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

by dhw, Sunday, July 26, 2009, 22:43 (5381 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt: It would be nice for you to clarify a bit why you think we can't draw the border to what is natural. - You drew it yourself when you said "We just don't know enough about our universe yet." Unless you think you know everything about the universe, the Earth and life on Earth, how do you know what Nature can and can't achieve? Atheists assure us that Nature is capable of assembling the elements of life without intelligent guidance. Maybe it is. Maybe Nature itself contains forms of intelligence, forms of existence, forms of communication we don't know about. How can you draw borders if you don't know the territory? - Matt: The goal isn't about certainty its about what's more likely than not. - That is precisely my point. You have forgotten what we were discussing, which was "falsifiability". In your post of 14 July at 19.41 you stated that the creator theory was "unfalsifiable, which is one of my criterion for accepting something ... anything ... as truth." I pointed out that the chance theory was equally unfalsifiable, and you dismissed this as "incorrect". In the context of abiogenesis, as in that of theism v. atheism generally, it may be shown to your satisfaction that the chance theory is likely to be true, but no-one can prove that it is false. If you can't falsify the creator theory, how can you possibly falsify the chance theory (unless the creator arrives and announces "I dunnit.")? - You attacked "the utility/necessity of invoking something that is unknowable", and I pointed out that belief in God has resulted in useful "ethical and social codes, comforts and charitable works" (see later). You have responded: "I wasn't clear here. The scope of utility here is in an explanatory power that advances exoteric knowledge. The kind of knowledge in your suggestion here is purely esoteric (in the internal sense)." 
This is not my idea of clarity. I haven't a clue what you mean by esoteric in the internal sense. Nor for that matter do I understand your distinction between exoteric and esoteric knowledge in the context of utility or in that of a prime cause. Most people, I suspect, if asked to say what they 'know' about 1) 'the probability of the spontaneous generation of self-replicating RNA molecules', and 2) 'God', would have rather more 'knowledge' of 2), and I doubt if they'd find much utility in 1). Perhaps you are using the terms esoteric and exoteric esoterically! - Matt: "...the fact remains is that this model of the world we have built is metaphysically superior to anything that came before it...This is why I continuously assert that invoking a creator is metaphysically pointless beyond making (some of us) feel better." - Invoking chance is equally pointless. My personal criterion for evaluating theories is likelihood/credibility/truth/. I cannot believe in the ability of chance to assemble the pieces necessary to generate life and evolution. A metaphysics that wants me to accept such a hypothesis is not going to convince me. It's not a question of pointlessness ... and the idea of an all-seeing or an impersonal God does not make me "feel better" ... but a question of logic: if one explanation seems to me unsatisfactory, I must consider alternatives. But let me emphasize that I accept all the reservations you have about designer figures too. That's why I'm an agnostic and see no superiority of one unbelievable theory over another. I think we travel part of this route together, because you stop short of atheism. The difference between us is simply one of degree ... you are not as sceptical as I am about the chance theory, and you are more sceptical than I am about the possibility that there are elements of life and the universe that we know nothing about. But I see no relevance to truth (or even to likelihood) in your talk of utility/ pointlessness/esoteric/exoteric ... and truth is what I'm interested in. - You wrote: "It is...a consequentialist argument to assert that because some of these people created useful things that it should excuse the bad acts they had also done."
 
Matt, this is unworthy of you. You know perfectly well that I did not make such an assertion. You attacked the "utility" of invoking something unknowable, and I pointed out (see above) that religion "while leading to much evil, has also led to much practical good" (ethical and social codes etc.). This was evidence of utility, not a defence of "bad acts". - You wrote: "As for the paranormal, you're not likely to find me able to appreciably shed light on the topic." No problem. But perhaps, in that case, it might be advisable not to tell us "from firsthand experience that it is trickery of the highest caliber".
 
Sorry about my confusion over your interviews. Just tell me when to keep my fingers crossed for you. (I'm sure you set great store by such gestures, even if the claims made for them are all too falsifiable!)