Is the argument from complexity a dead argument?

[inocente]

That definition is a bit of a cop out.

No doubt the editors of the OED are crestfallen at your criticism.

*Do you have complete trust in God? 100%? Are you being honest? If not then according to this definition you do not have faith. I would say that complete trust is a bit of a rarity. Remember what doubting Thomas said? ‘I believe, help me overcome my unbelief.’ Did Thomas have complete trust?

I would submit to you that what we are talking about is knowledge, i.e., how we can know something. If you know something then you do not need faith. For example, if I know that God exists because I can see him and observe him I do not need faith to believe he exists. The only way that we can know something in the strict sense is if we can personally observe and verify something for ourselves. I can for instance see the keyboard I am typing on and therefore I know I am using a keyboard. You can not see
me typing on the keyboard so you do not know that I used a keyboard. I may have used dictation software or be an automated bot for all you know. It may make sense for you to believe me when I say that I used a keyboard to type this, since why would I lie, but you do not know in the strict sense because you can not personally observe the keyboard.
*

But you may only be imagining you have a keyboard, etc., etc.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a very long 10,000 word article on Faith as it applies to faith in God. The treats faith in God as “a supernatural habit”, utterly different from your keyboard example.

Can you worship an argument from complexity? Can you worship an intelligent design hypothesis? Is faith in God all about you or is divine grace involved? Did you find Christ or did Christ find you?

You don’t need to answer those questions here, just suffice to say that imho the American intelligent design movement’s attempt to turn religion into science totally misses the point. You can’t have a personal relationship with a hypothesis.

It doesn’t contradict because the theological virtue of faith is different than natural faith. The theological virtue is a gift of grace from the Holy Spirit. It is of supernatural origin. It is somewhat of a mystery because it comes from outside ourselves. Whereas, natural faith comes from ourselves.

So we agree that religious faith is a different species to faith in your car.

For instance, we may have natural faith to believe that God exists just from looking at all the evidence and arguments for God’s existence. We may not know he exists in the strict sense because we can not directly observe him. Thus, faith is required here, but there was no supernatural gift needed to believe in the existence of a God.

Sorry but I can’t see any point at all in believing in a theoretical god entity.

 

[inocente]

Natural Abiogenesis is like a wind blowing through a scrap yard and out pops a jumbo jet.

Interestingly, the author of that critique I posted uses the jumbo jet in illustrate the point that arguments from complexity attempt to make these kinds of spurious jumps, whereas real life is very different.

In real life there were a whole series of technical developments which led to the Wright Brothers aircraft. A lot less sophisticated but it did the job for a while. Then there were a whole series of developments which led to the jumbo.

Arguments from complexity ignore all of that and just see no jumbo jet in the Middle Ages to jumbo jet today, hey presto it’s a miracle.

 

[IWantGod]

Interestingly, the author of that critique I posted uses the jumbo jet in illustrate the point that arguments from complexity attempt to make these kinds of spurious jumps, whereas real life is very different.

In real life there were a whole series of technical developments which led to the Wright Brothers aircraft. A lot less sophisticated but it did the job for a while. Then there were a whole series of developments which led to the jumbo.

Arguments from complexity ignore all of that and just see no jumbo jet in the Middle Ages to jumbo jet today, hey presto it’s a miracle.

The problem is not evolution. The problem is abiogenesis.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I mean… You are literally making an argument of the form “scientists have been unable to explain it, therefore God.”

And the God of the Gaps is literally:
The expiration date for any God of the Gaps argument is precisely the day when scientists fill in the gap you’re attributing to God. If you’d like, we could make a friendly wager about when that will happen. How about this:

1. I will admit that DNA is strong evidence for God and become a theist if, by the year 2036, no one has presented a “viable theory of how the first living cell came to be.”
2. You will admit that a naturalistic view is a superior method for explaining the world around us than a theistic one if a “viable theory of how the first living cell came to be” is discovered at any time prior to 2036.

I would be 95 in 2036, so it’s a safe bet for you! . I’ll be dead or in dementia.

But I’ll have Aristotle weigh in on your wager on abiogenesis without design.

“A likely impossibility is always preferable to an unconvincing possibility.”

 

[inocente]

You have evaded the fact that there is **a framework of order and regularity **which enables us to understand that natural laws are more fundamental than the random movements of molecules.

Nope. One last time, then we really must move on. Take objects of random size and shape with random distribution moving in random directions at random speeds, and we can observe regularities. Such as pressure, because each variable has an average. Take the most chaotic world you can imagine and there will be such regularities. Natural laws are not a priori, they are instead inferred from the behavior of phenomena.

The truth does not depend on public definitions but is composed of* facts*** such as “In any realm of knowledge there is nothing more economical than nothing.”

As you’ve not provided what I asked for, I take it you concede that null hypothesis is not a term used in metaphysics and doesn’t mean what you wanted it to mean.

Given the variety of philosophical views on the meaning of “nothing”, it wouldn’t appear to be the slightest bit economical.

False deduction. Complex organisation is not a product of heterogeneous events like the random movements of molecules. To reject Design is to deny that God has a plan for the universe and its inhabitants.

The OP is about biological arguments from complexity and you’re on record stating “Our existence is totally irrelevant to the issue of complexity”.

It is not an opinion that we or the universe are not necessary but a fact because everything is contingent except the Necessary Being, i.e. He Who Is. The onus is on you to prove that something or some one in the universe must exist.

Do Buddhists and Hindus agree with your opinion?

A belief and a hypothesis are not mutually exclusive because neither claims logical certainty.

In remains that the Abrahamic religions have never made God an hypothesis.

You seem to spend your life quibbling! Do you expect every statement to spell out all the implications? Did I even imply that it is apparently foolish to anyone?

Yes, you said “It is apparently foolish”.

It isn’t quibbling to state the basis of faith that Christ died on the cross for you, for you personally, that you might have life, and have it to the full. He didn’t die for hypotheses, theories and pseudoscience, did he? As Paul says, what’s foolishness to non-believers is wisdom to believers.

Now as the temperature here is 28 C inside, 36 outside (82 and 97 F) and it’s weekend, enough of dry and dusty hypotheses, let’s have some foolish summertime wisdom:- Awake; Hillsong youtube.com/watch?v=e33zCUm1ZnY

 

[inocente]

Darwin writes that natural selection/evolution accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by God and he refers to “…the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world.”

When referring back to the very first original life form, he talks about the "ages which have elapsed since the first creature" [and] "the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants… as being a “created” life form.

This seems to widen the scope of the book to include the Creator (Darwin uses an upper case “C”) and to include the entire story of life from non-life.

…seems pretty obvious if you are interested in the ‘origin’ that you need to include Genesis.

Whoa, I’m highly impressed by your research, kudos. Must admit that it was maybe the most boring book I ever read, couldn’t understand why it was such a hit. Maybe knowing the ending didn’t help.

Not sure we can read much into his use of those words though. For some reason I read an abridgement of his journals, and remember he finally lost his faith when he was torn apart on witnessing the wretched death of his favorite daughter Annie. Just looked up the date, it was eight years before he published On The Origins. He wouldn’t want to air problems with his faith in such an important book though, so I think perhaps he used words he knew his audience were familiar with when it came to matters outside the scope of his theory (and his wife would enjoy seeing them in the text). Don’t know much about him though, it would need some work to try to confirm either way.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

He wouldn’t want to air problems with his faith in such an important book though, so I think perhaps he used words he knew his audience were familiar with when it came to matters outside the scope of his theory (and his wife would enjoy seeing them in the text). Don’t know much about him though, it would need some work to try to confirm either way.

I’ve always just assumed that researchers prior to the 1900s would be at least a little scared of publishing findings that might seem to contradict faith, regardless of their actual affiliation. Even if they weren’t scared of getting some kind of Galileo treatment, they would be afraid of losing friends and getting vilified in the media. For example, even Newton did this when laying out his laws of universal gravitation. Because his theories removed any appeal to God from the motion of the planets, he needed to include extra sentences to the effect of “Just because I explained the motion of the heavenly bodies doesn’t mean I’ve disproven God! Wow, isn’t that God guy great?”

 

[o_mlly]

Atheists and fideists will not accept the argument. The former because the argument would ultimately lead to the need for naming a Designer. The latter because of an extreme skepticism of reason or the mistaken belief that reason is inappropriate to justify the truths of revelation. To admit the power of reason would diminish the fideist view that “faith alone” informs in religious matters.

Others, including Catholics believe, as St. JP II taught in the first line of Fides et Ratio, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This seems to widen the scope of the book to include the Creator (Darwin uses an upper case “C”) and to include the entire story of life from non-life.

…seems pretty obvious if you are interested in the ‘origin’ that you need to include Genesis.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To admit the power of reason would diminish the fideist view that “faith alone” informs in religious matters.

Others, including Catholics believe, as St. JP II taught in the first line of Fides et Ratio, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.”

The Church still honors Thomas Aquinas and the work he did to show how reason complements, rather than is irrelevant to, the act of faith. The natural theology and human reason of philosophers is only one of several pathways or approaches to God. It is complemented by the other wing of the heart’s yearning, so that faith rises on two wings and therefore seems all the more soaring an experience.

Because they are so completely grounded by disbelief, atheists cannot understand this.

 

[yppop]

1. I will admit that DNA is strong evidence for God and become a theist if, by the year 2036, no one has presented a “viable theory of how the first living cell came to be.”
2. You will admit that a naturalistic view is a superior method for explaining the world around us than a theistic one if a “viable theory of how the first living cell came to be” is discovered at any time prior to 2036.

JKappa
What do you mean by viable theory?
Yppop

 

[tonyrey]

Nope. One last time, then we really must move on. Take objects of random size and shape with random distribution moving in random directions at random speeds, and we can observe regularities. Such as pressure, because each variable has an average. Take the most chaotic world you can imagine and there will be such regularities. Natural laws are not a priori, they are instead inferred from the behavior of phenomena.

In a truly chaotic universe there are no regularities that could be construed as laws constituting a complex system.

As for “a priori” it is a red herring:

The a priori /a posteriori distinction, as is shown below, should not be confused with the similar dichotomy of the necessary and the contingent or the dichotomy of the analytic and the synthetic. Nonetheless, the a priori /a posteriori distinction is itself not without controversy. The major sticking-points historically have been how to define the concept of the “experience” on which the distinction is grounded, and whether or in what sense knowledge can indeed exist independently of all experience. The latter issue raises important questions regarding the positive, that is, actual, basis of a priori knowledge – questions which a wide range of philosophers have attempted to answer. Kant, for instance, advocated a “transcendental” form of justification involving “rational insight” that is connected to, but does not immediately arise from, empirical experience.

- The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

As you’ve not provided what I asked for, I take it you concede that null hypothesis is not a term used in metaphysics and doesn’t mean what you wanted it to mean.

False. It is clear to any reasonable person that a null hypothesis in metaphysics implies that there is a total void which is the most logical starting point because there is no obvious reason why anything or anyone must exist. If there is please explain why. **Contingency **is not fiction but fact and like **complexity **it is a metaphysical topic.

Given the variety of philosophical views on the meaning of “nothing”, it wouldn’t appear to be the slightest bit economical.

Please give one example which is not far-fetched.

The OP is about biological arguments from complexity and you’re on record stating “Our existence is totally irrelevant to the issue of complexity”.

The OP isn’t primarily concerned with biological arguments. If it were it would have been banned… The basic issue is ontological not scientific.

Do Buddhists and Hindus agree with your opinion?

They are not Abrahamic religions.

In remains that the Abrahamic religions have never made God an hypothesis.

This is a philosophy forum and from the philosophical point of view God is initially a hypothesis and then an interpretation of physical reality.

Yes, you said “It is apparently foolish”.

I stated “It is apparently foolish” not “to anyone” - which you have inserted to concoct a false implication.

It isn’t quibbling to state the basis of faith that Christ died on the cross for you, for you personally, that you might have life, and have it to the full. He didn’t die for hypotheses, theories and pseudoscience, did he? As Paul says, what’s foolishness to non-believers is wisdom to believers.

Totally irrelevant to the metaphysical issue of complexity.

 

[tonyrey]

The principle of economy in both cases. (Occam’s Razor)
Ah, I think I’ve understood what you’ve been saying. It was so obviously wrong to me that I didn’t think anyone would seriously propose it.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The origin of the universe is certainly not irrelevant to the topic because complexity implies multiplicity and how it originated. It is obviously more economical to attribute it to theism than to atomism. Divine intervention is also a more rational explanation than a fortuitous collocation of atomic particles because it explains the origin of value, purpose and meaning whereas the Chance hypothesis doesn’t correspond to the way any reasonable person lives.

That you would invoke “value, purpose, and meaning” suggests to me that you are just grasping at straws here. I don’t believe that any of those things are germane to the argument from complexity.

The issue with your attempt to link complexity to the existence of laws is that laws are a more fundamental feature of the universe than complexity. We could have a universe with laws but without the kind of complexity that prompts people to “argue from complexity.” Therefore, an argument from the existence of laws (which is what you appear to be making) is different and more general than the argument from complexity.

However, it also may be the case that your argument is simply: “A universe with laws is more complex than one without laws, and Occam’s Razor says that therefore the universe without laws is what we should get by default.” However, I already explained why that is not a valid use of Occam’s Razor in the post you quoted.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

JKappa
What do you mean by viable theory?
Yppop

Those were C3’s words, but for the sake of the bet it would have to be something along the lines of:

1. Be consistent with all known rules of physics and chemistry.
2. Involve conditions consistent with what we know about the early earth’s atmosphere and environment.
3. Consistent with the timescales involved. We have a rough idea of how long it took for life to show up on earth, and the theory can’t require timescales that are too much longer or shorter than that.
4. Consistent with known biology. The cells formed in the theory must either be actually related to known biology (e.g. by using RNA and other known biological chemistry) or have a clear mechanism for evolving into known biology.

Such a theory would, in my view, be viable as an explanation for abiogenesis.

 

[cfauster]

BioLogos is running a good blog series on the topic of information, complexity, etc. this summer.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Those were C3’s words, but for the sake of the bet it would have to be something along the lines of:

1. Be consistent with all known rules of physics and chemistry.
2. Involve conditions consistent with what we know about the early earth’s atmosphere and environment.
3. Consistent with the timescales involved. **We have a rough idea of how long it took for life to show up on earth, and the theory can’t require timescales that are too much longer or shorter than that.**4. Consistent with known biology. The cells formed in the theory must either be actually related to known biology (e.g. by using RNA and other known biological chemistry) or have a clear mechanism for evolving into known biology.

Such a theory would, in my view, be viable as an explanation for abiogenesis.

You say “we” but I’m not sure who you mean by “we.”

And how long do “we” know it took for life to show up on Earth? From which billion years to which billion years?

You seem to be well versed in this, so please explain.

 

[Bahman]

The argument from complexity goes like this…

A Biological system, of any kind, is soooooooo complex that it could not have evolved naturally from inanimate objects and is therefore the work of an intelligence mind.

We have a good evidence of evolution in simple system like bacteria and virus. They manage to adopt themselves to a new condition in pretty short time scale when they are faced with a drug or change in our defence system. Of course we need much longer time scale to adopt ourselves to a new environment but that is just matter of time.

 

[IWantGod]

We have a good evidence of evolution in simple system like bacteria and virus. They manage to adopt themselves to a new condition in pretty short time scale when they are faced with a drug or change in our defence system. Of course we need much longer time scale to adopt ourselves to a new environment but that is just matter of time.

The problem is not evolution. The problem is abiogensis.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The problem is not evolution. The problem is abiogensis.

Indeed, even most realistic evolutionists admit abiogenesis is a problem without a solution.