Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

Yes.
Many errors.
As a start – The classification of “they” in the last sentence is missing as well as “people” in the second sentence.

ReggieM

Forget my answer, please.

Buffalo’s IDvolution is closer to Catholicism than ID any day of the week.
idvolution.org/?da165a40 go to “What is IDvolution?”

 

[tonyrey]

“natural” is a nebulous term. No one has ever defined it precisely because its goal posts are frequently being moved to accommodate each new discovery which includes entities that cannot be observed with the senses! A more realistic term is “subnatural” which at least excludes living organisms but that would highlight the absurdity of rejecting the “supernatural” out of hand. If there are two dimensions of reality why not three - or more?

Inanimate objects.

And what reason do we have, when our understanding of reality is so incomplete, to divide reality into two definite separate parts - one which we can investigate through scientific means, and one which we absolutely cannot thus investigate, by its very definition? This has been my argument all along - what is the sense in supposing that what exists is divided into two separate realms, when we don’t actually know about everything that exists, nor how it does so? If we, as natural, physical beings (and we are this, because our existence is demonstrably contingent upon physical matter and forces) can perceive something like a soul, for example (if we can - I’m still dubious upon that issue) what call to we have to claim that souls inhabit a separate realm of reality from bodies?

You are assuming everything has a physical basis - which is by no mean self-evident. How do you know that our existence is demonstrably contingent upon physical matter and forces? Do you reject outright the existence of everything that is intangible? The sole certainty we have is that we have intangible thoughts, feelings and perceptions - and make decisions.

The tidy little scheme of “naturalism” would be exposed for what it is: an arbitrary derivation of **everything **

from inanimate objects which are the most insignificant elements of existence for any rational being! Who in their right mind considers their mind to be a mere collection of mindless particles? Robots cannot even be classed as idiots…

Yet a human being who acted like a robot, as commonly understood, would more than likely be classed as an idiot - or, perhaps, if like an extraordinarily sophisticated robot, be diagnosed with some variety of autism spectrum disorder. The problem I see in your implied definition of ‘natural’ is that you assume all matter is necessarily inanimate, presumably if not enlivened by some supernatural essence. But matter is not, by definition, inanimate - particles of matter are at every moment subject to physical and chemical interactions and forces, depending upon their composition and situation amongst other particles.

That is scientific heresy - unless your use of “inanimate” is idiosyncratic!

You apparently consider mind to be a whole and complete phenomenon that must act upon physical states, rather than an emergent phenomenon that relies upon physical states - yet it is not clear why you suppose this must be the case.

One can with equal facility regard matter as an emergent phenomenon that relies upon mental states! What we believe with ample justification is that there is interaction between the mind and the body - and that the mind is the dominant factor.

Yes, ‘natural’ is a contentious adjective, and there has never really been, at least as far as I know, a concrete definition of what constitutes a ‘natural’ phenomenon as distinct from any other kind of phenomenon. But I think that is indicative of the problems we face in any attempt to delimit reality.

That is why naturalism is an invalid term which shouldn’t be used when interpreting reality.

Given that, what I would ask is this - how is the designation of everything that exists as natural, somehow more arbitrary than pigeon-holing some aspects of reality as ‘supernatural’ and cut off from investigation along the lines of natural phenomena?

It is quite arbitrary to pigeon-hole our subjective experiences into a scientific box.

Are we not meant to understand supernatural phenomena? Are we supposed to just accept them as mysterious and be satisfied? It seems to me that, since our understanding of reality is so imperfect anyway, it’s entirely premature to claim that we can definitely class some things as ‘natural’ and others as ‘supernatural’.

There is a vast difference between our emotions and what we observe with our senses. There is a wealth of knowledge about personal experience and there are psychological truths that cannot be reduced to physiological explanations. The fact that the most important aspects of life are intangible demonstrates the inadequacy of materialism. Our world consists mainly of our interpretation of reality but we are not infallible. Some interpretations are more fulfilling than others - and therefore more likely to be true. Jesus anticipated the pragmatists: “By their fruits you shall know them…”

 

[reggieM]

Buffalo’s IDvolution is closer to Catholicism than ID any day of the week.
idvolution.org/?da165a40 go to “What is IDvolution?”

Buffalo’s concept is based on ID and is fully compatible with it, not in opposition.

From the first item listed, reporting on Michael Behe’s recent analysis:

“… That concept is quite compatible with intelligent design. Not so much with Darwinism.”
So, we have more support for IDvolution.

Try clicking his tag “intelligent design” and then read the many articles listed there.

 

[reggieM]

It seems to me that, since our understanding of reality is so imperfect anyway, it’s entirely premature to claim that we can definitely class some things as ‘natural’ and others as ‘supernatural’.

It’s axiomatic that effects must have a cause. Physical, material nature is an effect. Therefore, the supernatural must be the cause.

 

[grannymh]

Buffalo’s concept is based on ID and is fully compatible with it, not in opposition.

From the first item listed, reporting on Michael Behe’s recent analysis:
“… That concept is quite compatible with intelligent design. Not so much with Darwinism.”
So, we have more support for IDvolution.
Try clicking his tag “intelligent design” and then read the many articles listed there.

Please, please, note I never implied opposition. Good grief. I do have a handle on IDvolution.

My apology, Buffalo, for this misunderstanding. Here is what I posted in #678.

Buffalo’s IDvolution is closer to Catholicism than ID any day of the week.
idvolution.org/?da165a40 go to “What is IDvolution?”

 

[grannymh]

And what reason do we have, when our understanding of reality is so incomplete, to divide reality into two definite separate parts - one which we can investigate through scientific means, and one which we absolutely cannot thus investigate, by its very definition?

From my point of view, it is the human person who unites two realities as one human nature. This is not to be confused with Cartesian dualism.

At short time ago, I was corrected by a philosophical type that the correct domain for whatever scientist types work in is “natural science”. That made sense, so I try to use “natural science” in it natural meaning at various times.

In the old days on CAF, (before the current ban on evolution discussion) when it was possible to defend human nature in the natural science domain, I referred to two different ways of exploring reality. The original reasoning has been updated out of respect for the current ban. The reasoning follows.

The philosophical position that all reality is material is unable to address the uniqueness of the human species. Instead of expanding this philosophical view to include both the material *and *spiritual reality of humanity, the distinguishing uniqueness of the human species, which is its spiritual soul, was eliminated. Consequently, man became a material being, an animal with higher degrees of certain abilities.

By all means, the domain of natural science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the spiritual from inquiry as if it were non-existent. The choice of the single material explanation for the human species does not mean that other possibilities must be excluded from an independent analysis.

Ah, one says. The spiritual cannot be put under a microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of its existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

The above comments are from the introduction to the thesis: “The possibility of two sole parents of all humanity lies within the nature of the human species.”
My non-theist discussion partner set the terms as – “If there is anything that we can show in the nature of the human species that is evidence for two sole parents then that is a foundation for the proposition.”

We were at the point of discussing whether or not I met the terms when a number of
off-line events prevented me from returning to the discussion. Time passed and I realized, through my beginning studies into certain areas of natural science, that it was possible to respect the recent discoveries in natural science and at the same time present a possibility for the Catholic doctrine of monogenism. This new approach is being worked on off-line.

My point is that by definition each reality, material and spiritual has its own special tools used for exploration. The interesting thing is that the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought which are used for exploration of the spiritual domain, can also be used to explore the material domain.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[Sair]

It’s axiomatic that effects must have a cause. Physical, material nature is an effect. Therefore, the supernatural must be the cause.

Physical nature is only an effect if it began to exist, at some point. At least one of the laws of thermodynamics holds that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed - the implication is that they have always existed in some form. Rather more parsimonious than the supposition that a phenomenally powerful (yet curiously inexplicable and undetectable) intelligence just always happened to exist, no?

From a rigorous scientific perspective - which is what ID proponents claim they adopt - there is nothing to be done, thus far, other than observe effects and make assumptions based on those effects. The difference between scientific research and Intelligent Design speculation in this regard is that the former actually makes serious attempts to trace the causes back through observable entities and patterns; thus far, no ID proponent has come up with the goods as far as observing the intelligent designer in any way, shape or form. If the effects can be explained through simpler causes than a supernatural intelligence, then they will be, ultimately, by scientific investigation - I repeat, not by speculation or by supposed ‘scientists’ who down tools, throw up their hands and declare, “Well, I can’t see how this could have come about except through intelligent design.”

 

[Sair]

Some interpretations are more fulfilling than others - and therefore more likely to be true.

Or more likely to be wishful thinking.

Jesus anticipated the pragmatists: “By their fruits you shall know them…”

If you were bent upon starting a cult, wouldn’t you throw out a platitude (or at least put it into the mouth of your figurehead) that anticipated potential opposition?

 

[Sair]

My point is that by definition each reality, material and spiritual has its own special tools used for exploration. The interesting thing is that the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought which are used for exploration of the spiritual domain, can also be used to explore the material domain.

The question is whether we are speaking of two different aspects of reality, or two different ways we humans have developed to explore and address a single reality.

 

[reggieM]

Physical nature is only an effect if it began to exist, at some point. At least one of the laws of thermodynamics holds that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed - the implication is that they have always existed in some form. Rather more parsimonious than the supposition that a phenomenally powerful (yet curiously inexplicable and undetectable) intelligence just always happened to exist, no?

Thanks for a thoughtful response. We agree on your first sentence. If nature had a beginning, then it was an effect – and thus needs to be explained by a non-natural cause.

I’d only change your last definition from “just always happened to exist” to “necessarily exists”. That one intelligence couldn’t accidentally exist because then it would be dependent on a prior being. So, that Intelligence is Being itself – simple (non-composite, eternal, non-contingent, etc).

In comparison, we’d have nature itself as eternal. But as you rightly point out, that would require matter and energy, and a collection of various laws.

Looking at the most parsimonious, we’d have one, single, necessary, being to explain as the First Cause. Or else, a collection of laws along with matter and energy, each possibly requiring different explanations (which came first?, which is more powerful?, how did they change over infinite time?, how could a process develop if it never had a beginning?).

From a rigorous scientific perspective - which is what ID proponents claim they adopt - there is nothing to be done, thus far, other than observe effects and make assumptions based on those effects.

That’s what theory does, doesn’t it?

The difference between scientific research and Intelligent Design speculation in this regard is that the former actually makes serious attempts to trace the causes back through observable entities and patterns; thus far, no ID proponent has come up with the goods as far as observing the intelligent designer in any way, shape or form.

A good parallel to this is Origin of Life. Proponents of theory claim that origin of life is “outside of the scope” of <####>. So, there’s a limit to what it’s trying to explain. The same is true of ID. It works within limits. I doesn’t attempt to directly observe the designer. In the same way <####> cannot directly observe the conditions in place billions of years ago at the origin of life, or even during millions of years of the origin of species, etc.

 

[vz71]

If the definition of why we were created, namely to love and worship God, is correct, then making creatures God already knows will not love Him or will reject Him, for which He will punish them eternally, does not seem like an act of love to me. An act of love in such case would be to simply not create such a creature.

I think you have missed the point.

It is our purpose to know, love, and serve God, but it is also our decision if we should fulfill that purpose or not.
If we decide not, God is loving enough to allow us to make that choice.
Denial of existence is not an act of love.

Why does God make people to love and worship Him. I don’t understand that. God is God. Why does He need to make people to love and worship Him?

God has no need for people to worship him.
The people have a need to worship God.

 

[buffalo]

Physical nature is only an effect if it began to exist, at some point. At least one of the laws of thermodynamics holds that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed - the implication is that they have always existed in some form. Rather more parsimonious than the supposition that a phenomenally powerful (yet curiously inexplicable and undetectable) intelligence just always happened to exist, no?

From a rigorous scientific perspective - which is what ID proponents claim they adopt - there is nothing to be done, thus far, other than observe effects and make assumptions based on those effects. The difference between scientific research and Intelligent Design speculation in this regard is that the former actually makes serious attempts to trace the causes back through observable entities and patterns; thus far, no ID proponent has come up with the goods as far as observing the intelligent designer in any way, shape or form. If the effects can be explained through simpler causes than a supernatural intelligence, then they will be, ultimately, by scientific investigation - I repeat, not by speculation or by supposed ‘scientists’ who down tools, throw up their hands and declare, “Well, I can’t see how this could have come about except through intelligent design.”

Biomimicry is an expanding field.

 

[vz71]

If Sally knew God existed, and chose to reject Him, then hmmmmm - maybe. But Sally is rejecting the idea this God exists because try as she might, she can not find any evidence for Him and has a very good understanding in terms of human fears and that other thing that may not be mentioned, as to why man has developed such ideas and beliefs. Should Sally be be subjected to eternal misery?

My youngest has absolutely no idea that there is air around her.
Nevertheless, if this air is removed, she will suffer.
Fortunately we are not in the same position.
God is there to be found. We have the whole of creation testifying to the fact of it and we have the sacred scripture and tradition as well as God’s church to provide us the evidence we need.

That being said, we still have the free choice to be with God forever or to be apart from God forever.
Should we reject him, God complies with that, and we are seperated from God forever.
We know with certainty of God (after all, we made the choice) and also regret the decision…forever.

If God exits, wouldn’t the loving thing be to either let her into heaven, so simply destroy her existence entirely, so she is not subjected to eternal misery or torture?

Then the choice becomes one of ‘say yes or be removed from existence’??
That would be monsterous.
Consider the decision made here…
God is right there, you can accept or reject. Why shouldn’t you be subject to the consequences of the decision?

If a parent has a rebellious child, and try as they might this child rejects the parents love completely, would anyone think it was either fair, just or right that this parent would then go on to inflict eternal misery or torment on this child?

It is not the parent that is tormenting the child (to use your analogy).
It is the choice the child is making that is causing the torment.

 

[grannymh]

The question is whether we are speaking of two different aspects of reality, or two different ways we humans have developed to explore and address a single reality.

The answer is both.

I am not referring to you or anyone in particular; however, in my humble opinion, the biggest problem on CAF, is that some, not all, posters view conversations as if they are the “mutually exclusive or” It is **either **their way **or **the highway.

When possible, I prefer the both-and view of conversations.

I studied and worked in an both-and environment of all possibilities. I enjoyed “walking on both sides of the street, up the middle, at the same time.” Back then, looking at all possibilities with a both this and that view was a common skill of professors and expanding universities, writers and their employers. I am not sure why the limited either-or is now the popular way to view life.

To get back to your post 686. “The question is whether we are speaking of two different aspects of reality, or two different ways we humans have developed to explore and address a single reality.”

Both two different aspects of a single reality *and *the idea of separate realities work for our conversation. That is because the operative word is “different.”

Addressing a single reality includes **both this and many thats. Does one have to believe every this and every that? Maybe in one’s own personal life, one settles on a particular this or that. However, in conversations, I enjoy uncommitted ideas which is because the operative word is “different.”

If the concept of spiritual (designed or otherwise) is the foundation for our conversation–and please do correct me if I have the wrong idea-- there are different ways to look at it without making a personal commitment one way or another. For example, occasionally, there are threads comparing some, not all, parts of the first three chapters of Genesis with ancient legends or mythology. The ancient verbal and written traditions explaining how the world originated are fascinating. I love one of the native Alaskan “stories” about the origin of mosquitoes.

Recently, I have been looking at these ancient musings about the universe as being a recognition of something non-material or even spiritual as the cause for something physical in people’s lives. Could this mean that the concept of spiritual possibilities are inherent in human nature?

 

[Daedelus76]

The scientific view of life is inconsistent with the Buddhist view of life. The resulting synthesis is incoherent because there is no relation between the physical and spiritual aspects of reality.

Buddhism is unconcerned with the origins of life. Buddha said “I teach suffering and the end of suffering”. Buddhism is about the human condition, not abstract philosophical or scientific speculation. So its very compatible with science. It also doesn’t matter whether a god created the world or not, Buddhism still works and considers God’s existence irrelevent, especially due to the Problem of Evil.

These statements reveals the **negativity **of your interpretation of life - reminiscent of Schopenhauer’s pessimism.

Life is pretty pessimistic, full of pain and suffering. What kind of monster denies that? The world is an ocean of suffering. Buddha said the world is like a burning house. People should take the suffering of the world seriously and focus on the Dharma above all else and avoid sensory pleasures, because the Dharma alone brings true happiness in this world.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Life is pretty pessimistic, full of pain and suffering. What kind of monster denies that?

I do. Call me a monster, but I am an optimist.

 

[tonyrey]

• Some interpretations are more fulfilling than others - and therefore more likely to be true.*

The classic example of wishful thinking is the rejection of belief in God because it is an obstacle to the satisfaction of one’s desires…

Jesus anticipated the pragmatists: “By their fruits you shall know them…”

If you were bent upon starting a cult, wouldn’t you throw out a platitude (or at least put it into the mouth of your figurehead) that anticipated potential opposition?

Non sequitur.

 

[Sair]

The answer is both.

I am not referring to you or anyone in particular; however, in my humble opinion, the biggest problem on CAF, is that some, not all, posters view conversations as if they are the “mutually exclusive or” It is **either **their way **or **the highway.

When possible, I prefer the both-and view of conversations.

I studied and worked in an both-and environment of all possibilities. I enjoyed “walking on both sides of the street, up the middle, at the same time.” Back then, looking at all possibilities with a both this and that view was a common skill of professors and expanding universities, writers and their employers. I am not sure why the limited either-or is now the popular way to view life.

To get back to your post 686. “The question is whether we are speaking of two different aspects of reality, or two different ways we humans have developed to explore and address a single reality.”

Both two different aspects of a single reality *and *the idea of separate realities work for our conversation. That is because the operative word is “different.”

Addressing a single reality includes **both this and many thats. Does one have to believe every this and every that? Maybe in one’s own personal life, one settles on a particular this or that. However, in conversations, I enjoy uncommitted ideas which is because the operative word is “different.”

If the concept of spiritual (designed or otherwise) is the foundation for our conversation–and please do correct me if I have the wrong idea-- there are different ways to look at it without making a personal commitment one way or another. For example, occasionally, there are threads comparing some, not all, parts of the first three chapters of Genesis with ancient legends or mythology. The ancient verbal and written traditions explaining how the world originated are fascinating. I love one of the native Alaskan “stories” about the origin of mosquitoes.

Recently, I have been looking at these ancient musings about the universe as being a recognition of something non-material or even spiritual as the cause for something physical in people’s lives. Could this mean that the concept of spiritual possibilities are inherent in human nature?

I appreciate this post - I do think there are many ways of looking at a single reality, that being the reality we all experience. After all, how can we argue that any of our experiences are not reflective of some reality? It is only the nature of said reality that can be in dispute - for example, a person may see pink elephants, and that is indeed a reality for them; but the nature of this reality could be either the actual existence of pink elephants in their immediate vicinity, or it could be the hallucinatory projections of their substance-addled brains!

What I object to is the line of argument I have seen adopted by a number of religious believers - in short, that we must overthrow all empirical thought in order to ground belief in what are called supernatural entities. I have no doubt that humans experience what we all call love, or compassion (or hatred and malice, for that matter) or a connection to the world in general, or even that we have an innate capacity for storytelling (the latter is, after all, a function of the way our evolved mammal brains process information into coherent, connected sequences) - but I don’t see any reason to cordon these things off from physical reality, as if a) they were somehow more important, ultimately, than obviously physical, sensual experiences (and at root, unrelated to such experiences) and that b) they inhabit a separate sphere of reality, requiring us to split the set of that-which-exists into two entirely different categories.

According to classical logic, something cannot be simultaneously both itself and not-itself at the same time - hence, some phenomenon cannot be both ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ at the same time, since these categories of existence are understood to be fundamentally different in terms of their natures and capabilities - in particular, in terms of their susceptibility to empirical investigation. I don’t believe logic is infallible (useful though it may be as an intellectual tool), any more than any other human invention; but when theistic believers attempt to argue, from a logical perspective, that a perfectly good, all-powerful god has excuses for not making a perfect world, it always raises a red flag for me.

 

[Sair]

The classic example of wishful thinking is the rejection of belief in God because it is an obstacle to the satisfaction of one’s desires…

Funny - I always thought that the ultimate example of wishful thinking was the belief that our existence would persist eternally, satisfying our arrogant presumption that we, as individual mammals of a certain species, matter to the universe.

What, after all, do you expect to gain from religious observance and belief in an afterlife of union with your god, if not ultimate fulfilment? Why should we alone, of all entities, be entitled to such a privilege?

 

[tonyrey]

Funny - I always thought that the ultimate example of wishful thinking was the belief that our existence would persist eternally, satisfying our arrogant presumption that we, as individual mammals of a certain species, matter to the universe.]

It is an arrogant presumption to believe that one’s desire that the universe is purposeless is satisfied - thereby removing any obstacle to the satisfaction of** all** one’s desires!

What, after all, do you expect to gain from religious observance and belief in an afterlife of union with your god, if not ultimate fulfilment?

An argumentum ad hominem. Your question has no bearing on the nature of reality. An equally irrelevant - but revealing - question would be:

What do you expect to gain from your rejection of religion?

Why should we alone, of all entities, be entitled to such a privilege?

What is the basis of that assumption?