Hume so morbid (I realize I’ve already asked this)? He obviously did not experience the ecstasy of being in the presence of God because if one is given that ecstasy it is so pleasurable that the person must be removed from his body during the experience or he will die - his heart cannot tolerate such joy.

Sparks in the dark have nothing to look forward to…

(5) Did you post this because I have chronic pain? If so, thank you because it has opened my eyes. It is true that pain is well, painful and negative and it hurts and it makes me miserable but I am not pain. I am a soul in a body that suffers with pain. My soul, however, exists in God and suffers only when I sin, which I admit is far too often (but I’m working on it). I suppose that Hume was a skeptic about the existence of the soul but he found out he had one once he died.

Hume was less dogmatic than other philosophers. I may well be mistaken if I have called him an atheist:

"Take care, Philo, replied Cleanthes, take care: push not matters too far: allow not your zeal against** false religion** to undermine your veneration for the true. Forfeit not this principle, the chief, the only great comfort in life; and our principal support amidst all the attacks of adverse fortune. The most agreeable reflection, which it is possible for human imagination to suggest, is that of genuine Theism, which represents us as the workmanship of a Being perfectly good, wise, and powerful; who created us for happiness; and who, having implanted in us immeasurable desires of good, will prolong our existence to all eternity, and will transfer us into an infinite variety of scenes, in order to satisfy those desires, and render our felicity compleat and durable. Next to such a Being himself (if the comparison be allowed), the happiest lot which we can imagine, is that of being under his guardianship and protection.

    **These appearances, said Philo, are most engaging and alluring; and with regard to the true  philosopher, they are more than appearances.** But it happens here, as in the former case, that, with regard to  the greater part of mankind, the appearances are deceitful, and that the terrors of religion commonly prevail  above its comforts."

My soul is far more important than my physical body which is becoming decrepit and is being chipped away at like a statue - half a finger here, a tooth there…but I know that God will replace that missing half finger and tooth and I will be able to run and dance and even fly. I know very little about Hume but I can see a path he might have taken; a path that led into darkness and not light. If one suffers one can either be foolishly stoical about it (there are *always *ways to alleviate suffering) or take measures to decrease the suffering. Hume did neither - it appears that he wallowed in self-pity and tried to drag others down with him. I wouldn’t have played backgammon with him and I like to play backgammon.

I think you’re being too harsh on him…

Remember that I’m just starting out. I’ve actually picked a philosopher to study and that is Descartes. I picked him for two reasons: (1) he was an idiot who didn’t even understand that animals such as dogs really do feel pain; and (2) the book on Amazon was remarkably cheap. I think Descartes will be much easier to understand than Hume.

He definitely is (not an idiot but easier!) - and I regard his Cogito as a fundamental truth.

(6) Did Hume commit suicide?

No. He died serenely and with courage - to give credit where it is due.

BTW, you -]plagiarized/-] mistakenly did not list a source for the quote (unless it has something to do with the PHILO thing).

All the quotes are from the Dialogues…

 

[razredge]

I don’t see much of an argument here.

Me neither, even Richard Dawkins has admitted a case can be made for a deistic God from the fine tuning of the cosmos.

Saying you are inclined to favour your own argument hardly constitutes an objection.

I was thinking about this recently - it seems to me that when we look for an ultimate origin it boils down to two options - both of them eternal and uncreated (since we cannot have an infinite regress of causes). Either matter/energy has always existed or God has always existed.

Now, ignoring the evidence from fine tuning etc. to most people it would seem far more plausible to posit eternal matter/energy at the beginning of everything rather than an eternal intelligence.

However, I was wondering whether there are any rational reasons for preferring matter to an eternal intelligence, or is it just a subjective preference because for some reason we intuitively thing eternal matter is more plausible?

On the contrary. Miracles don’t occur in such abundance that we are forced to believe…

You can hardly say that miracles (like Lourdes, Guadalupe, Fatima) have not compelled people to believe.

 

[tonyrey]

You can hardly say that miracles (like Lourdes, Guadalupe, Fatima) have not compelled people to believe.

There are many degrees of belief. The miracles have not been so compelling that they dominate every thought and action of those who believe in them…

 

[tonyrey]

However, I was wondering whether there are any rational reasons for preferring matter to an eternal intelligence, or is it just a subjective preference because for some reason we intuitively thing eternal matter is more plausible?

A “rational reason” for rejecting matter is that it takes reason to determine what is unreasonable!

The theory that reason consists of irrational events is self-destructive.

 

[wanstronian]

However, I was wondering whether there are any rational reasons for preferring matter to an eternal intelligence, or is it just a subjective preference because for some reason we intuitively thing eternal matter is more plausible?

I think the most obvious reason is that we can see matter all around us, but we have zero evidence, or even any plausible reason, to suspect that intelligence is not an emergent property of that matter. Our brains are made of matter. If you damage the brain, intelligence and other functions of “mind” are affected. It’s a very tight correlation. No extra-corporeal intelligence has ever been detected.

Added to which, nobody has ever been able to describe any plausible mechanism by which intelligence might exist outside of matter.

So despite Tony’s inevitable and tediously persistent (but sadly fallacious) assertion that “consciousness can’t come from unconscious particles” or some variant thereof, the fact remains that materialism is a far more plausible and useable worldview than some airy-fairy supernatural phenomenon which, after all, simply raises more questions.

The truth is, nobody know what happened or existed “before” the Big Bang. Speculate all you like, but be aware that speculation is all it is.

On the other hand, we do have a very good idea, supported by reams of evidence, of what happened *since *the Big Bang. And it doesn’t require any mysterious supernatural intelligent agent.

 

[tonyrey]

However, I was wondering whether there are any rational reasons for preferring matter to an eternal intelligence, or is it just a subjective preference because for some reason we intuitively thing eternal matter is more plausible?

1. “around” is the key word - as if a spatial attribute settles the matter!
2. We **know **full well that matter does not think whereas we have the not insignificant power to think about matter.
3. “emergent property” is merely a cloak for ignorance. No one has ever reduced thoughts to electrical impulses.

Our brains are made of matter. If you damage the brain, intelligence and other functions of “mind” are affected. It’s a very tight correlation.

1. If the mind is disturbed bodily functions are also disturbed. Correlation does not entail unidirectional causation.

No extra-corporeal intelligence has ever been detected.

1. Intangible thoughts are detected by the person is who thinking without the need for a scientific device.

Added to which, nobody has ever been able to describe any plausible mechanism by which intelligence might exist outside of matter.

1. The use of “mechanism” reveals the unsubstantiated assumption that every event has a mechanistic explanation - which neatly disposes of rationality and responsibility, thereby confirming the facts in my last post:
2. A “rational reason” for rejecting matter is that it takes reason to determine what is unreasonable!
3. The theory that reason consists of irrational events is self-destructive.

“… materialism is a far more plausible and useable worldview than some airy-fairy supernatural phenomenon which, after all, simply raises more questions.”

1. Since the demise of logical positivism materialism is exposed as an inadequate hypothesis.
2. How can the verification principle be explained scientifically?

The truth is, nobody know what happened or existed “before” the Big Bang. Speculate all you like, but be aware that speculation is all it is.

On the other hand, we do have a very good idea, supported by reams of evidence, of what happened since the Big Bang. And it doesn’t require any mysterious supernatural intelligent agent.

1. The power of reason and self-control presuppose supernatural agency.
2. To derive thoughts from unthinking molecules is the height of absurdity.
3. The more absurd a hypothesis is - like solipsism - the easier it is to maintain.
4. What is the precise “mechanism” by which everything is **known **to have a mechanistic explanation?

 

[grannymh]

. No extra-corporeal intelligence has ever been detected.

In the composite of human nature, rational thought and free will are not corporeal.

Added to which, nobody has ever been able to describe any plausible mechanism by which intelligence might exist outside of matter.

Of course, human’s rational thought and free will do not exist outside of matter. Even though, at times, I wonder where my mind floated to.

 

[inocente]

I do not remember seeing your post on CCC 365. However, to get a grip on the sentence you mentioned above “The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body’.” one has to start with CCC 362
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/362.htm

Catholic teaching cannot be condensed into a prime time sound bite.

Obviously not, no need to shout although as I’ve said before, no Catholic I know in real life finds Catholicism anywhere near as tortuously convoluted as sometimes portrayed on CAF.

I don’t recall the name of the other thread, all I really wanted to know was why the CCC puts “form” in quote marks, but posters were guessing, no one knew. And it turned out that without knowing, they couldn’t agree on what the sentence means and so didn’t agree on very much at all about the soul. My point is that if the sentence is a reference to Aristotle/Thomas then those posters would need to understand what Aristotle means to know what the CCC means, and otherwise were just guessing or completely misinterpreting. Your Stanford link might be helpful to Catholics, I was just using this as an example of what can happen when people don’t at least try to see the world through the eyes of the original author.