Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

From the little I know of David Hume, I am sure that there are lots of inconsistencies and gaps in his philosophy. Frankly, I remember very little of the content of my required philosophy minor. That is probably due to the fact that courses often coincided with my nap time. :yawn:

Nevertheless, one of my favorite philosophy professors was into “how Communism was the result of Cartesian philosophy.” Real things happened to real people in Russia and other countries because of the way subsequent philosophers interpreted and then re-interpreted Descartes. Tracing the history of philosophical concepts becomes important if one intends to refute dangerous philosophies in current society.

In post 329, there is this statement. “David Hume’s argument as presented in post 324 is a modern twisted version of Satan’s successful temptation to Adam.” There is the real possibility that the exit from the Garden of Eden is responsible for all the questions about the “many ills in the universe” as noted by David Hume quoted in post 324.

If the skill of design philosophy is to be useful in defending Catholicism, then people need to skillfully address the surrounding issues of the “Design” proposition. This means going to the historical source for the philosophical basis of various propositions such as solving the “evil” problem. For example, “Hume presupposed the reality of goodness without explaining how it originated in a Godless universe…” from post 330. In ancient times, the philosophy of goodness and badness was attributed to two equal warring supernatural beings. (reference Manichaeanism)

It is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to presuppose the real foundation for t philosophical goodness as the existence of both one supernatural Creator and one created human person. The difference between Catholicism and the some philosophers is that Catholicism uses the positive approach that God exists and some others use the negative approach of a Godless universe.

Links to cited posts.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9102525&postcount=324
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9104496&postcount=329
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9104892&postcount=330

I entirely agree with you but that project goes way beyond the scope of Design because it entails Creation and the nature of God. I regard Design as the thin end of the philosophical wedge which compels sceptics (if they are open-minded) to question their assumption that religion is mere superstition. On another thread I have just pointed out it takes immense **faith **to believe persons, goodness, freedom, justice, and love are produced by impersonal particles which lack insight, a conscience, free will, purpose and the capacity for love…

 

[Micorhizea]

One of the saddest features of contemporary society is its loss of moral values and the pursuit of pleasure rather than perfection.

Interestingly enough, I just heard a rather well annotated report on NPR that declares that ours is easily the least violent since the start of recorded history.

• A Modern Introduction to Philosophy - edited by Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap, p. 453.

Science is based on the principle that there are explanations for everything - even though they may not be of the type we expect. Science is inadequate because it excludes explanations in terms of **purpose **which are the basis of a rational existence. We all have to work out our own way of life and decide what is more important than anything else. Even if we don’t believe in Design we know it is absurd to live as if we have no reasons for living. So in practice we live **as if **we don’t exist by Chance.

Actually, that is superimposing the author’s view on a situation which may not merit it.

Design implies that we all have a specific vocation and an obligation to develop our potentialities to the best of our ability. We have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that everything will ultimately fit into an intelligible pattern. In other words we are sustained by faith, hope and love because we don’t regard others as accidental companions with whom we have nothing in common and towards whom we have no obligations.

That works very well for a consensus belief amongst “Designists,” but is necessary neither from a theistic nor atheistic point of view in the end.

As we get older and infirm it becomes difficult not to regard our efforts and sufferings as pointless, especially if we think everything is going to be swallowed up in total oblivion. Suicide is often thought to be a solution but it causes problems for others and certainly undermines belief in virtues like courage and fortitude because it implies we are useless and of no value to anyone. It is the thin end of the wedge to base life on how **useful **we think we are to others. According to that criterion euthanasia is justified for a fair proportion of the population! Even when he was blind Milton did not yield to that temptation:

“He also serves who only stands and waits…”

That is likely true of the population, and is a beautiful sentiment from Milton, but that dynamic does not depend on design as you seem to be presenting it.

The most convincing evidence for Design is the richness of personal existence with all its opportunities for exploration, creativity, appreciation and enjoyment - like art, music, drama, literature, history, science, technology and - of course - philosophy. This is not to mention the happiness to be found in family life, friendship, travel and even work - but it is the spiritual life that must surpass everything else because it is our greatest source of inspiration. Many people today cannot understand how monks and nuns can be happy and fulfilled when they are isolated from all that gives others their reasons for living. Yet their closeness to God is the greatest source of joy and peace anyone can have. Just to read what the saints and mystics of different religions - and even no religion - have written about their experiences is to glimpse a higher level of existence.

I see all that, am NOT an atheist and consider it a proof of discovery, not of design.

“By their fruits you shall know them…”

Yes, it is so.

It is the fertility of Design that makes it far superior to its rival.

OK, but first how is “fertility” an attribute of “design?”

 

[tonyrey]

One of the saddest features of contemporary society is its loss of moral values and the pursuit of pleasure rather than perfection.

Do you believe there has been no loss of moral values?

Science is based on the principle that there are explanations for everything - even though they may not be of the type we expect. Science is inadequate because it excludes explanations in terms of **purpose **

which are the basis of a rational existence. We all have to work out our own way of life and decide what is more important than anything else. Even if we don’t believe in Design we know it is absurd to live as if we have no reasons for living. So in practice we live **as if **we don’t exist by Chance. Actually, that is superimposing the author’s view on a situation which may not merit it.

Do you live as if you exist by Chance?

Design implies that we all have a specific vocation and an obligation to develop our potentialities to the best of our ability. We have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that everything will ultimately fit into an intelligible pattern. In other words we are sustained by faith, hope and love because we don’t regard others as accidental companions with whom we have nothing in common and towards whom we have no obligations.

That works very well for a consensus belief amongst “Designists,” but is necessary neither from a theistic nor atheistic point of view in the end.

Why not?

As we get older and infirm it becomes difficult not to regard our efforts and sufferings as pointless, especially if we think everything is going to be swallowed up in total oblivion. Suicide is often thought to be a solution but it causes problems for others and certainly undermines belief in virtues like courage and fortitude because it implies we are useless and of no value to anyone. It is the thin end of the wedge to base life on how **useful **

we think we are to others. According to that criterion euthanasia is justified for a fair proportion of the population! Even when he was blind Milton did not yield to that temptation:
“He also serves who only stands and waits…”
That is likely true of the population, and is a beautiful sentiment from Milton, but that dynamic does not depend on design as you seem to be presenting it.

Why not?

The most convincing evidence for Design is the richness of personal existence with all its opportunities for exploration, creativity, appreciation and enjoyment - like art, music, drama, literature, history, science, technology and - of course - philosophy. This is not to mention the happiness to be found in family life, friendship, travel and even work - but it is the spiritual life that must surpass everything else because it is our greatest source of inspiration. Many people today cannot understand how monks and nuns can be happy and fulfilled when they are isolated from all that gives others their reasons for living. Yet their closeness to God is the greatest source of joy and peace anyone can have. Just to read what the saints and mystics of different religions - and even no religion - have written about their experiences is to glimpse a higher level of existence.

I see all that, am NOT an atheist and consider it a proof of discovery, not of design.

Discovery implies the reality of what is discovered!

It is the fertility of Design that makes it far superior to its rival.

OK, but first how is “fertility” an attribute of “design?”

Design is shorthand for “the Design explanation”.

 

[grannymh]

I entirely agree with you but that project goes way beyond the scope of Design because it entails Creation and the nature of God.** I regard Design as the thin end of the philosophical wedge which compels sceptics (if they are open-minded) to question their assumption that religion is mere superstition**. On another thread I have just pointed out it takes immense **faith **to believe persons, goodness, freedom, justice, and love are produced by impersonal particles which lack insight, a conscience, free will, purpose and the capacity for love…

Emphasis mine.

And what kind of religion (emphasized statement above) are you referring to if it does not entail creation and the nature of God? And what kind of natural laws where you talking about if they are not part of creation?

I am not an advocate of Intelligent Design. However, design is real in nature and it is certainly more than the thin end of the philosophical wedge.

 

[tonyrey]

I entirely agree with you but that project goes way beyond the scope of Design because it entails Creation and the nature of God.* I regard Design as the thin end of the philosophical wedge which compels sceptics (if they are open-minded) to question their assumption that religion is mere superstition***

Sceptics regard all forms of religion as superstition.

I am not an advocate of Intelligent Design. However, design is real in nature and it is certainly more than the thin end of the philosophical wedge.

Some wouldn’t even accept it as the thin end - as I know from experience.

 

[grannymh]

Sceptics regard all forms of religion as superstition.

Some wouldn’t even accept it as the thin end - as I know from experience.

If you say so. But the confusion presented on this thread is one of the reasons I do not support Intelligent Design.

 

[tonyrey]

Information systems which lead to the development of physical organisms which have insight and intelligence are inadequately explained by a purely mechanical process which lacks insight and intelligence".

You have overlooked Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell which the eminent atheist Thomas Nagel submitted as his contribution to the 2009 Books of the Year. In his review he wrote:
“Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this **fiendishly difficult **problem.” (my emphasis)

You need to explain the origin of the system for storing and encoding digital information, of the large amount of functionally specified information in DNA and the functional interdependence of the parts of the cell’s information processing system, i.e. the order within a complex system and the information needed to specify the functions of a complex system. Engineers have always known that hierarchical systems do not exist by chance. Now Meyer has explained why hierarchical biological systems cannot do so either.

You can read a substantial part of the book online:

amazon.com/Signature-in-the-Cell-ebook/dp/B002C949BI#reader_B002C949BI

Do you believe that all - including your most significant - attributes are derived from your DNA?

Some of my significant attributes are derived from my DNA. Without my DNA I would lack some significant attributes; effectively, I wouldn’t be me but someone else.

Then you agree that your DNA is not a complete explanation of your spiritual development.

The issue is whether material objects serve any purpose at all. Your belief in reincarnation implies that they do.

My point is that there is no intrinsic purpose to objects. One object can have many different purposes, assigned by different people and assigned by the same people at different times.

I agree but that was not my point.

Since purpose implies activity I cannot be reifying it. “purposeful” and “purposeless” are not nouns but adjectives.

Purposes also change. You appear to be unhappy with purposes changing. You seem to treat “Purpose” as a single unchanging property of things. It isn’t.

Then you have misinterpreted me. My point is that physical objects serve the purpose of being a basis for physical life.

QUOTE]The question remains “How is our physical life related to our spiritual life?”

1 Cease to do evil.
2 Do good.
3 Meditate.

So our spiritual life determines the nature and duration of our physical life (or lives)?

Not even for reincarnation? Is reincarnation an accident?

What does this have to do with purpose?

Don’t Buddhists believe the purpose of life is spiritual development - which leads to enlightenment rather than a lower realm of being…

Do you have no purposes while you are in this world?

As a newborn I did not have any purpose, as my mind was not then formed enough to define any purpose for myself or for anything else. Purposes came later.

Isn’t spiritual development an objective purpose whether you recognise it or not?

 

[grannymh]

I entirely agree with you but that project goes way beyond the scope of Design because it entails Creation and the nature of God.

In that case, there is no reason why I should bring Catholicism (which is concerned about creation and the nature of God among other things) into the discussion.
:banghead:

 

[tonyrey]

In that case, there is no reason why I should bring Catholicism (which is concerned about creation and the nature of God among other things) into the discussion.
:banghead:

There is no reason why you shouldn’t because none of these subjects are water-tight compartments. Jesus referred to the beauty of lilies as evidence for the goodness and power of God - although He wasn’t dealing with sceptics but people who believed in God. We have to take into account - as far as possible - the views of those who are following this discussion. On a Catholic forum we are entitled to more latitude than a secular one - although there is the risk of giving the impression that Design is a theological argument.

 

[grannymh]

There is no reason why you shouldn’t because none of these subjects are water-tight compartments. Jesus referred to the beauty of lilies as evidence for the goodness and power of God - although He wasn’t dealing with sceptics but people who believed in God. We have to take into account - as far as possible - the views of those who are following this discussion. On a Catholic forum we are entitled to more latitude than a secular one - although there is the risk of giving the impression that Design is a theological argument.

Do not worry about impressions.

Design with its powerful evidence is not a theological view of some sort. Design is a description and explanation of created objects including living organisms. Design, itself, is sterile. Of course there is a purpose to design, (keeping the object in existence) but that material purpose is not defined in theological terminology with the exception that all has been created by God in some manner.

The proponents of design have limited its discussion to the existence of the material world. Design can be applied to human eyes but its proponents do not make the leap to the eyes (poetic description) of the spiritual soul which is responsible for making matter into a human being. That being said, people still exaggerate design by adding to it laws of nature which detour to miracles, etc.

Design is based on a material point of view. Yes, I know that some, not all, people like to make the leap from the material aspects of design to a spiritual transcendent Pure Spirit Who is in a personal relationship with each individual person. That leap is not evinced in this thread. On occasion, some discussions can bring in an “intelligent designer” of sorts but it stops short of the nature of God as taught by Catholicism., Design stops short of the beautifully designed human relationship with Jesus Christ which is part of the foundation for the Catholic Church.

 

[tonyrey]

Do not worry about impressions.

Design with its powerful evidence is not a theological view of some sort. Design is a description and explanation of created objects including living organisms. Design, itself, is sterile. Of course there is a purpose to design, (keeping the object in existence) but that material purpose is not defined in theological terminology with the exception that all has been created by God in some manner.

The proponents of design have limited its discussion to the existence of the material world. Design can be applied to human eyes but its proponents do not make the leap to the eyes (poetic description) of the spiritual soul which is responsible for making matter into a human being. That being said, people still exaggerate design by adding to it laws of nature which detour to miracles, etc.

Design is based on a material point of view. Yes, I know that some, not all, people like to make the leap from the material aspects of design to a spiritual transcendent Pure Spirit Who is in a personal relationship with each individual person. That leap is not evinced in this thread. On occasion, some discussions can bring in an “intelligent designer” of sorts but it stops short of the nature of God as taught by Catholicism., Design stops short of the beautifully designed human relationship with Jesus Christ which is part of the foundation for the Catholic Church.

I agree with your last point but Design is not restricted to a material point of view:

Science is based on the principle that there are explanations for everything - even though they may not be of the type we expect. Science is inadequate because it excludes explanations in terms of **purpose **which are the basis of a rational existence. We all have to work out our own way of life and decide what is more important than anything else. Even if we don’t believe in Design we know it is absurd to live as if we have no reasons for living. So in practice we live **as if **we don’t exist by Chance.

Design implies that we all have a specific vocation and an obligation to develop our potentialities to the best of our ability. We have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that everything will ultimately fit into an intelligible pattern. In other words we are sustained by faith, hope and love because we don’t regard others as accidental companions with whom we have nothing in common and towards whom we have no obligations.

As we get older and infirm it becomes difficult not to regard our efforts and sufferings as pointless, especially if we think everything is going to be swallowed up in total oblivion. Suicide is often thought to be a solution but it causes problems for others and certainly undermines belief in virtues like courage and fortitude because it implies we are useless and of no value to anyone. It is the thin end of the wedge to base life on how useful we think we are to others. According to that criterion euthanasia is justified for a fair proportion of the population! Even when he was blind Milton did not yield to that temptation:

“He also serves who only stands and waits…”

The most convincing evidence for Design is the richness of personal existence with all its opportunities for exploration, creativity, appreciation and enjoyment - like art, music, drama, literature, history, science, technology and - of course - philosophy. This is not to mention the happiness to be found in family life, friendship, travel and even work - but it is the spiritual life that must surpass everything else because it is our greatest source of inspiration. Many people today cannot understand how monks and nuns can be happy and fulfilled when they are isolated from all that gives others their reasons for living. Yet their closeness to God is the greatest source of joy and peace anyone can have. Just to read what the saints and mystics of different religions - and even no religion - have written about their experiences is to glimpse a higher level of existence.

 

[Micorhizea]

Do you believe there has been no loss of moral values?
Do you live as if you exist by Chance?

Why not?
Why not? Discovery implies the reality of what is discovered!
Design is shorthand for “the Design explanation”.

Thanks for the questions. However, having read your posts I don’t think a discussion with you on this topic is merited. I only wished to point out to you that in my opinion there is grave need here for some reconsideration of your adamantine stance. Good luck and God Bless.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you believe there has been no loss of moral values?
Do you live as if you exist by Chance?

No doubt that is because my views conflict with yours! God bless.

 

[tonyrey]

The Design explanation is extremely powerful because it covers so many different aspects of existence, ranging from the order in the physical universe to the presence of persons on this planet, from the value and purpose of living organisms to the most complex structure in the universe: the human brain. It explains not only the exquisite beauty of nature and the superb DNA information system but also the outstanding success of science and the development of civilization which are entirely due to our power of reason, free will, moral awareness and capacity for unselfish love. Even that great sceptic David Hume was compelled to admit that evidence of purpose surrounds us on all sides.

Yet in spite of its explanatory power Design does not entail Creation. Reason cannot replace Revelation. Design alone is not evidence for omniscience or omnipotence. It points to a source of immense power and wisdom but not to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Its strength is that it makes people realise materialism is a hopelessly inadequate scheme of **things **which does not do justice to the richness of reality - and persons in particular.

In our secular society - which is in many ways a spiritual desert - Design is a potential source of enlightenment which can lead to faith and hope, particularly when people are brought face to face with death. It is then that everyone is forced to question the meaning of life and whether they will ever be reunited with their loved ones. Whether they choose to believe or not they are at least given the opportunity to realise that religion is not an outdated superstition but a rational interpretation of reality which corresponds to our deepest needs and our highest aspirations. For all its limitations Design is one of our most potent weapons against cynicism and scepticism - used by Jesus Himself:

“Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. And if God cares so wonderfully for flowers that are here today and thrown into the fire tomorrow, he will certainly care for you. Why do you have so little faith?” Luke 12:27-28

 

[tonyrey]

The Design explanation has met with ferocious opposition from Christians and atheists alike even though all reasonable people act as if life is purposeful. The best test of what we believe is how we live. People commit suicide because they think life is not worth living but they usually do so because of some misfortune. Even their act of suicide is purposeful. Their goal is to escape from a life which seems to have become purposeless. By deliberately killing themselves they have demonstrated they are capable of formulating and fulfilling a purpose - not by necessity but by choice.

Design alone cannot explain all the reasons why the universe or its inhabitants exist nor is it to be expected that it could. It has already established a basis for investigation into those reasons - in stark contrast to the theory that there is no reason why anything or anyone exists. For all its sensational success science fails to provide any rational explanation of existence. This is inevitable because purposes are not within its scope - which is restricted to physical causes. Some philosophers have tried to explain away purpose in terms of purposeless functions without being aware they are undermining the foundation of their own argument. If nothing is purposeful their reasoning is purposeless! In other words it is pointless like everything else…

There is abundant evidence that existence is to a large extent intelligible. It has a rational basis rather than an inscrutable origin. Purposes are not illusions or human inventions but objective facts. Reason is at the heart of reality. Anyone who believes in Creation must believe what is created is purposeful and exists for a reason. Creation is meaningless unless it entails Design. It is possible to believe in Design without believing in God but such a view raises more problems than it solves - and is another topic…

 

[tonyrey]

Disputes about Design often occur because purpose has at least three meanings:

1. Divine purpose
2. Human purpose
3. Biological purpose

There is a vast difference between the purposeful activity of a person and an amoeba yet both imply a reference to the future which is absent in inanimate processes. That is why the origin of life poses an apparently insurmountable problem - described by the eminent philosopher Ernest Nagel as “fiendishly difficult”. Material objects are trapped in the present and physical causes refer to the past. Scientific explanations are based not on what will happen but what has happened. They are therefore necessarily incomplete because their view of reality is retrospective and not comprehensive. That is the reason why Steven Weinberg mistakenly came to the conclusion that the universe is pointless. He was forgetting the fact that by its very nature science cannot explain everything: it looks backward and is backward in that respect!

The humble amoeba does not know what it is doing and yet it looks forward to the future. It apparently has no intelligence but it behaves quite differently from even the most complex inorganic structures. Biologists have described its activity as teleonomic to distinguish it from the teleological activity of intelligent beings. This does not alter the fact that they have no explanation for the goal-seeking activity of living organisms.

Human purpose is distinguished by awareness of the future and the ability to formulate and implement plans which will change the course of events. This is a remarkable achievement which we take for granted because we’re doing it all the time. Fatalists believe we only imagine we have this power because everything is determined in advance. Yet fatalism is self-contradictory. If fatalism is true the belief that fatalism is true is itself determined and there is no reason to believe it corresponds to reality. If all our beliefs are determined they cannot all be true because very often they contradict one another! And in practice fatalists do not live as if nothing they do will have any effect on the future.

To be continued…

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;9120749:

Scientific explanations are based not on what will happen but what has happened. They are therefore necessarily incomplete because their view of reality is retrospective and not comprehensive. That is the reason why Steven Weinberg mistakenly came to the conclusion that the universe is pointless. He was forgetting the fact that by its very nature science cannot explain everything: it looks backward and is backward in that respect!

Science makes predictions of course but they are based on the principle of induction - that the future will be the product of past and present events. Design predicts that we shall continue to influence the future with our decisions because we are free agents in addition to being products of past and present - and not merely cogs in a vast machine.

 

[Micorhizea]

Basic Reasoning 101, ages twelve and upwards, says that in the absence of any evidence we are not justified in reaching any conclusion. Your entire theory is therefore based on nothing more than fresh air.

Gotta agree. Semantic errors are rampant in his arguments, and so much is based on the idea of “purpose” one begins to wonder if possibly some things are being left radically unexamined.

“The purpose of Life is to BE” ~KM

 

[tonyrey]

Gotta agree. Semantic errors are rampant in his arguments, and so much is based on the idea of “purpose” one begins to wonder if possibly some things are being left radically unexamined.

“The purpose of Life is to BE” ~KM

1. Do you believe there has been no loss of moral values in contemporary society?
2. Do you live as if you exist by chance?

Design implies that we all have a specific vocation and an obligation to develop our potentialities to the best of our ability. We have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that everything will ultimately fit into an intelligible pattern. In other words we are sustained by faith, hope and love because we don’t regard others as accidental companions with whom we have nothing in common and towards whom we have no obligations.

That works very well for a consensus belief amongst “Designists,” but is necessary neither from a theistic nor atheistic point of view in the end.

Why not?
4.

As we get older and infirm it becomes difficult not to regard our efforts and sufferings as pointless, especially if we think everything is going to be swallowed up in total oblivion. Suicide is often thought to be a solution but it causes problems for others and certainly undermines belief in virtues like courage and fortitude because it implies we are useless and of no value to anyone. It is the thin end of the wedge to base life on how **useful **

we think we are to others. According to that criterion euthanasia is justified for a fair proportion of the population! Even when he was blind Milton did not yield to that temptation:
“He also serves who only stands and waits…” That is likely true of the population, and is a beautiful sentiment from Milton, but that dynamic does not depend on design as you seem to be presenting it.

**Why not? **

 

[grannymh]

Gotta agree. Semantic errors are rampant in his arguments, and so much is based on the idea of “purpose” one begins to wonder if possibly some things are being left radically unexamined.

“The purpose of Life is to BE” ~KM

I have no problem with purpose or design in general. I do agree with your comment that
“so much is based on the idea of “purpose” one begins to wonder if possibly some things are being left radically unexamined.”