Intelligent Design? Myth or Fact

I don't particularily like these definitions.

For example, if religion was started by an "individual or smal group", why would it have gotten bigger in terms of adherence? Religion necessarily rests upon the social collective; not simply meaning a group of people, but a group that acts as a single unit or body (a Church/moral community). Religion also necessarily has rites that go aong with beliefs. Without rites, all you arguably have is a metaphysical philosophy. You even admit yourself that a society creates its gods.



I enjoy the fact that all Christians believe an old man lives in the clouds according to some people on here. To be fair, ancient near east cosmology didn't even say that. God lived in the heaven of heavens beyond the firmament and the waters above that...

On a side tangent: in my studies of religion and theology, I cannot stand the popular definition of myth as something false. ID is a myth of origins. A better title would have been "Fact or Fiction" or "Pseudoscience or reliable theory"...

 

My feeling is they don't provide a meaningful definition of "god", and tend to be question-begging, assuming the thing that is to be proved. It seems to boil down to "there's something I don't understand about the universe, I have no clue what it is or how to approach it, so I'll call it god". But with all the baggage that comes along with the idea of divinity this is somewhat counter-productive and explains nothing, even if you're just using the term as an elaborate metaphor for the unknown. Just call it the unknown. Test its bounds by reference to what is known. To call it god, or the divine, necessarily draws upon ancient and simplistic notions of the sky-daddy. It assumes "intelligence", "consciousness" or "will" with no evidence suggesting such factors are required or likely. There's nothing underpinning these assumptions, they are free-floating stabs in the dark, but they do look a lot like the kinds of intuitive assumptions people tend to make about human-like agency, albeit in a slightly more sophisticated form. They have eschewed the "invisible person" myth and replaced it with an invisible "some-key-aspects-of-a-person-but-not-the-silly-ones" myth. This seems to appeal to those who already have some fixed religious-superstitious instincts and are trying to find a way to shoe-horn these ancient assumptions into the gaps that exist in our new found and hard-won knowledge.

I tend to agree with Richard Dawkins on this, that theology is not actually a valid discipline. By its very nature it begs the question. It brings no evidence to the table, and provides no meaningful explanations.

 

I understand what you're saying but regaurdless of which religious faction one looks at each of them were started by some small group of people, or by a single man. In terms of the earth's total population the entire civilization of ancient Greece was small, just for a sort of measuring stick.

And actually the whole old man living in the clouds idea is very non christian. Modern people who say they worship Christ and follow Christianity are very rarely even close to what the bible's definition of a Christian is.

 

Fine, if it works for you. My problem with Dawkins is that he's crossed the line from science into scientism. Science is great, as a means of providing rigorously tested knowledge. Look at all the wonderful things its given us: computers, TVs, weapons of mass destruction. However, it operates within some limiting assumptions that preclude effective inquiry in important areas, namely: naturalism, reductionism, rejection of anything "teleological", and a disinclination to study things that aren't readily subjectable to rigorous testing. As long as people remember that these are assumptions, not findings, science can operate effectively in its own sphere. But too often humans forget. I've heard so many atheist friends tell me about how life was created by random mixing of chemicals in the primordial ooze, or consciousness is just "neurons firing", when there's no real empirical support for these conclusions. The notion that there will be one day is a belief in something yet unseen--one definition of faith. At least Sam Harris acknowledges that we don't understand consciousness, and don't even have a firm basis for believing it's a product of brain activity (I tend to be more materialistic than he is on that score). When Dawkins, Dennett, et al, proceed confidently to attack religion as harmful nonsense without knowing what the consequences will be they're behaving as irresponsibly as the mad scientists who gave us the H-Bomb. (Whoa, that's way too extreme, Okie! You liked those books, and if they can rid the world of televangelists they'll be doing the Lord's work). Dennett wrote a book Breaking the Spell in which he provides more explanations for the phenomenon of religion than you could shake a stick at. After showing all the important functions religion plays in the lives of individuals and societies, he wonders why they still cling to it, when its obviously "nothing but". I'm more impressed by William James, who took religious experience seriously and even allowed for the possibility it might be valid. I think we gain valuable knowledge from life experiences, reading fiction, history and philosophy (and yes, even theology), drawing on intuitions, and thinking a lot. To sit back and wait for science to tell us the Truth about ultimate questions is limiting and probably unfruitful.

 

The charge of "scientism" is the domain of christian apologists and little more than name-calling. Science deals with the discovery of facts in the most robust way we can. If we find a better way of discovering or testing facts, science changes. People who cry "scientism" seem to assume that scientific methodology is fixed and limited. Quite the contrary: science is a fluid method of robust and rigorous investigation which spans multiple disciplines and constantly evolves to incorporate any good, proven way of discovering facts.

To what realm of knowledge or experience do facts, their discovery and their robust testing not apply?

The "scientism" epithet displays a false and limited understanding of what science is. It's also an attempt to excuse lazy and un-rigorous thinking and assumptions with no empirical underpinnings. It's a way of saying "oh, you're just looking for facts" as if to imply we can truly know anything with any level of philosophical rigour without them. If scientism is that which eschews paranormal and supernatural speculations and other beliefs based on no evidence, then I would proudly self-identify as scientistic.

Teleology or the argument from design is the assumption that something has a certain property if it appears to have that property. Teleological thinking is useful as a first principle, as a beginning, from which you proceed to explanation, which is almost synonymous with reductionism. Reductionism is explaining something causally by reference to its less complex elements. There are levels of reductionism as Dennett identifies, not all of which are useful in all circumstances. But reductionism is a way of explaining, teleology is a way of assuming.

The idea that science has "a disinclination to study things that aren't readily subjectable to rigorous testing" is more tautologous thinking. Yes, we only test things which are testable, until such time as we develop methods to test things which are not yet testable. This actually says nothing other than that science is limited to that which we can know. This is obvious. But the circle of that which we can know is ever increasing.

"Mere naturalism" is another mistake in thinking. Think of nature as "that which exists": there are parts of nature which exist but are not yet known to exist, and phenomena which we know exist but don't yet know how or why. It's a mistake to assume that that which we do not yet know is not part of nature, as defined above. Only if you are talking about "that which does not exist" would the charge of science being unable in principle to approach it apply. Again, tautology: that which does not exist cannot be tested. This says nothing other than that science is limited to the study of that which exists.

 

let's reflect on the irony of that statement, which seems to me to be "little more than name calling."

As I use the term, "scientism" refers to a belief that science is the only valid route to knowledge and that science will ultimately provide answers to all answerable questions. That is faith, I take it yours. As I said, science, as currently understood in western countries, rests on assumptions: naturalism, reductioism, aversion to teleology, and reluctance to deal with matters not subject to rigorous empirical testing. Are you challenging that, or are you willing to loosen the definition of science to include other approaches? If the Big Bang were really caused by God, how readily would scientists put that to an empirical test, and if they could, how readily would they accept the results? And if they don't, does this mean humans who sense the operation of some bigger design are just mistaken, deluded, wrong, superstitious, or silly? I don't think so. It's always best to use evidence obtained by rigorous methods, but in the absence of such evidence, I use what I regard as the best available--even intuitive hunches. I agree that science is versatile, but there are important questions I don't see science messing with. That it will do so some day is faith. I could say--well I guess I'll never know the answers for sure in my lifetime, too bad. Or I can appreciate what I regard as insights from personal observation, experience, reading, reflection, as a way of giving me what I consider to be a richer understanding of the human experience. I might be wrong, but I'm willing to take the chance.

I saw Slumdog Millionaire the other day. I thought it was great--well deserving of an Oscar. My friend asked me about it. Why I thought it was good? What were the meanings I got out of it? I could have replied, I don't know. I thought it meant something, but we have to wait for rigorous empirical testing. Or I could give my impressions, for whatever they're worth, which might not be much but might be something.

 

Please demonstrate a "valid route to knowledge" which does not involve the gathering and testing of evidence.

This is not an assumption made by many scientists, I would suggest. It's usually one step at a time, do the experiment in front of you, then figure out what else you don't know. This seems to be a straw man.

I've actually demonstrated how each of the "assumptions" you mention as problems are either not problems at all, and that assuming that they are is a simple logical fallacy or tautology ("naturalism"; "testability"), or are fundamental to any form of knowledge: "reductionism" = explanation. You are just repeating yourself here without engaging with what I actually said, I'm not quite sure why.

 

Demonstrate? There you go again, caught up in your tautology. I've explained why I think there are valid routes to knowledge that don't involve gathering and testing of evidence, in any formal way.

I don't think you "demonstrated" squat.

 

So the "valid routes to knowledge" you're talking about are "that which can not be demonstrated"? How is this idea rationally intelligible?

That's not an argument

 

Check my previous post. It's as rationally intelligible as I get. I consider experience, personal observations, insights from literature, intuitions, etc., valid routes to knowledge. Care to dispute me?

It wasn't intended to be.

 

You keep editing your posts after I've replied. I'm genuinely interested what you think is a "valid route to knowledge" that does not involve evidence or facts as best we can determine them. If you've explained it, please show me where?

 

I think the problem in our continued dialogue is that we have such different views of reality and how to approach it that we can't communicate. If you're expecting rigorous logical proofs, I don't give those, because I don't think they're feasible or necessary in dealing with most life situations. Here's what I said:"It's always best to use evidence obtained by rigorous methods, but in the absence of such evidence, I use what I regard as the best available--even intuitive hunches. I agree that science is versatile, but there are important questions I don't see science messing with. That it will do so some day is faith. I could say--well I guess I'll never know the answers for sure in my lifetime, too bad. Or I can appreciate what I regard as insights from personal observation, experience, reading, reflection, as a way of giving me what I consider to be a richer understanding of the human experience. I might be wrong, but I'm willing to take the chance.

I saw Slumdog Millionaire the other day. I thought it was great--well deserving of an Oscar. My friend asked me about it. Why I thought it was good? What were the meanings I got out of it? I could have replied, I don't know. I thought it meant something, but we have to wait for rigorous empirical testing. Or I could give my impressions, for whatever they're worth, which might not be much but might be something."

 

We all do this all the time. There's no problem with this. The problem is with deciding the truth-condition of facts about the universe by this process.

You're referring to personal aesthetic experiences, attitudes, emotions. These are interesting and meaningful to us in many ways. We could call them "knowledge" according to a different definition of the word than the one I was using previously - the word has several relevant connotations.

We could scan your brain and seek to discover which regions of neurons were firing in what order as you watched Danny Boyle's film. This would also tell us something interesting, especially if we compared your brain to the brains of others watching the same film, and repeated the experiment to get some idea about the seat of the emotions and perceptual experience in the brain and how they are stimulated by works of art. It wouldn't tell us everything interesting about it though, far from it. You could write a review which might tell us more. Is the review or the experience itself a "valid form of knowledge"? Most certainly, but according to a different definition of the word and at a different level of analysis.

There are those who suggest we can gather information about the nature of the universe and how it functions in the same way. This seems to be what is being done by theologists who advocate panentheism for instance. They are treating experience of the universe as a form of poetry. This can give us "valid knowledge" in the sense of "meaningful experiences", but it cannot give us valid knowledge in the sense of robust information on which to base empirical claims. These two definitions of the word knowledge are quite distinct and can't really overlap.

 

By the way, isn't this "scientism"?

This accusation of scientism really has no meaningful content. It seems to be just a way of excusing a belief in the absence of evidence by attacking those who ask you to demonstrate why you believe something. It's a sophistry, an invalid move.

 

Guess what? I think we actually agree. I'd agree that we can't gain "valid knowledge in the sense of robust information on which to base empirical claims" from impressionistic methods, and I take other kinds of knowledge with a grain of salt. At the moment, I'm exploring process theology, and am reading one of the basic books in that area by C. Robert Mesle. He asks in the Introduction "Is process theology true? Does the God it describes really exist outside our human imaginations? I do not know." He goes on to explain why he's defending process theology, other than to get royalties from the books: (1) it could be true; it makes sense; (2) it has good ethics, as a corrective to fundamentalist Christian ones that try to teach us that gross evils are good; (3) it is useful as a modern myth that "creatively draws upon and leads the way in the very best of our modern struggles to envision the nature of reality, the meaning of love, and the depths of the sacred as we experience it all today." That's my kind of theologian! Good post, by the way!

 

Well, bitch, the probability of God, because the probability is that we will evolve without Sin.

 

But what is sin? Is it something that can be charted by probability? Can it even exist? How do we know we can evolve with or without it if we don't even know what it is? Is sin an all encompasing term or is it simply a term used by a dogmatic narrowminded religion to lay the blame of their faults off on something else?

 

I could only make out that the discussion initiated by lithium was concerned about the evolution idea per Concept. Some people refer to it that epistimology is already an EE: that was determined by the natural theology of David Hume: Evolutionary Episistimology was I remember now: the subject of induction independent of the Ego: the ego was man's to be bought.

I've got to check this one on the internet yet.

 

I don't have a problem with that - he is explaining that he is not in the business of discussing facts, but inventing myths. If only all theologians were as self-aware. I strongly suspect that such a text would be read by many as if it is making "meaningful" (in the sense of empirically true) statements about the nature of reality, though. I also suspect he is in some sense attempting to justify / rationalise those fundamental christian values and beliefs which remain for him unchallangeable and unquestionable for various psychological reasons; a form of intellectual cowardice, refusing to fully rethink, and abandon if necessary, that which we might hold dear - the true mark of intellectual humility. I shouldn't engage in psychoanalysis of theologians I've never read I know, but at my university we have a theology department full of very clever people trying desperately to shoe-horn their childish creed into a form which can not be instantly blown apart by the merest breath of intellect...

None of the staunchest naturalistic/materialistic atheists such as Dawkins and Dennett would deny the role of "other kinds of knowledge/experience" as discussed here. Creativity, aestheticism, emotion, teleological assumptions, gut instinct all have their places, and frequently play a pivotal role in scientific discovery itself - in working out where to look, what to test, and coming up with ingeniously creative forms of experiment. In our personal lives we all have emotions, we all have a multiplicity of experiences, we all obtain meaning from works of art... The two processes complement each other. This is does not contradict the importance of empirical science in testing and establishing fact as far as is possible - it is the only way we have of robustly determining "knowledge" in the strong sense of "knowing that which is".

 

At the risk of upsetting our newly found consensus, I just want to restate where I stand on these epistemological questions:

1. Science is the gold standard for gaining reliable knowledge, or as you put it "valid knowledge in the sense of robust information on which to base empirical claims";
By science, I'm talking good science, using falsifiable hypotheses, rigorous empirical testing, and peer review by reputable scientists in respected journals of the discipline.

2. All valid knowledge must be consistent with logic and the weight of the available evidence. Logic and evidence trump faith and intuition.

3. Where scientific knowledge is unavailable, I rely on what I consider to be the best available alternative evidence, but require substantial empirical evidence for my opinions. Substantial evidence is the standard required for administrative rulemaking in the United States. By definition, it's less than courtroom proof, but more than a scintilla (shred).

4. Consistent with logic and evidence, I also rely on experience, personal observation, judgment, and intuition, realizing that these are valuable but often unreliable bases for decisions.

5. In the absence of scientific evidence, I rely on faith, but I don't regard faith as a source of knowledge. Faith, as I understand it, is intuitive risk-taking: a willingness to bet my life on an outcome in full knowledge that I could be wrong. I reject blind faith, the kind Kierkegaard advocated, which is taking a "leap" without substantial evidence.