The Postulation of a Designer (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by John Clinch , London, Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 17:54 (6113 days ago) @ whitecraw

Not quite, I would say. I think we are in danger of fundamentally confusing two types of claim. - The term agnosticism is usually taken to refer to metaphysics (and in particular, claims about what is knowable about God) and NOT claims to knowledge about the world that are capable of being verified (or falsified, if you prefer) - i.e. scientific claims. One never hears of a scientist saying "I am agnostic over whether this chemical will have this effect in these circumstances", or "I am agnostic about string theory", unless by "agnostic" she is speaking figuratively, meaning that she is simply unsure, or sceptical or merely open-minded. To suggest that she may be making a theological reference or a claim about her position in relation to the divine would be preposterous. - I am reminded here of Wittgenstein's remark in the Tractatus: "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists". Another thinker whose identity I've forgotten, said the similar thing when he said that all phenomena of nature are natural. It's simple logic. If phenomena (that is to say, events in the world) are not natural, then by definition they represent an event or events outside the operation of the laws of nature, which is the typical definition of a miracle. - There's no getting around it: if dwh isn't postulating a designer, he is at least postulating the POSSIBILITY of a designer to account for something that is as yet unknown. By doing so, he is not demonstrating the ordinary scepticism that a rational person needs to adopt to make sense of any truth claim. He is not saying: "We don't yet know the answer, but we can be sure that, whatever the explanation, it's natural one". He is disagreeing with Wittgenstein and that other thinker. He seems to be saying: "We don't know the answer, so one explanation might be a miracle". - On miracles, he would be well advised to consult Hume. I make the strong claim that miracles do not occur. That is not how the world, as observed thus far, appears to go about its business. The burden of proof on anyone postulating a miraculous explanation for an event of nature is so great that they could never satisfy it. - The appearance of life of Earth, however amazing or apparently unlikely, is an event in the world. It may be accounted for by postulating a vast number of Earth-like planets within the known universe (or in a series of universes, the so-called "Multiverse") - thereby making it very likely that this will be a life-producing Cosmos, notwithstanding that life arising on any particular planet may be vanishingly small. Do we need God to explain how things are in the world? I have no need of that hypothesis, and neither should dwh. - As an explanation for the existence of the Cosmos, I have heard it argued many times that the idea of God has some explanatory power. (I am open-minded on that score and, I suppose, that makes me an agnostic). But as a possible explanation for the appearance of life on THIS Planet Earth, it has none at all. Given that dwh seems to be saying that he is an agnostic for that reason, it is, with great respect to him, an incoherent reason.