Chance v. Design (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, June 06, 2009, 11:41 (5447 days ago) @ Matt S.

Matt (in response to David T.): I do sometimes let my mouth run ahead of my better judgment but I try to [be] as self-correcting as possible. - I think all of us appreciate both your enthusiasm and your honesty! However, some of us "plodding thinkers" (endearing quote from George with which I can also identify myself) like to mull over the implications of statements and arguments before we move on, so I hope you will not be offended if I haul you back. - You urged me to read Jason Rosenhouse's article on Probability Theory, which was designed to attack design but with which, in my view, he shot both you and himself in the foot. Your comment on my criticisms was: "The computer algorithm stuff is tricky to explain, because logically—you are correct. But maths guys look at things a little differently" What am I supposed to make of that? Maths guys are not logical? I am right, but maths guys are different so they are right? Logic is irrelevant? You agree with my argument but you prefer Rosenhouse's because it fits in with yours? It's not the computer algorithm stuff that's tricky to explain here! - You write: "I've been well trained enough in science to say I don't believe...but at the same time I know what it is I want to be correct." Are you saying that scientists don't have beliefs? How aware are you that if you know what it is you want to be correct, this is liable to affect your judgement? Should not the essence of science be objectivity? Perhaps this approach explains your readiness to go along with Rosenhouse, even if his argument defies logic. - You write: "Science has been utterly devastating to physical explanations of our world of a supernatural origin." Do you mean that science has been devastating to supernatural explanations of our physical world? If you do, perhaps this too is an example of knowing what it is you want to be correct. Science has certainly been devastating to many myths and to many aspects of religion, but science still doesn't have much idea what constitutes nature itself, since 96% of matter and energy remains a dark mystery. Science has not proved that life can come about by chance (sorry, but you now know what I mean by this), and science has not been devastating to the idea that there might be some kind of creative force beyond what we at present regard as natural. - You write: "In order to argue for a creator, you have to be able to define its limits...and how do you do that?" Why do you have to define its limits? In order to argue for infinity do you have to be able to define its limits? In order to argue for a creator you have, for one thing, to reject the theory of abiogenesis. For another you have to point out the mysteries to which science has so far failed to find a definitive solution (e.g. consciousness, certain emotions, certain psychic experiences). Theists will present you with more positive arguments (i.e. not just filling in gaps), but I am not a theist, so I won't. Perhaps, though, rather than "defining limits" you mean that in order to believe in a particular kind of god, you have to have some idea of its identity and its nature. That I would accept, though David Turell might not agree! - You write that atheism and theism "are adjectives, not nouns. (No, I'm not being semantic either.)" You are certainly not being semantic, perhaps you meant pedantic, but the fact is that both words are nouns unless you've decided to mount a one-man crusade against English grammar. What was the point of this statement? - Man's uniqueness is a subject that can be used to equal effect by both sides, but let's leave that for another time as there's already plenty to be getting on with. - The subject of ethics has been discussed in much detail under the thread: How Do Agnostics Live? The gist of the theist argument is that religion provides an objective and binding moral code, whereas atheists/agnostics have no such basis for morality and are therefore free to do as they please. The atheist/agnostic response is that we all live in society and are bound by the rules and ethics of that society as well as by the imprint those ethics leave on us as individuals (= conscience); furthermore, religious moral codes are not objective because they depend on subjective interpretation of dubious texts. I think you will find that this discussion covers your theory, plus quite a lot more. - Incidentally, when you take up an argument, it's always helpful if you could give us a quote or a precise reference. Delighted though I was to read: "dhw, I agree with you here", I hadn't a clue what you were talking about! Thanks all the same. I'm sure we shall find plenty of things to agree about, but let's move a step at a time!