Intelligent Design Book Cracks Bestseller List at Amazon.com Signature in the Cell makes 2009 list of top ten bestselling science books

[buffalo]

The Viability of Intelligent Design

William Lane Craig presents his case for the viability of intelligent design at Indiana University. His opponent was the eminent evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala. This was the first time William Lane Craig had ever publicly debated the subject.

 

[tjm190]

Dr Scott Hahn and Dr B. Wiker in Answering The New Atheism, 2008, show very clearly that the odds against life “evolving” from inanimate chemicals are so high as to be impossible. “Dawkins believes that the odds against a propitious string of DNA arising by chance are 1,000,000,000 to one. But when we do the actual calculations we find that the odds against it are a bit over 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one.”
Dawkins best guess at the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years is just not enough time for such odds to be overcome. (p 24, 27-8).

The fact that Dawkins maths and science are so erroneous merely reflects his desire to cling to evolutionism at all costs, much like many others.

I find the odds are 100%.

Show me their calculations and I’ll show you mine.

 

[Sair]

Your condescension is misguided. I happen to have written a Ph.D. thesis on the subject…

Then you ought to know better than I that the intelligent design hypothesis is a dead end. It tells us nothing about ‘how’ any of these amazing abilities arose, how reason and imagination and consciousness evolved - instead it says, “let’s give up the research and postulate supernatural intervention whenever we hit a difficult problem like consciousness.”

Why is every sentient creature entitled to be spared unnecessary suffering? Is that a human convention? Or is it an objective truth? Do you deny that cruelty is evil regardless of what people believe? Or is it just another concept?

Cruelty is characterised as evil when it is consciously inflicted. It causes objective harm in most cases, and, so is objectively detrimental. Humans have the ability to spare fellow sentient creatures from unnecessary suffering, whereas wasp larvae laid as eggs in the bodies of caterpillars don’t really have any ability to spare their victim any suffering. Of course this is a human-ordained moral principle. Why must it be anything else in order to be valid? Like I said, humanity has value in a human context. The universe cares not for our wellbeing.
.

“autonomous” is the key word. Where do you obtain your autonomy? From the laws of physic by which you believe you are governed? I prefer to be a person than a machine without a ghost! But then I believe in the primacy of persons and you don’t…

The primacy of persons is also a human construct, and like most human constructs, is fundamentally self-serving. Autonomy of the brain and body of an individual arises from the interaction of matter and energy within the brain and body - we function as autonomous, self-directed wholes because our parts and the microscopic parts of our parts all obey local rules, in keeping with the universal laws of physics (another human construct - we define laws that describe our understanding of how matter and energy behave)

If it were to be demonstrated by scientific research that there is no supernatural element to human consciousness, would that be reason enough for you to abandon the notion of the primacy of persons? Would it affect the way you treat people? If no soul=no person, would that make a difference to the importance you place upon human beings? Or would you be prepared to acknowledge that our value lies in ourselves and our awareness of ourselves and each other, regardless of a lack of supernatural powers?

 

[Sair]

All that the evidence supports is the fact that the mind and the brain are related - which has been known since mankind began to reason.

So, which part of the brain do you postulate as the seat of the soul? Surely there must be some indication, even if the soul is an intangible essence - after all, the wind is intangible too, but it sure makes its presence felt.

You equate evolutionary theory with NeoDarwinism yet the progression from particles to persons is more cogently explained as the result of Design rather than fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations.
There is plenty of evidence for survival after death which is automatically rejected by materialists.

The problem with the design hypothesis is that it explains nothing, and contributes nothing to our understanding of how things work, or why certain characteristics might have arisen out of all theoretically possible combinations of characteristics in animals and plants. And more than that, it leaves a gaping hole in our understanding - how do you account for the designer? Who designed the designer? If design is empirically detectable, as the ID mob claim, surely the designer must also be empirically verifiable. I think you present a far more insoluble problem in positing ‘design’ as an explanation, than is presented by the hypothesis that ‘fortuitous’ (and nonrandomly selected) combinations of molecules gave rise to the human brain with its various abilities.

The discovery of connections does not dispose of intangible reality. I would be a materialist if nothing intangible existed. But the very existence of intangibles demonstrates that there is another dimension to reality - and it is more powerful than material reality.

Do you know of any documented, verified cases of telekinesis? If not, then I propose that the physical body is more powerful than the mind, at least in regard to direct interaction with the world around us.

As I mentioned before, the wind can be described as ‘intangible’, but it has a perfectly valid physical explanation. Heat is ‘intangible’ in the sense that it can’t be grasped or held, but it also has a valid physical explanation. Scientists will go on searching for the physical sources of what we experience as conscious awareness, and hopefully they won’t all just give up and put it down to ‘design’.

I have already explained that belief in the primacy of reason is a more adequate explanation than belief in the primacy of particles. Design is the most powerful, comprehensive and fertile explanation of the immensely complex universe, its order and intelligibility, the exquisite richness and variety of nature, the origin and infinite value of existence, the progressive development of living organisms with the DNA code, the existence of rational beings with their power of self-determination, their transcendence of their environment, their ability to distinguish good and evil, and their capacity for love and self-sacrifice. The success of science demonstrates the superiority of reason over blind forces like random mutations and natural selection. Design accounts for all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, justice, love, the right to life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

There is nothing here that isn’t an unsupported assertion based on your subjective desires. Evolutionary theory provides a powerful and satisfying explanation (to those prepared to acknowledge it) for the development of human minds in response to natural and sexual selection pressures, for the presence of altruism in nature, leading to increased survival chances, for the diversity of life on this planet as organisms evolved adaptively in response to environmental factors; what you claim to be the most important aspects of existence are not properties existing independently of animal minds and subjectivity.

This explanation will be falsified if

1. Science completely explains persons as physical organisms.

They’re working on it.

1. A detailed blueprint of a feasible world with far less suffering is presented.

So are you suggesting that the designer worked within the constraints of the physical universe?

1. The order and regularity of nature breaks down and life begins to become extinct.

Order and regularity are human values. Lifeforms have been dying out for almost the entire span of life’s existence on this planet. There are several species that have become extinct since humans have been around in our modern form (many of them through direct human intervention) and many more are endangered; there may be more still of whose existence we are unaware, and may never be aware, if they become extinct before we discover them.

1. Scientific discoveries prove that life and evolution occurred solely as the result of natural selection and random mutations.

What is your standard of proof here? You’d need to apply the same rigorous standard to proving the existence of your designer. As you’d know, if you’ve researched evolutionary theory, there are other proposed mechanisms for the process of evolution, just none that are supported by the evidence as strongly as is natural selection of genetic information.

1. Science establishes that there is far more failure than success in nature.

Many more animals have died out over the course of life’s history than currently survive. It’s just that we only see the successes, because they are the ones that last. Also, there are many genetic mutations that are either neutral or harmful, far more than are beneficial.

 

[Sair]

I happen to have written a Ph.D. thesis on the subject…

Do you have a citation for your thesis? I would be interested to read it.

Oh, yeah - and radio waves are intangible too, but there’s a physical explanation for them.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you have a citation for your thesis? I would be interested to read it.]

I’m sending you a PM with the details.

Oh, yeah - and radio waves are intangible too, but there’s a physical explanation for them.

And they are measurable…

 

[edwest2]

I wonder if they grasp the difference between ‘by chance’ or ‘random’, and ‘nonrandom’ or ‘subject to local rules and conditions’. Sure, the odds against a fully-fledged DNA molecule just ‘happening’ to pop into existence might be impossibly high, but chemicals tend to behave in certain ways that are not so much subject to mathematical probability as to physical conditions and the structure of atoms and molecules. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of chemistry knows this.

When are these people going to learn that their ‘random chance’ arguments against evolutionary theory are just no argument at all?

A few of us have learned that random assembly requires odds that are as high as indicated. A few of us also reject the ‘it only had to happen once argument’ since the first life had to keep acquiring new information to become more complex.

A rudimentary grasp of chemistry has never suggested that mixing parts of this and that will produce life. It cannot be done. Hopefully, people will learn to separate facts from ‘just trust me’ arguments.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Detales]

Goethe, Castaneda, and others have said words to the effect that one’s experience of the world can be organized around any premise. Considering that with a population of 6 billion and growing, given that dynamic, there are likely as many worlds on this planet as there are people. Functionally it matters not a whit from that perspective if there even is an objective world to have an opinion about. And I daresay that people grouping themselves together by the lineage of infecting their children with the general attributes of any particular world view does not legitamize any of them. Neither does the grouping of people who use measurement and repeatability assure that their assessment is correct, or does any overlap of groups. And if you think that make believe is not a powerful force in human events, you ahve not observed children at play, nor the news, nor, especially yourself. Usually among adults it is just called “Faith” or “Country” or whatever. instead of “let’s pretend.”

In any case, many people of recognized wisdom have put forth that the chief downfall of human kind, or unkind, is stupidity, which factor is then further refined into a description of the inability of the human to integrate various aspects of their psychospiritual personalities and Reality. The estimates of the kinds and degrees of stupidity has anywhere from 80% to 99.99999% of the world’s population as funda-mentaly stupid in any single or combinations of one to nine different basic forms. We might also mention here the more than one hundred logical falacies found in ordinary speech, and the crucial notion that in English only the first person singular of the verb “to be” is true to fact.

One need only examine the history of the world in terms of politics, religion, science, or, in fact, any criterion, to easily discern the astonishing magnitude of the role of stupidity in our lives, public and private. In fact, Pitkin, in his 300 page A Short Introduction to the History of Human Stupidity says:

 "*Stupidity can easily be proved the supreme Social Evil. Three factors combine to establish it as such. First and foremost, the number of stupid people is legion. Secondly, most of the power in business, finance, diplomacy and politics is in the hands of more or less stupid individuals. Finally, high abilities are often linked with serious stupidity, and in such a manner that the abilities shine before all the world while the stupid trait lurks in deep shadow and is discerned only by intimates or by prying newspaper reporters.*"

He ends that notable work with an epilogue whose entirety is this sentence: “And now we are ready to undertake the study of human stupidity.”

In 1988 Cipolla, in *Allegro ma non Tropo *observed that:

 "*...the number of stupid people is broadly underestimated. That is something we notice every day. Aware as we may be of the power of stupidity, we are often surprised by it where we least expect it. We often underestimate the awful effects of stupidity and, because it is so unpredictable, stupid behavior is more dangerous than intentional mischief; this could be summarized using "Hanlon’s razor": "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Or, more simply, by Robert Heinlein's statement: "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."*

Given that, extracting religion from the general field as a specific example, it is therefore no surprise that the main catagories of cosmic explanation fall under creationism or i.d., both of which sustain the drama by contrast with non-religion which postulate the idea of mechanistic evolution, especially by chance. Despite some vague attempts by the factions to somehow include the other, neither the religious nor scientific explanations succeed in an integrated view of the phenomenon that we obviously partake in, though such an explanation exists. It is critical to note here that emotionally convinced adherents of any faction will claim that their scenario completely suffices. If so, why are we not all convinced? So we can readily say that an integrated explanation does not even have seem to have occured to the vast majority of those uselessly arguing one “side” or the other of the psudo-question. You see, false premise, false conclusion, no? Such is the downfall of binary and other low order logics.

So, given that there must be an answer of some sort acceptable as a cognatively describable function–it must be, as we are here experiencing the result–what is, to you, (omnes) the irriducable premise from which such a dialogue must start?

 

[reggieM]

Special to CNN: Stephen Meyer author of “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.”
Pro-Darwin consensus doesn’t rule out intelligent design

 

[buffalo]

Special to CNN: Stephen Meyer author of “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.”
Pro-Darwin consensus doesn’t rule out intelligent design

CNN mind you.

 

[Detales]

Yes. CNN is the cohort of Fox in pulling the wool over the public eyes.

 

[tonyrey]

So, which part of the brain do you postulate as the seat of the soul? … the wind is intangible too,…

The phrase “the seat of the soul” reveals a physicalist mentality - that everything has to have a physical location. Truth, freedom and love are not in any particular place. Like radio waves the wind is measurable. Can you measure how much you love a person?

The problem with the design hypothesis is that it explains nothing, and contributes nothing to our understanding of how things work, or why certain characteristics might have arisen out of all theoretically possible combinations of characteristics in animals and plants.

On the contrary Design explains everything! Analysis loses sight of the whole of reality. When you explain each part of the body are you left with a complete explanation? How things work does not explain why they exist…

And more than that, it leaves a gaping hole in our understanding - how do you account for the designer? Who designed the designer?

How do you account for matter? Isn’t that a gaping hole? There has to be an ultimate Reality beyond our comprehension…

If design is empirically detectable, as the ID mob claim, surely the designer must also be empirically verifiable.

Again the physicalist mentality of the atheist “mob” reveals itself! (If you wish to resort to derogatory language.) Is the principle of verifiability (amongst many other “things”) empirically verifiable? Why do you think logical positivism collapsed?

I think you present a far more insoluble problem in positing ‘design’ as an explanation, than is presented by the hypothesis that ‘fortuitous’ (and nonrandomly selected) combinations of molecules gave rise to the human brain with its various abilities.

Do you spend your life purposelessly? You still have not explained how purpose “emerged”…

Do you know of any documented, verified cases of telekinesis? If not, then I propose that the physical body is more powerful than the mind, at least in regard to direct interaction with the world around us.

Do you think the whole case for the power of the mind rests on telekinesis? If you can explain how hypnosis works you will be in a stronger position.Can you explain how you force yourself to do something? Or is that an illusion?

As I mentioned before, the wind can be described as ‘intangible’, but it has a perfectly valid physical explanation. Heat is ‘intangible’ in the sense that it can’t be grasped or held, but it also has a valid physical explanation. Scientists will go on searching for the physical sources of what we experience as conscious awareness, and hopefully they won’t all just give up and put it down to ‘design’.

They can search as long as they like if they are foolish enough to think they can explain everything! More to the point they can also ask themselves why they are searching… What is their ultimate aim? To discover the truth - which lies beyond the scope of science…

Design accounts for all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, justice, love, the right to life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

There is nothing here that isn’t an unsupported assertion based on your subjective desires.

Please explain how all the above facts - which are accepted by civilised persons - are based on my subjective desires!
I could equally well assert that your physicalism and atheism are based on your subjective desires. That argument cuts both ways…

Evolutionary theory provides a powerful and satisfying explanation (to those prepared to acknowledge it) for the development of human minds in response to natural and sexual selection pressures, for the presence of altruism in nature, leading to increased survival chances, for the diversity of life on this planet as organisms evolved adaptively in response to environmental factors; what you claim to be the most important aspects of existence are not properties existing independently of animal minds and subjectivity.

By “Evolutionary theory” you mean the NeoDarwinist version - which of course is not the only possibility. If you are prepared to throw out the baby with the bathwater it is a powerful and satisfying explanation but it is hardly based on great expectations! Theism has been described as “wishful thinking”.One atheist recently described it as belief in “the daddy in the sky”. I could describe atheism as “woeful thinking” and belief in “the daddy in the dust”! But to resort to such expedients does nothing to further a rational discussion. NeoDarwinism explains all human activity as ultimately the result of natural and sexual selection pressures. Yet NeoDarwinists use their power of reason - which they assume is an objective, impartial tool - to arrive at their conclusion. Why isn’t their conclusion the result of natural and sexual selection pressures? Your explanation will be interesting. Or is it an objective, impartial conclusion based on the independence of the mind which can transcend natural and sexual selection pressures…

They’re working on it.

In the meantime materialism has yet another gap…

So are you suggesting that the designer worked within the constraints of the physical universe?

Why not? If would be inconsistent not to do so.

Order and regularity are human values.

My goodness! Do you mean they don’t exist without us?! We invent them?! Think carefully…

 

[tonyrey]

quote] Lifeforms have been dying out for almost the entire span of life’s existence on this planet. There are several species that have become extinct since humans have been around in our modern form (many of them through direct human intervention) and many more are endangered; there may be more still of whose existence we are unaware, and may never be aware, if they become extinct before we discover them.

What do you deduce from that?

What is your standard of proof here? You’d need to apply the same rigorous standard to proving the existence of your designer. As you’d know, if you’ve researched evolutionary theory, there are other proposed mechanisms for the process of evolution, just none that are supported by the evidence as strongly as is natural selection of genetic information.

How do you explain the origin of the DNA code - which is the theme of this thread? Have you ever encountered design without a designer?

Many more animals have died out over the course of life’s history than currently survive. It’s just that we only see the successes, because they are the ones that last.

Do you think animals should survive indefinitely? Death is an essential element of the life cycle. Do you judge success by longevity?

Also, there are many genetic mutations that are either neutral or harmful, far more than are beneficial.

Genetic mutations are rare. The majority of individuals are normal - and live successfully. The fact that mutations are generally random implies that the majority will be neutral or harmful. It does not follow from that element of chance that the entire process of evolution is purposeless.

 

[Abu]

Facing Reality

Sair
I think you present a far more insoluble problem in positing ‘design’ as an explanation, than is presented by the hypothesis that ‘fortuitous’ (and nonrandomly selected) combinations of molecules gave rise to the human brain with its various abilities.

Since selection is postulated as random by chance of natural selection, Sair’s assumption is erroneous and rejects the obvious results of intelligent design:–

What is denied by such evolutionists is that a complex machine defined as one in which multiple structures have multiple functions and multiple processes have multiple functions and the structures and processes are integrated in such a way that they support each other and they also support multiple functions with structures, functions and processes integrated into a system in such a way so that they all work together to support the overall function of the system, has no designer.

The mousetrap is an example of such a complex, organized machine. Each part of the mousetrap, the platform, the holding bar, the spring, the hammer and the catch each have specific functions. And each of these functions are organized in such a way that they support the functions of the other parts as well as the overall function of the mousetrap, which is to catch mice. The function of the platform is to hold the parts, but it’s there ultimately to facilitate the process of mouse catching. The function of the spring is to exert a force on the hammer, but it’s ultimate goal is to enable the process of mouse catching. All of the parts have functions that not only support the other functions, but ultimately support the overall function of the device.

So is a Jumbo jet liner – the product of design by mankind – the product of the Intelligent Design of the universe and mankind.

 

[JohnnyReynolds]

Amazon.com is the bestseller of USA in 2009. I buy from Amazon re-sellers all the time. I haven’t had any more (or less) problems with them than I’ve had with any other internet vendors.

Recently I came to know that there is a website named amazingwatcher.com which is a free website that will “watch” items for you on Amazon and let you know when amazon has them in stock at regular retail price.It got so awesome!
Good luck everybody!

 

[Sair]

How do you explain the origin of the DNA code - which is the theme of this thread? Have you ever encountered design without a designer?

DNA is a double-helix structured organic molecule. Molecules occur naturally without intelligent interference. Certainly one would not encounter ‘design’ without a designer - but to ask the question in that way is to presuppose that organisms are the product of design. A better phrasing would be to ask if one had encountered complexity without a designer, and biologists would generally answer yes.

Do you think animals should survive indefinitely? Death is an essential element of the life cycle. Do you judge success by longevity?

Biological success is defined by perpetuation of genetic information. The longer a species lasts, the more successful it is considered to be, biologically speaking. Furthermore, the ancestral genes that survive in the genomes of modern animals - including us - are said to be successful genes. An individual is said to be biologically successful if it passes on its genes to the next generation. There are other ways of measuring success, of course, depending upon what one wishes to be successful at, but in biological, evolutionary terms, that’s about the size of it.

Genetic mutations are rare. The majority of individuals are normal - and live successfully. The fact that mutations are generally random implies that the majority will be neutral or harmful. It does not follow from that element of chance that the entire process of evolution is purposeless.

It’s actually been postulated by geneticists that mutations are actually quite common. The majority are neutral, some are harmful, some are beneficial. Certainly it doesn’t follow from this that evolution must be purposeless, but again the choice of phrasing implies an end goal that evolution set out to achieve, which in turn implies a conscious intelligence behind it. What the study of evolutionary biology demonstrates is that an end goal is not necessary to the process. The ‘great chain of being’ idea fondly supposes that the whole of evolution was directed to the ultimate production of human beings, but it’s hard to see how this belief is anything more than a result of our anthropocentric tendencies. I must, though, admit to a certain affection for the idea of ‘God the scientist’ designing an experiment with the universe as his (or her - if anything as relatively trivial as gender could matter to a transcendent being) petrie dish, and then watching, with benign fascination, the progress of the experiment. What would such a god make of the world as it now is, I wonder?

However, saying that the process that produced humans is purposeless, is not the same as saying that we as individuals have no purpose. We create purpose for ourselves, within the context of human life and community. We don’t need to have a cosmic destiny in order to matter to each other.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

DNA is not an ordinary molecule but the basis of an information system - associated with rational beings… How did that system originate?

Have you ever encountered design without a designer?

Certainly one would not encounter ‘design’ without a designer - but to ask the question in that way is to presuppose that organisms are the product of design. A better phrasing would be to ask if one had encountered complexity without a designer, and biologists would generally answer yes.

Biologists are not concerned with design in the course of their work because the question doesn’t arise. It is a philosophical rather than a scientific issue.

Do you think animals should survive indefinitely? Death is an essential element of the life cycle. Do you judge success by longevity?

Biological success is defined by perpetuation of genetic information. The longer a species lasts, the more successful it is considered to be, biologically speaking. Furthermore, the ancestral genes that survive in the genomes of modern animals - including us - are said to be successful genes. An individual is said to be biologically successful if it passes on its genes to the next generation. There are other ways of measuring success, of course, depending upon what one wishes to be successful at, but in biological, evolutionary terms, that’s about the size of it.

We are considering evolution from a philosophical rather than a scientific viewpoint. You regard it as ultimately purposeless and cited mutations as evidence of failure rather than success. That is why I asked whether you think animals should survive indefinitely and whether you judge success by longevity…

Genetic mutations are rare. The majority

of individuals are normal - and live successfully. The fact that mutations are generally random implies that the majority will be neutral or harmful. It does not follow from that element of chance that the entire process of evolution is purposeless. It’s actually been postulated by geneticists that mutations are actually quite common. The majority are neutral, some are harmful, some are beneficial. Certainly it doesn’t follow from this that evolution must be purposeless, but again the choice of phrasing implies an end goal that evolution set out to achieve, which in turn implies a conscious intelligence behind it.

So you believe there is nothing extraordinary about the development of conscious, rational, autonomous sentient persons from particles…

What the study of evolutionary biology demonstrates is that an end goal is not necessary to the process.

It demonstrates nothing of the kind unless it provides a completely mechanistic explanation of the process.

The ‘great chain of being’ idea fondly supposes that the whole of evolution was directed to the ultimate production of human beings, but it’s hard to see how this belief is anything more than a result of our anthropocentric tendencies.

You are misrepresenting the case for theism, implying that the **sole **purpose of evolution is " the ultimate production of human beings" and ignoring the value attributed to all forms of life. The ‘great chain of being’ reflects an incontestable fact - that there is a hierarchy of purposes in which each stage of development has its own value and is ecologically indispensable. You cannot deny that we are the stewards of “Creation” as far as this planet is concerned and our actions will determine whether it remains hospitable for life.

I must, though, admit to a certain affection for the idea of ‘God the scientist’ designing an experiment with the universe as his (or her - if anything as relatively trivial as gender could matter to a transcendent being) petrie dish, and then watching, with benign fascination, the progress of the experiment.

In other words the extreme complexity, richness and value of the universe cannot be accounted for so easily in terms of irrational processes.

What would such a god make of the world as it now is, I wonder?

When you have children you take it for granted that they will not necessarily abide by your standards and principles…

QUOTE] However, saying that the process that produced humans is purposeless, is not the same as saying that we as individuals have no purpose. We create purpose for ourselves, within the context of human life and community.

Aye, there’s the rub! How can beings whose only programmed purpose is to survive create purpose for themselves? It doesn’t make sense, I’m afraid. You’re conjuring freedom of choice from nowhere…

We don’t need to have a cosmic destiny in order to matter to each other.

Of course not. People on a sinking ship cling to one another desperately before they are swallowed up by the waves…

 

[Sair]

My goodness! Do you mean order and regularity don’t exist without us?! We invent them?! Think carefully…

As a general response to the post from which the above was snipped, I think you grant consciousness more mystery than it warrants - it is this very notion that consciousness must be mysterious or perhaps supernatural that helps thwart our efforts to understand it. Your continual questions place human consciousness on a pedestal, implicitly stating that it is beyond the reach of inquiry and understanding - by the very humans who exhibit it!

Now for the more specific response, with extra material…

We seek consistency - it’s part of the way we absorb and synthesise information about the world and other people, and part of the mechanism that guides our behaviour. Think about how we respond when we notice that a friend is acting ‘out of character’ - we automatically suspect that something is up. We feel an interest, a wondering, an uneasiness. When something doesn’t fit with what we have learned, or doesn’t conform to our usual experiences - when something seems inconsistent - we want to know why. The process of finding, or building, explanations that are consistent with our experience and with the information we have, is what reason is all about. Reason and logic are directly linked to our innate preference for consistency. If we don’t find it, we’ll create it.

All mammals display a natural curiosity when faced with unfamiliar things. It’s an important precursor to being able to learn about their environment. Humans are no exception.

Based on my own experience, I suspect that this innate curiosity is what leads many people away from religion. I have a number of reasons for thinking this. Firstly, having read several ‘deconversion’ stories, they always seem to begin with the wondering about why certain experiences, certain pieces of information, just don’t fit with the religious programming we received as children. Following where curiosity leads tends to uncover more and more inconsistencies, until the religious explanations no longer seem adequate, no longer seem to reflect what we experience.

Much religious doctrine incorporates ‘safeguards’ against natural curiosity - warnings against the consequences of looking too closely into the nature of things, against questioning the authority of the church. Christianity, in particular, endorses a ‘childlike simplicity’ in regard to matters of faith. Children are indeed biologically programmed to believe what trusted adults tell them about the world - it’s an important survival mechanism inherited from our ancient tribal ancestors, and one which is exploited to the hilt by organised religions. Adherents are exhorted to retain this into adulthood - it is extolled as an act of humility.

But still, apologists implicitly acknowledge human curiosity and our need for consistency, and endeavour to come up with answers for those things that just don’t seem to fit. There have been countless words written in the attempt to explain, for example, why God’s presence is not an obvious feature of our environment - why God is not susceptible to detection via our natural sensory perceptions.

The argument from design is simply another aspect of this effort - but it is an argument that usually fails those who nurture their native curiosity, firstly because it ignores (or flatly denies) the alternative explanation for the diversity of life, which many find more powerfully satisfying, and secondly because it discourages inquiry and ultimately treats true understanding as a goal that lies beyond the scope of human minds.

 

[tonyrey]

My goodness! Do you mean order and regularity don’t exist without us?! We invent them?! Think carefully…

Neuroscientists would disagree with you. They don’t all view consciousness as an entirely physical phenomenon…

Your continual questions place human consciousness on a pedestal, implicitly stating that it is beyond the reach of inquiry and understanding - by the very humans who exhibit it!

If you dislike questions I shall confine myself to statements. If you think order and regularity don’t exist without us the universe must have been chaotic before we existed!
It means that science itself is composed of concepts which have nothing to do with objective reality…

We seek consistency - it’s part of the way we absorb and synthesise information about the world and other people, and part of the mechanism that guides our behaviour. Think about how we respond when we notice that a friend is acting ‘out of character’ - we automatically suspect that something is up. We feel an interest, a wondering, an uneasiness. When something doesn’t fit with what we have learned, or doesn’t conform to our usual experiences - when something seems inconsistent - we want to know why. Reason and logic are directly linked to our innate preference for consistency. If we don’t find it, we’ll create it.

Consistency does not entail limiting our explanations to physical explanations. Our personal experience is largely beyond the scope of science. We are persons not physical objects that can be completely analysed and explained in terms of the laws of nature. If you try to reduce everyone to a uniform pattern you are underestimating the richness, depth and uniqueness of being a person. The mind is not a machine - even though that fact is incompatible with materialism.

All mammals display a natural curiosity when faced with unfamiliar things. It’s an important precursor to being able to learn about their environment. Humans are no exception. Based on my own experience, I suspect that this innate curiosity is what leads many people away from religion. I have a number of reasons for thinking this. Firstly, having read several ‘deconversion’ stories, they always seem to begin with the wondering about why certain experiences, certain pieces of information, just don’t fit with the religious programming we received as children. Following where curiosity leads tends to uncover more and more inconsistencies, until the religious explanations no longer seem adequate, no longer** seem** to reflect what we experience.

“seem” is the key word. It does not follow that because some religious explanations are false they are all false. You have not explained what experience(s) you had which reflect the truth of atheism… A classic example of conversion to theism is the case of Professor C.E.Joad who became aware that the horrific reality of evil in the world cannot have a natural explanation…

Much religious doctrine incorporates ‘safeguards’ against natural curiosity - warnings against the consequences of looking too closely into the nature of things, against questioning the authority of the church. Christianity, in particular, endorses a ‘childlike simplicity’ in regard to matters of faith. Children are indeed biologically programmed to believe what trusted adults tell them about the world - it’s an important survival mechanism inherited from our ancient tribal ancestors, and one which is exploited to the hilt by organised religions. Adherents are exhorted to retain this into adulthood - it is extolled as an act of humility.

That is nonsense as far as Catholicism is concerned. The Church has always taught that our conscience is our ultimate authority and blind obedience is not a virtue but an abdication of our responsibility to use our power of reason. There have been apologists for Christianity since the Crucifixion. The very existence of this forum is a disproof of your contention that we are warned against the consequences of looking too closely into the nature of things…

But still, apologists implicitly acknowledge human curiosity and our need for consistency, and endeavour to come up with answers for those things that just don’t seem to fit. There have been countless words written in the attempt to explain, for example, why God’s presence is not an obvious feature of our environment - why God is not susceptible to detection via our natural sensory perceptions.

I should be interested to see precise references to the "countless words written in the attempt to explain, for example, why God’s presence is not an obvious feature of our environment and why God is not susceptible to detection via our natural sensory perceptions! The very first thing we are taught as Catholics is that God is a Spirit - and therefore immaterial and beyond the reach of the telescope, microscope or any other scientific instrument.

The argument from design is simply another aspect of this effort - but it is an argument that usually fails those who nurture their native curiosity, firstly because it ignores (or flatly denies) the alternative explanation for the diversity of life, which many find more powerfully satisfying, and secondly because it discourages inquiry and ultimately treats true understanding as a goal that lies beyond the scope of human minds.

Your objections to Argument from Design stem entirely from presuppositions about the character and motives of those who present and accept it. You totally ignore the evidence and reasons on which it is based. Your argument cannot be refuted because there is nothing to refute!

 

[Sair]

Neuroscientists would disagree with you. They don’t all view consciousness as an entirely physical phenomenon…

Is ‘information’ a physical thing? Information about something is not the same as the thing itself, but it is still dependent upon the source. Our brains are information processors, but the information itself is an abstract notion, a way of speaking about the traffic of data through our brains, which synthesise the information into what we experience as knowledge. All of these processes have a physical basis. Our picture of the world is built up from a number of different information streams, much like we see a progression of still shots at 25 frames per second as a moving picture. Conscious experience is an abstract built on a physical base, just like ‘information’ needs a real-world source.

And I don’t know, because I’ve not spent much time boning up on neurological literature, but I can’t imagine there would be many neuroscientists who think consciousness actually comes from a nonphysical essence, or a spiritual homunculus squatting somewhere in our heads.

If you think order and regularity don’t exist without us the universe must have been chaotic before we existed!

I guess I didn’t really explain what I meant about order and regularity being human concepts. They are the way we define and describe collections of things that fit or work together. What we perceive as mathematical regularity exists in the natural world, in things like crystal arrangements, in the way cells divide and grow, the way waves roll into a beach, and so forth - but it is our perception of these things that leads us to define the concept of order, and its opposite, chaos. Again, we are talking about an abstract concept built from a physical basis. We go on to impose our notion of order onto things in our environment. We would not, for example, expect to find anything as regular as a pine plantation occurring naturally (by which I mean in this case without human intervention).

Consistency does not entail limiting our explanations to physical explanations.

But it does entail things making sense within the context of our physical environment, and constantly revising our explanations as new information comes to light. I definitely doesn’t entail confining some aspects of our experience to the ‘too hard basket’.

Our personal experience is largely beyond the scope of science. We are persons not physical objects that can be completely analysed and explained in terms of the laws of nature. If you try to reduce everyone to a uniform pattern you are underestimating the richness, depth and uniqueness of being a person. The mind is not a machine - even though that fact is incompatible with materialism.

Sweeping statement, that tries to defeat the proposition before it’s even fully understood.

You assume that a scientific understanding of human experience automatically entails a ‘devaluing’ of persons. Science already recognises that each person has a unique set of DNA (unless they are an identical twin) and a unique set of circumstances in which they live and grow. Understanding consciousness in scientific, physical terms will not entail ‘reducing’ everyone to a uniform pattern. Variation in nature has always been recognised.

That is nonsense as far as Catholicism is concerned. The Church has always taught that our conscience is our ultimate authority and blind obedience is not a virtue but an abdication of our responsibility to use our power of reason.

But we are also taught that there is such a thing as a ‘false conscience’, which automatically gives the lie to any conclusions that disagree with church teaching, no matter how rational they may be. It’s the emperor’s new clothes all over again - only a ‘properly’ formed conscience can perceive and understand the ‘truth’ - what is this except a safeguard against genuine questioning and disagreement, and an attempt to impose uniformity upon variant human experience?

Your objections to Argument from Design stem entirely from presuppositions about the character and motives of those who present and accept it. You totally ignore the evidence and reasons on which it is based. Your argument cannot be refuted because there is nothing to refute!

My argument essentially is that the argument from design constitutes an attempt to ‘prove’ the existence of a god, rather than an attempt to actually explain the natural world. The evidence that is claimed to be evidence of design is generally much better explained by natural selection - especially those naturally occurring ‘mistakes’ (the arrangement of the laryngeal nerves in giraffes, for example, or the retention of useless eyes in cave-dwelling amphibians) and other features such as parasitic relationships, which would point to an incompetent or frankly malevolent designer, if indeed they are products of design.