Powerful evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

Names change the way people are treated.

True.

What I am driving at is that the human person is worthy of profound respect. When people mistreat another person, their evil actions are considered immoral per se because they are very disrespectful toward the victim.

Now, you can argue that it is* both* the design of human nature and the ultimate purpose of human nature which makes a person worthy of profound respect.

 

[tonyrey]

True.

What I am driving at is that the human person is worthy of profound respect. When people mistreat another person, their evil actions are considered immoral per se because they are very disrespectful toward the victim.

Now, you can argue that it is* both* the design of human nature and the ultimate purpose of human nature which makes a person worthy of profound respect.

Good points. Our Lord’s sacrifice on the Cross makes every person worthy of infinite respect. That is a theological rather than a philosophical reason but it seems remiss not to mention it so close to Good Friday.

 

[Micorhizea]

There are many people who don’t believe in Design yet believe life is purposeful and valuable. This goes to show the belief that life is purposeful is unavoidable in practice.

These sentences equate a segment with whole.

It is impossible to live without any purposes at all They may be arbitrary but they are purposes nevertheless - which are thought to exist within a purposeless system!

This is your personal assessment and doesn’t distribute over everyone. Many people live without purpose either as an omission or as a condition. The “purpose” of staying alive is an instinctive function modified according to the state of awareness of the individual. After a point, the idea of “purpose” is irrelevant as it is absorbed into a different standpoint and understanding about the Nature of Life, should one be so graced.

One defence of this incoherent view is that values and purposes are subjective: nothing is intrinsically valuable or purposeful but values and purposes can be imposed on anything…

Again, this is a personalization of your own view, with judgements deeming it “incoherent” because you have not found the way it can bee seen coherently.

The difficulty with this explanation is that persons would be classified as things! Otherwise the subjective interpretation of morality breaks down.

Perhap[s if you have any contact with the media, you may have seen that they can and are classified as “things” by anyone with sociopathic tendencies, or who have a totally materialist view of Creation.

]The right to life becomes a matter of opinion - in blatant contradiction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Not necessarily. You seem to bee lumping things or abstracting special cases over the whole population. That doesn’t work toward clarity.

The criminal’s view becomes as valid as that of the law-abiding citizen unless there is an objective reason for regarding life as intrinsically valuable. So the question remains as to the nature of that reason.

The only real, useful and functional source of marality is totally subjective and cannot be otherwise, which point you might discover if you could step back far enough for a moment long enough to stop the kinds of semantic errors you are wont to using, at least as far as I have seen.

As a general rule value cannot be disassociated from purpose. We can attach value to useless** things** but we cannot reasonably regard persons as valueless. It is a crime to treat people as if they don’t deserve to live. The question of what we deserve doesn’t even arise. Our life is valuable regardless of the way we live - although the value of the consequences of being alive differs greatly from one person to another. So why is life intrinsically valuable?

This again is a conflation of personalizations in my book.

The answer is that it is a source of opportunities for development, enjoyment and fulfilment. But does it cease to be valuable when there seem to be no more opportunities? If life ends at death there is no obvious reason why a person’s life shouldn’t be terminated when others decide it is no longer valuable. In other words eugenics and euthanasia are justified.

It can be seen as valuable because of “opportunities and development” from a limited viewpoint, but that’s certainly not all that there is to it, by any means, And your conclusion is not merited even if life ends at death, which is another anthropomorphism, either way.

This is the outcome with which secularists are faced. Without Design there is no bulwark against the rejection of an individual’s right to life. If people think we don’t exist for any purpose we are at the mercy of those who may decide our life is no longer valuable. It may not always be evident even to ourselves what our value or purpose is but that doesn’t mean we have none. There is no logical stopping place on the descent from universalism - humanism - egoism - nihilism. Either everything has some ultimate value or nothing has any value whatsoever…

I won’t even try to unscramble that.

 

[tonyrey]

These sentences equate a segment with whole.

This is your personal assessment and doesn’t distribute over everyone. Many people live without purpose either as an omission or as a condition. The “purpose” of staying alive is an instinctive function modified according to the state of awareness of the individual. After a point, the idea of “purpose” is irrelevant as it is absorbed into a different standpoint and understanding about the Nature of Life, should one be so graced.

Again, this is a personalization of your own view, with judgements deeming it “incoherent” because you have not found the way it can bee seen coherently.
Perhap[s if you have any contact with the media, you may have seen that they can and are classified as “things” by anyone with sociopathic tendencies, or who have a totally materialist view of Creation.

Not necessarily. You seem to bee lumping things or abstracting special cases over the whole population. That doesn’t work toward clarity.

The only real, useful and functional source of marality is totally subjective and cannot be otherwise, which point you might discover if you could step back far enough for a moment long enough to stop the kinds of semantic errors you are wont to using, at least as far as I have seen.

This again is a conflation of personalizations in my book.

It can be seen as valuable because of “opportunities and development” from a limited viewpoint, but that’s certainly not all that there is to it, by any means, And your conclusion is not merited even if life ends at death, which is another anthropomorphism, *either

way.

I won’t even try to unscramble that.
I won’t even try to unscramble these subjective comments which are summed up in the subjective statement:

“The only real, useful and functional source of marality is totally subjective and cannot be otherwise.”

 

[tonyrey]

The sole alternative to Design is non-Design. There is either a reason why the universe exists or there isn’t. Either it is pointless or it isn’t. Purpose is either a basic reality or the result of purposeless events. The issue is not whether some events are purposeless but whether **all **events are ultimately purposeless.

In this context purpose means “rational purpose”. We have to choose between mind or matter. There have been dualistic theories of reality but they are irrelevant as well as uneconomical. If mind and matter have always co-existed purpose has always existed.

The fact of Design is unavoidable because the very act of thinking is purposeful. Some thinking is aimless but it is absurd to think **all **thinking is aimless. It would mean all our explanations are accidental and extremely unlikely to be true because we can be mistaken in countless ways. Unguided thought is not a sound recipe for success…

Twist and turn as we may we inevitably come up against the question “Why?” As Socrates said at his trial for heresy:

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

 

[inocente]

It is not complicated when you come to face to face with unscrupulous people.They will laugh at you if you start talking to them about love. Provided they can get what they want nothing else matters - except the consequences. The only language they understand is the price they will have to pay. That is why Jesus insisted so emphatically on the reality of hell. Criminals may escape punishment in this world but not in the next.

But what if they don’t believe in life after death? There is only one other deterrent apart from prison and execution. It is found in the Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian doctrine of Karma. Our virtues bring their own reward and our vices incur their own punishment. Self-love leads to isolation because it alienates others. No one wants to live with people who want everything their way. They create for themselves a hell on earth. Without love wealth and power are worthless…

This now seems confused as well as complicated.

If for instance we look at moral behavior in your country the UK, Christians end up in prison just as often as any other group, and always have done. The prospect of hell and damnation is not and never was much of a deterrent.

It also conflicts with what you said earlier, when you wrote that God permits some suffering in order to leave us uncertain whether He exists and so have free will. But if by believing in Him we also have to believe in eternal damnation, we’ve been coerced anyway. Telling someone they will burn for all eternity unless they stick to our morals is coercion on the grandest scale imaginable.

Guilt and fear might make for an orderly society but it is a society full of sick, cowering individuals. The way to make children courageous, honorable and kind is love not guilt. When we wrong someone, our motivation to put it right should be that we have hurt them, not selfishness.

*No one can be absolutely sure that death is the final destination. To sow the seeds of doubt in the sceptic’s mind is the first step towards salvation. Paradoxically an appeal to self-interest is the best way to encourage unselfishness. In His wisdom Jesus knows the prospect of being damned brings people to their senses and makes them more realistic. It is because He loves us that He warns us about the danger of living for ourselves at the expense of others. Those who condemn Christianity as a religion based on fear ignore the reality of evil. To leave people with the impression that they can do what they like with impunity is a recipe for disaster. God created us **for ***love and any deviation from that purpose is bound to lead to grief.

I very much disagree with this. The appeal should always be to the best interests of both our neighbor and ourselves, never to our own interests alone, or for that matter to our neighbor’s interests alone - the commandment is Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[inocente]

The sole alternative to Design is non-Design. There is either a reason why the universe exists or there isn’t. Either it is pointless or it isn’t. Purpose is either a basic reality or the result of purposeless events. The issue is not whether some events are purposeless but whether **all **events are ultimately purposeless.

In this context purpose means “rational purpose”. We have to choose between mind or matter. There have been dualistic theories of reality but they are irrelevant as well as uneconomical. If mind and matter have always co-existed purpose has always existed.

Heh, you can’t get away with that one, it’s the very definition of a false dichotomy, particularly as the theory which you call Design seems to be unheard of outside this thread.

We don’t need to be either/or, we don’t have to jump.

 

[tonyrey]

Heh, you can’t get away with that one, it’s the very definition of a false dichotomy, particularly as the theory which you call Design seems to be unheard of outside this thread.

We don’t need to be either/or, we don’t have to jump.

Peter Kreeft. “Argument from Design.” excerpted from Fundamentals of the Faith.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0158.html

The Argument from Design purports to demonstrate the existence of God by citing as evidence the appearance of design or purpose in the natural world.
princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/design.html

The Argument from Design RICHARD SWINBURNE

mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/swinburne-design.html

David Hume and the Argument from Design

uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Hume.htm

 

[tonyrey]

Heh, you can’t get away with that one, it’s the very definition of a false dichotomy, particularly as the theory which you call Design seems to be unheard of outside this thread.

We don’t need to be either/or, we don’t have to jump.

What is (are) the alternative(s) to Design and non-Design?

 

[inocente]

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0158.html

The Argument from Design purports to demonstrate the existence of God by citing as evidence the appearance of design or purpose in the natural world.
princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/design.html

The Argument from Design RICHARD SWINBURNE

mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/swinburne-design.html

David Hume and the Argument from Design

uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Hume.htm

This is confusing me further, since you previously said more than once that what you call Design cannot be found in any documents.

Much of what you’ve said on this thread seems to have very little to do with arguments from design. If you’re saying that what you call Design is a synthesis of the writings of certain philosophers to obtain the ideas you’ve expressed (e.g. the twin entities Chance and Design, or the interventionist god who chooses not to prevent all suffering for the sake of free will), then it is still a false dichotomy. You wrote “The sole alternative to Design is non-Design”, but neither Design nor non-Design have been detailed with anything like enough rigor and precision to make a choice.

Just to be clear, here is a standard form of the argument from design, and it’s very hard to see how much of what you have called Design™ could be logically derived from it (which is why I took to adding the ™ symbol):

Design arguments are routinely classed as analogical arguments—various parallels between human artifacts and certain natural entities being taken as supporting parallel conclusions concerning operative causation in each case. …] The standardly ascribed schema is roughly thus:

Schema 1:

1. Entity e within nature (or the cosmos, or nature itself) is like specified human artifact a (e.g., a machine) in relevant respects R.
2. a has R precisely because it is a product of deliberate design by intelligent human agency.
3. Like effects typically have like causes (or like explanations, like existence requirements, etc.)

Therefore

1. It is (highly) probable that e has R precisely because it too is a product of deliberate design by intelligent, relevantly human-like agency.

(The relevant respects and properties R are referred to variously as teleological properties or as marks or signs of design, and objects having such properties are sometimes referred to as teleological objects. …])

plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

 

[inocente]

What is (are) the alternative(s) to Design and non-Design?

If I take your post #416 as meaning that what you’ve been calling Design is actually just a shorthand for “an argument from design” then the question wouldn’t make sense - the only alternatives are that an argument is true or false.

Otherwise, as per previous post, you first need to define both terms with sufficient precision.

 

[tonyrey]

This is confusing me further, since you previously said more than once that what you call Design cannot be found in any documents.

I stated that Design cannot be found in any of the doctrinal documents of the Catholic Church but the argument is found in the work of Christian philosophers commencing with Irenaeus (c.130-200) Bishop of Lyons:

Suffering is a necessary part of God’s created universe – it is through suffering that human souls are made noble. The world is a ‘vale of soul making’.
One of the ways in which this ‘test’ is carried out is through faith. ** God’s purpose **cannot easily be discerned, but believers continue to believe despite the evidence. This faith becomes a virtue. John Hick calls this lack of understanding an ‘epistemic distance’.
To summarise Irenaeus’ Theodicy:

• Humans were created in the image and likeness of God.
• We are in an immature moral state, though we have the potential for moral perfection.
• Throughout our lives we change from being human animals to ‘children of God’.
• This is a choice made after struggle and experience, as we choose God rather than our baser instinct.
• There are no angels or external forces at work here.
• God brings in suffering for the benefit of humanity.
• From it we learn positive values, and about the world around us.

Suffering and evil are:

• Useful as a means of knowledge. Hunger leads to pain, and causes a desire to feed. Knowledge of pain prompts humans to seek to help others in pain.
• **Character building. **Evil offers the opportunity to grow morally. If we were programmed to ‘do the right thing’ there would be no moral value to our actions. ‘We would never learn the art of goodness in a world designed as a complete paradise’ Swinburne.
• **A predictable environment. The world runs to a series of natural laws. These laws are independent of our needs, and operate regardless of anything. Natural evil is when these laws come into conflict with our own perceived needs. **

scandalon.co.uk/philosoph…y_irenaeus.htm

Much of what you’ve said on this thread seems to have very little to do with arguments ntsgs of certain philosophers to obtain the ideas you’ve expressed (e.g. the twin entities Chance and Design, or the interventionist god who chooses not to prevent all suffering for the sake of free will), then it is still a false dichotomy. You wrote “The sole alternative to Design is non-Design”, but neither Design nor non-Design have been detailed with anything like enough rigor and precision to make a choice.

Just to be clear, here is a standard form of the argument from design, and it’s very hard to see how much of what you have called Design™ could be logically derived from it (which is why I took to adding the ™ symbol)esign arguments are routinely classed as analogical arguments—various parallels between human artifacts and certain natural entities being taken as supporting parallel conclusions concerning operative causation in each case. …] The standardly ascribed schema is roughly thus:

Schema 1:

1. Entity e within nature (or the cosmos, or nature itself) is like specified human artifact a (e.g., a machine) in relevant respects R.
2. a has R precisely because it is a product of deliberate design by intelligent human agency.
3. Like effects typically have like causes (or like explanations, like existence requirements, etc.)

Therefore

1. It is (highly) probable that e has R precisely because it too is a product of deliberate design by intelligent, relevantly human-like agency.

(The relevant respects and properties R are referred to variously as teleological properties or as marks or signs of design, and objects having such properties are sometimes referred to as teleological objects. …])

plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

This thread is the sequel to another thread consisting of** 2626 **posts which there was a thorough discussion of the OP:

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the directiveness of the simple cell, the progressive nature of evolution and the existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Scientific evidence for design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of a living cell.
3. The progressive nature of evolution.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

 

[Micorhizea]

I won’t even try to unscramble these subjective comments which are summed up in the subjective statement:

“The only real, useful and functional source of marality is totally subjective and cannot be otherwise.”

It strongly appears to me that you are conjuring all of your design ideas from a standpoint lacking a a deep survey of your own thought processes and assumptions, never mind the the norm of human self delusion about what constitutes awareness. Perhaps an investment in some materials on critical thinking, epistemology, and General Semantics might be in order? Even if you can’t find a course, you might benefit from some reading. We are not on the same field right now, and it is very difficult to do this, particularly since there is a distinct difference in understanding, it would seem, of what is “absolute” and what is “relative.” I’ve done your definitions of them, and they are very useful up to a point. To deal with your questions effectively, you may wish to do some adjusting. I know this might come off as “ad hominem,” but you seem inured to any dealings with the structures of your statements.

As for the alternative(s) you asked Innocente to present, look for them! It’s like winning the lottery. Like God said to the guy who prayed twenty years to win, “Help me out, here, son. Buy a ticket!”

 

[tonyrey]

Heh, you can’t get away with that one, it’s the very definition of a false dichotomy, particularly as the theory which you call Design seems to be unheard of outside this thread.

We don’t need to be either/or, we don’t have to jump.

The dichotomy has existed throughout Western philosophy from the ancient opposition between Anaxagoras and the Atomists down to the present disagreement between theists and atheists. Marcus Aurelius wrote in his Meditations of the need to choose between Providence and “a fortuitous concourse of atoms”. Bertrand Russell stated that to deny Design is to imply that “man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving". Two other British philosophers: HP Owen remarked that the only alternative to a Designer is sheer **“chance” **and FR Tennant observed that in the absence of Design one is bound to resort to the alternative theory of cumulative groundless coincidence”. An American atheist GG Simpson asserted that “Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process did not have him in mind. He was not planned.”

What is (are) the alternative(s) to Design and non-Design?

 

[tonyrey]

It strongly appears to me that you are conjuring all of your design ideas from a standpoint lacking a a deep survey of your own thought processes and assumptions, never mind the the norm of human self delusion about what constitutes awareness. Perhaps an investment in some materials on critical thinking, epistemology, and General Semantics might be in order? Even if you can’t find a course, you might benefit from some reading. We are not on the same field right now, and it is very difficult to do this, particularly since there is a distinct difference in understanding, it would seem, of what is “absolute” and what is “relative.” I’ve done your definitions of them, and they are very useful up to a point. To deal with your questions effectively, you may wish to do some adjusting. I know this might come off as “ad hominem,” but you seem inured to any dealings with the structures of your statements.

As for the alternative(s) you asked Innocente to present, look for them! It’s like winning the lottery. Like God said to the guy who prayed twenty years to win, “Help me out, here, son. Buy a ticket!”

These remarks do not address the topic.

 

[inocente]

I stated that Design cannot be found in any of the doctrinal documents of the Catholic Church

Here’s what you said at the time:

So I am on a mission to pin down exactly what Design actually states. To learn everything I can about Design:

A. Will I find it in the CCC and by going on an RCIA?
B. If not, what other Church documents should I read?
C. If A and B won’t provide all the information I need, what non-Church documents should I read?
tonyrey;9043781:

You won’t find it in documents but by simply using your intelligence!

You can maybe understand why I’m confused.

but the argument is found in the work of Christian philosophers commencing with Irenaeus (c.130-200) Bishop of Lyons:

scandalon.co.uk/philosoph…y_irenaeus.htm

That link is dead, with a bit of massaging the working link is scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/theodicy_irenaeus.htm

I’ve no knowledge of Irenaeus but going from that page (a high school philosophy of religion course), I don’t find your argument for hell - it says “Irenaeus argued that everyone goes to heaven. This would appear unjust, in that evil goes unpunished. Morality becomes pointless. This is not orthodox Christianity. It denies the fall, and Jesus’ role is reduced to that of moral example.”

Irenaeus sounds a bit of an, how shall I put this politely, eccentric free spirit.

This thread is the sequel to another thread consisting of* 2626 ***posts which there was a thorough discussion of the OP:

Yes, we were both on that thread, and much of it was about ID. I must be getting forgetful as I don’t remember anything at all being said there about the twin entities Chance and Design or an interventionist god who chooses not to prevent all suffering for the sake of free will.

 

[inocente]

The dichotomy …

Must leave replying until mañana, to walk the dogs.

 

[tonyrey]

Here’s what you said at the time:

You can maybe understand why I’m confused.

Addressing the points I have made would remove confusion:

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the directiveness of the simple cell, the progressive nature of evolution and the existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Scientific evidence for Design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of a living cell.
3. The progressive nature of evolution.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

How do you explain all the above factors? Do you believe they have an irrational origin?

I’ve no knowledge of Irenaeus but going from that page (a high school philosophy of religion course), I don’t find your argument for hell - it says “Irenaeus argued that everyone goes to heaven. This would appear unjust, in that evil goes unpunished. Morality becomes pointless. This is not orthodox Christianity. It denies the fall, and Jesus’ role is reduced to that of moral example.”

Irenaeus sounds a bit of an, how shall I put this politely, eccentric free spirit.

Where does Irenaeus argue that everyone goes to heaven? He would hardly be canonised if he denied the existence of hell.

I must be getting forgetful as I don’t remember anything at all being said there about the twin entities Chance and Design…

Chance and Design are not entities:

Marcus Aurelius wrote in his Meditations of the need to choose between Providence and “a fortuitous concourse of atoms”. Bertrand Russell stated that to deny Design is to imply that “man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving". Two other British philosophers: HP Owen remarked that the only alternative to a Designer is sheer **“chance” **and FR Tennant observed that in the absence of Design one is bound to resort to the alternative theory of cumulative groundless coincidence”. An American atheist GG Simpson asserted that “Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process did not have him in mind. He was not planned.”

…or an interventionist god who chooses not to prevent all suffering for the sake of free will.

There was a long discussion about miracles…

 

[Micorhizea]

These remarks do not address the topic.

I appologize; perhaps I ought have PM’d you with that. But it *does *address why this thread might even be on here!

 

[tonyrey]

I apologize; perhaps I ought have PM’d you with that. But it *does *address why this thread might even be on here!

That is an issue for the moderators who are quite capable of deciding the matter… There is no need to apologise but I think statements should either advance the discussion or not be posted.