How can we reconcile the argument of intelligent design with supposed design flaws?

[Peter_Plato]

No. Men who are taught that rape is wrong and believe this to be true will have that belief as part of the conditions that are current at any relevant time. If they hold it to be true in all conditions, then they have no choice in the matter.

We’ve been through this before in another thread. You are assuming that individuals are always obligated by what they know to be true (or good.)

I don’t think that is true.

Some will attempt complicated mental maneuvers to convince themselves that what they don’t want to be true isn’t or what they do want to be true is. This is called rationalizing.

The same is true with reference to goods. Some will simply ignore higher goods and focus on lower – thus the value of the lives and well-being of others (which men have been taught is to be highly regarded) is discounted and ignored in the commission of, say, theft or rape against a particular individual. There is a deliberate turning a blind eye to some moral facts while elevating the value of other, more pressing, goods which are in the immediate field of view.

This is where the choice of the matter comes in. Call it the Jekyl and Hyde personalities in all of us which are constantly fighting it out for dominance. Paul called it sin alive and present in himself which makes him do stuff he doesn’t want and not do stuff he does. In those times Hyde wins out over Jekyl.

 

[Bradski]

If **everything **we believe is the result of what we have been taught and the conditions in which we live you have no choice in your belief that everything we believe is the result of what we have been taught and the conditions in which we live… Why should your belief be superior to others who disagree with you?

How on earth can you possibly believe something that you have not been taught? Either by others or by teaching yourself using the information available?

And beliefs must be justified by reasonable arguments. I do not understand why I have to waste a few seconds of my life actually typing that out.

If we have different beliefs on any matter, then they must have been formed for both of us by being taught or by investigation into the facts of the matter. Be that global warming, gods and demons, contraception…whatever the case may be. If your belief is different to mine, then we simply put forward what we know about the subject and see who has the best reasons for their belief.

And again, if your reason is: ‘God says so’ and you have nothing else to bring to the table, then you will be ignored. Well, by me, at least.

 

[Bradski]

We’ve been through this before in another thread. You are assuming that individuals are always obligated by what they know to be true (or good.)

I don’t think that is true.

Some will attempt complicated mental maneuvers to convince themselves that what they don’t want to be true isn’t or what they do want to be true is. This is called rationalizing.

Everyone is obligated by what they believe to be true. Without fail. 100% of the time. Always.

But as you point out, some people don’t actually believe that, for example, rape is wrong -period. They will indeed rationalise it. I doubt very much that you will get any rational person to state that rape may be permissable in some circumstances, but if ever those circumstances occur and they do assault a woman, then they, obviously, believe it to be permissable under those circumstances.

They may feel guilt. They may feel they have done something wrong. And they will, as you quite rightly say, rationalise it to themselves (she was drunk, she was asking for it, she really wanted to have sex).

By their very actions, they declare that they don’t think that rape is wrong - period. If someone does think it is wrong in all circumstances, then they won’t.

By their works…

 

[Solmyr]

1. Are scientific explanations restricted to what we have encountered?
2. Should “missing links” and exceptions to a rule be ignored?
3. Wouldn’t people wonder why animals are killed but not persons?
4. What explanation would there be or would it remain an unsolved mystery?

None of this is even remotely pertinent to the point. Your assertion was that in a utopia people would start wondering, if there is some benevolent entity who prevents evil actions.

To this I reply that “nihil est in intellectu, quod non prius fuerit in sensu”. If people in a utopian society would always treat each other kindly and nicely, then the “thought” of violence would never even occur. It would be natural to be kind and nice, because that is what your basic attitude would be, reinforced by your upbringing.

Why “Many”? Why not “All”?

A loophole seems unnecessary if our formative years override all other factors…

It should be obvious. Because the families, parents, etc… do not place equal emphasis on different aspects of behavior. The guardrails preventing murder are much stronger than the ones against stealing.

If **everything **we believe is the result of what we have been taught and the conditions in which we live you have no choice in your belief that everything we believe is the result of what we have been taught and the conditions in which we live… Why should your belief be superior to others who disagree with you?

How come that you always think in black-and-white categories, it is always “everything” or “nothing”?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Everyone is obligated by what they believe to be true. Without fail. 100% of the time. Always.

But as you point out, some people don’t actually believe that, for example, rape is wrong -period. They will indeed rationalise it. I doubt very much that you will get any rational person to state that rape may be permissable in some circumstances, but if ever those circumstances occur and they do assault a woman, then they, obviously, believe it to be permissable under those circumstances.

They may feel guilt. They may feel they have done something wrong. And they will, as you quite rightly say, rationalise it to themselves (she was drunk, she was asking for it, she really wanted to have sex).

By their very actions, they declare that they don’t think that rape is wrong - period. If someone does think it is wrong in all circumstances, then they won’t.

By their works…

Sure, everyone of us are obligated to live by the truth, but the question is whether everyone actually obliges him or herself to the truth, even when they recognize it as the truth.

I am stating that people can and do play games with their knowledge of the truth and engage in self-deception. They either subvert or ignore the truth when they decide something else is more appealing.

Emotion can overrule reason. Ergo truth is not always the compelling factor in the internal workings of moral agents.

Essentially, you are then conceding this point?

So being taught and agreeing to some principle or other as the truth does NOT mean the person will remain obligated in the sense of actually being compelled to follow that principle at all times?

This implies that free will means upbringing or training does not necessitate certain behaviours and someone brought up not to rape might still abandon their upbringing and choose to rape?

This would mean you are conceding that Solmyr’s point – that someone’s upbringing would make them incapable of rape – was incorrect.

 

[Bradski]

So being taught and agreeing to some principle or other as the truth does NOT mean the person will remain obligated in the sense of actually being compelled to follow that principle at all times?

This implies that free will means upbringing or training does not necessitate certain behaviours and someone brought up not to rape might still abandon their upbringing and choose to rape?

This would mean you are conceding that Solmyr’s point – that someone’s upbringing would make them incapable of rape – was incorrect.

Well of course people don’t always follow what they have been taught. That’s an idiotic assumption which no-one has argued.

The point being made is that if someone truly believes something to be wrong, then they will not do it. If they do actually do it, then by definition, they cannot really have believed it was wrong in all circumstances.

When the pope next stays in a hotel, he is not going to pinch the towels. He knows it is wrong. There is no two ways about it as far as he is concerned. It would be impossible for him to do it.

I think that stealing hotel towels is wrong as well. But I’ve got a small one in my bag that we took out with us this morning as it was hot and humid and I didn’t return it. Hell, it was too much trouble to walk back, they won’t miss it, they ovecharged me for those drinks last night, the room wasn’t made up yesterday.

It’s wrong, but I can justify it to myself in certain circumstances. It’s not wrong…period. Whereas the pope thinks it’s wrong…period.

Dig deep enough and the simple answers that people give to complex questions are anything but cut and dry.

 

[magnet]

Does intelligent design encompass introducing an element of randomness into the picture? If random phenomena exist, then this is counter to the idea that everything has a structure. Randomness can only deal in probabilities and not in prediction of actual events.

 

[Bradski]

Does intelligent design encompass introducing an element of randomness into the picture? If random phenomena exist, then this is counter to the idea that everything has a structure. Randomness can only deal in probabilities and not in prediction of actual events.

Randomness only occurs at the level at which quantum mechanics holds sway. Crank it up to the macro, and the small indeterminate events become such that we can determine chemical structures, orbits of moons etc.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If random phenomena exist, then this is counter to the idea that everything has a structure. . .

All gambling involves randomness on an underlying structure: cards, dice, slots, lotteries, the short straw. To have a chance of something happening, something has to exist. And, the deck can be always stacked. If this doesn’t help, could you give an example.

 

[magnet]

All gambling involves randomness on an underlying structure: cards, dice, slots, lotteries, the short straw. To have a chance of something happening, something has to exist. And, the deck can be always stacked. If this doesn’t help, could you give an example.

In order to be able to plan for the future, probabilities need to be taken into account. There is the saying that nothing is certain except death and taxes. We know that death is inevitable, but we don’t know when. Would intelligent design have predetermined when death will occur?

One might establish the parameters within which the probabilities can be determined. Somewhere between birth and old age are the parameters for predicting end of life. A good design would have death predetermined at a certain time with 100% probability.

In a true random scenario, there is a 50/50 chance that a certain event will occur within a set period of time. In intelligent design, a desirable goal is to have a certain event occur with a very high probability. Otherwise there is no design.

If no predictability can be established, that is a flaw in the design.

 

[tonyrey]

Does intelligent design encompass introducing an element of randomness into the picture? If random phenomena exist, then this is counter to the idea that everything has a structure. Randomness can only deal in probabilities and not in prediction of actual events.

Irrefutable!

 

[tonyrey]

1. Are scientific explanations restricted to what we have encountered?

1. Should “missing links” and exceptions to a rule be ignored?
2. Wouldn’t people wonder why animals are killed but not persons?
3. What explanation would there be or would it remain an unsolved mystery?

Does nothing ever go wrong in your version of Utopia? Are there no deaths or accidents?

To this I reply that “nihil est in intellectu, quod non prius fuerit in sensu”.

Then how do you explain what we know by introspection?

If people in a utopian society would always treat each other kindly and nicely, then the “thought” of violence would never even occur. It would be natural to be kind and nice, because that is what your basic attitude would be, reinforced by your upbringing.

So they would be morally perfect but imperfect in other respects? Ignorant for example? Or would they never make mistakes?

Why “Many”? Why not “All”? A loophole seems unnecessary if our formative years override all other factors…

It should be obvious. Because the families, parents, etc… do not place equal emphasis on different aspects of behavior. The guardrails preventing murder are much stronger than the ones against stealing.

So in that respect people would be infallible?

If everything we believe is the result of what we have been taught and the conditions in which we live you have no choice in your belief that everything we believe is the result of what we have been taught and the conditions in which we live… Why should your belief be superior to others who disagree with you?

How come that you always think in black-and-white categories, it is always “everything” or “nothing”?

So you do believe we have some choice in what to believe and how to live? And you agree that your beliefs are not always superior to others?

 

[inocente]

Well, no, actually. If God’s omnipotence were ONLY limited by “logical inconsistencies” this would completely ignore that God’s alleged omnipotence is also limited by his alleged omniscience and alleged omnibenevolence – i.e., what it means for God to be God.

Epicurus makes a similar argument: If there is an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god then natural evil would not exist. But there is natural evil. Therefore god’s power, knowledge and/or goodness must be limited, and therefore an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god does not exist.

Again, see Thomas. You and Tony still seem to be thinking of God as if He went through a design phase, but that’s not normal Christian theology. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Omnipotence is perfect power, free from all mere potentiality. Hence, although God does not bring into external being all that He is able to accomplish, His power must not be understood as passing through successive stages before its effect is accomplished. The activity of God is simple and eternal, without evolution or change.”

PS I take it you now see that sunsets are not designed, as you didn’t respond to post #607.

 

[inocente]

There are bound to be defects in an immensely complex system which has developed over an immense period of time.

If there are defects then God’s power, knowledge and/or goodness must be compromised by chance and circumstance, therefore God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Whereas Thomas argues that because God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, ultimately there are no defects.

The laws of nature cannot possibly cater for every contingency.

But the laws of nature do cater for every contingency. If they didn’t, and if any unexpected contingency arose then the laws wouldn’t be able to cope with it and the universe would stop working. But whole galaxies can collide and whatever happens the universe never breaks down, never needs a reboot, the laws cater for every contingency.

A law of nature is defined to be omnipotent. For example, the law of gravity has power over everything with mass, there is no known defect to the law, nothing can escape its power. Surely God is even more powerful?

 

[inocente]

Morality exists whether you have free will or not.

If you bring someone up to believe that stealing is wrong and they accept that, then that belief forms part of their moral outlook. So that person has, efectively, no choice in making a decision to take the money from the till when the shopkeeper turns his back.

All the facets of every decision that you have made, all the criteria, all the specific circumstances, were set in place before you made the decisions. You had no control over them. The world turned in such a way as to fix those circumstances in a particular way at the moment you made you dcision.

Whatever that decision was, if the circumstances were EXACTLY the same at any other moment, you would make EXACTLY the same decision. Because whatever call you made, you made one of a number of options. Even if the only other option was to do nothing.

I guess that would be true if we had perfect knowledge of every possible factor relevant to a decision, and a perfect ability to exclude everything irrelevant, and perfectly knew the correct reasoning process to use, and reasoned it through perfectly. But that seems statistically unlikely in reality. None of us are anywhere near so perfect.

Every so often a magpie lands on the windowsill and talks to me. No idea why as I can’t speak magpie. This post would be different if he wasn’t there, and there are all kinds of less noisy things which constantly influence our thoughts. I think free-will just means “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion”.

 

[Aloysium]

In order to be able to plan for the future, probabilities need to be taken into account. There is the saying that nothing is certain except death and taxes. We know that death is inevitable, but we don’t know when. Would intelligent design have predetermined when death will occur?

One might establish the parameters within which the probabilities can be determined. Somewhere between birth and old age are the parameters for predicting end of life. A good design would have death predetermined at a certain time with 100% probability.

In a true random scenario, there is a 50/50 chance that a certain event will occur within a set period of time. In intelligent design, a desirable goal is to have a certain event occur with a very high probability. Otherwise there is no design.

If no predictability can be established, that is a flaw in the design.

You write a book in which the characters do what they want. You have a particular story line that ends with a happy ending. All the clues point to that end, but the characters are free to choose, and things in the background, the setting, occur as they are designed to occur. That end will happen, because it’s your story. So you go back and forth within the story, cleaning up one mess after another. Finally, in time, it all comes together. In time because you and I are in time. God is outside time. Having all the time in the world, He makes it happen instantaneously, that is in each particular moment. The story Is living, occurring in each and every now as part of an eternal now. And for us, right here and now, as in all our heres and nows, we decide our fate. Randomness and “predetermination” are not contradictions.

 

[Bradski]

I guess that would be true if we had perfect knowledge of every possible factor relevant to a decision, and a perfect ability to exclude everything irrelevant, and perfectly knew the correct reasoning process to use, and reasoned it through perfectly. But that seems statistically unlikely in reality. None of us are anywhere near so perfect.

When I say that you will always make the same decision every time if the conditions are EXACTLY the same, I am not saying that the decion will be perfect. Or even the right one. It may even turn out to be a very bad decision indeed.

But it will be the only decision that you can make. If you gain further knowledge and you can gradually exclude that which is irrelevant, then your decision making will improve. But if those new condions are repeated EXACTLY, then that decision, the better one, will again be repeated.

If that is not the case, then someone needs to explain to me what is different that allows a change. And if all conditions are exactly the same, no change is possible. It would be like re-running a film.

 

[Solmyr]

Does nothing ever go wrong in your version of Utopia? Are there no deaths or accidents?

As you should have noticed, I used the word “utopia” in a very limited context. Only the violent acts (like the one in Orlando) would be made impossible.

Then how do you explain what we know by introspection?

Introspection does not happen in a vacuum. Our first thoughts are reflections of the observed reality. Later we can build upon them and create a whole hierarchy of knowledge.

So they would be morally perfect but imperfect in other respects? Ignorant for example? Or would they never make mistakes?

Of course. The word “morally perfect” is not applicable here. People simply would not think about violent actions, much less performing them.

There is a very good book, written by Stanislaw Lem, title: “Return from the Stars”, which deals with the questions of such a society. I bet you would enjoy it. A fascinating subject of “normal” people who find a “utopia” (meaning violence-less society) after having spent a long time on an interstellar expedition.

So in that respect people would be infallible?

Infallibility does not even come into the picture.

So you do believe we have some choice in what to believe and how to live? And you agree that your beliefs are not always superior to others?

Well, our beliefs are not under volitional control, but we certainly can choose whether to act on them.

 

[inocente]

When I say that you will always make the same decision every time if the conditions are EXACTLY the same, I am not saying that the decion will be perfect. Or even the right one. It may even turn out to be a very bad decision indeed.

But it will be the only decision that you can make. If you gain further knowledge and you can gradually exclude that which is irrelevant, then your decision making will improve. But if those new condions are repeated EXACTLY, then that decision, the better one, will again be repeated.

If that is not the case, then someone needs to explain to me what is different that allows a change. And if all conditions are exactly the same, no change is possible. It would be like re-running a film.

You can’t rewind the film though, as it’s not feasible to reset the body, the unconscious and the environment to the exact same starting conditions. We don’t know the extent to which they influence/dictate our conscious decision-making, but we do know we’re very good at post-rationalization and selective memory.

So your prediction isn’t open to falsification, and as the human brain is the most complicated thing in the known universe, forgive me if I don’t quite share your faith .

Seems decision-making can involve the odd butterfly effect. For instance, even a small change in the wording of a moral dilemma can cause us to flip our decision. We may say X is right, as it has the optimum consequences. but change the wording a little and we’ll say no, X is categorically wrong. Then we may post-rationalize our inconsistency. (For an example, watch the first ten minutes or so of this lecture. The validity of such scenarios is open to debate, but he must be pleased with the 6.5 million views).

I’d say we have free-will to the extent that we can reflect on, and change our decisions, so we can be morally responsible. Just not sure it’s reasonable to claim any less or any more than that.

 

[Bradski]

You can’t rewind th memory.

So your prediction isn’t open to falsification, and as the human brain is the most complicated thing in the known universe, forgive me if I don’t quite share your faith .

Seems decision-making can involve the odd butterfly effect. For instance, even a small change in the wording of a moral dilemma can cause us to flip our decision. We may say X is right, as it has the optimum consequences. but change the wording a little and we’ll say no, X is categorically wrong…

Yes, what I suggest is falsifiable. But saying that ‘even a small change’ doesn’t detract from my point. In fact, it clarifies it. Small changes have effects. Zero changes have none.

Repeat the same conditions EXACTLY and the result will always be the same. That is to say, the conditions at any one time only have ONE possible outcome.