Why is a \"designer\" so compelling? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Sunday, July 19, 2009, 13:42 (5605 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt: The definition of supernatural is something that is key here. I use the definition of supernatural that says it is "above and beyond" the natural. - I have no problem understanding what is meant by supernatural. My point is that we don't know the boundaries of what constitutes natural. You have summed it up very succinctly yourself: "We just don't know enough about our universe yet." The concept of the supernatural has too many silly associations. I'd prefer to say that there may be forms of communication and existence beyond those that we are currently aware of. - You ask: "Why can't we let investigation take its course?" We do. Belief in God never stopped the Mendels and Newtons and Faradays, or even the young pre-agnostic Darwin from investigating, and there are plenty of theist scientists still investigating today. It makes no difference whether you try to find out how Nature did it, or how God did it (so long as neither belief influences the investigation). Only the prime cause remains unknowable (chance or design, unconscious or conscious, Nature or God, Nature = God). - In this context, I argued that theories of life coming about by design or by chance were unfalsifiable. Your response is: "Incorrect. If the mechanism(s) that brought about life can be created AND we can understand the entire system, we can create a probability distribution that would allow us to ascertain the odds of the proper sequence occurring." Creating the mechanisms will not prove that the mechanisms were not created, and if we understood the entire system, there would be no need to calculate odds. If we understood the entire system, we would have all the answers. But if by the entire system you mean everything excluding the prime cause, we're back where we started. Besides, calculating odds can't give you certainty. - As for the Nietzschean line, you "attack the utility/necessity of invoking something that is unknowable". The prime cause is unknowable, but it's human nature to speculate on mysteries, and what harm is there in speculating on possible solutions? If utility and necessity are your criteria for what humans should and shouldn't do, you can dispense with most of our activities. "Allow not nature more than nature needs, / Man's life is cheap as beast's." (King Lear) If you wish to argue that dogmatic adherence to religious texts is a hindrance to knowledge, and is the cause of much suffering and of much social evil, I will agree with you totally. But one can just as well argue that thought based on this unknowable something, while leading to much evil, has also led to much practical good: its ethical and social codes, comforts and charitable works can be as useful as they can be damaging, and as I said above, belief in a being beyond our cognizance doesn't stop scientific investigation.
(I've just read your post of 18 July at 19.39, in which you doubt if a "deity has done more than provide a psychological framework for a human being in terms of how we work in our world." That sounds pretty useful to me. Remember, it's you who brought up the criterion of utility!) - You wrote: "As for the paranormal, I spent four years studying Hermetic and Occult/Pagan theologies, and can tell you from firsthand experience that it is trickery of the highest caliber." This is one of those statements that make me inclined to give you an editorial slap on the rump. There are three of us on this site alone who have had experiences of inexplicable events that occurred spontaneously in the midst of real life (my "juju fire tale" was not staged as a demonstration. It actually occurred in the course of a terrifying episode in which the boy concerned attempted to kill a teacher.) Pim van Lommel (worth a Google), a cardiologist, spent many years studying NDEs and OBEs and published his findings. Were the patients all fooling, is the good doctor a liar, is someone going round wards planting visions in the patients' brains? I have no doubt whatsoever that many so-called "paranormal" experiences are the result of trickery, self-delusion, superstition, faulty perception etc. (why confine your research to "trickery"?) but there are vast numbers of cases that remain unexplained, and I would be most surprised if your four years of study had encompassed them all. However, let me make it clear once again that I'm not arguing for the "supernatural". Nor, so far as I'm aware, are David or BBella. We cannot explain our experiences in the light of current knowledge. As a result, we remain open-minded as to the cause, but ... I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here ... I don't think any of us would rely on your "firsthand experience that it is trickery". - I like your formal statement: "We can't know whether or not god exists, but I suspect he/she/it doesn't." Mine is rather more complex: "We can't know whether or not a god exists, I haven't a clue either way, but if he/she/it does, I'd be more inclined to believe in an impersonal god than a personal one." My own criteria for accepting a claim are also "incredibly high", which is why I'm likely to remain an agnostic for the rest of my life! - (Personal note: do please tell us how your interview went.)