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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, July 27, 2009, 04:44 (5597 days ago) @ dhw

dhw, - Whew... we write books together, I'll give you that! - First I need to spend some more time clarifying. Then maybe we can separate out the wheat from the chaff as it were. First point of clarification: my very very first question to you was "In what sense are you using the word 'chance.'" The problem with using that specific word when applied to an atheistic position, is that it is far too broad. George's comment about "naturally occuring" would be better phrased "can happen without intelligent interference." The atheist position as I would see it is that there is a process--presently unknown--by which matter can become self-replicating with all of the features we attribute to life if not life itself. Teleologically, this is the side of the coin that would to me, represent what it is that you call "chance," with the words "happens without intelligent interference" meaning "spontaneous" in a chemical sense; that if the components are present, the reaction(s) will occur unless somehow inhibited or stopped. The only part chance plays into this, is in determining the likelihood in a given time and a given place, this event would occur. When you take into consideration that our universe is *expanding,* that means that it truly is infinite, and as such the probability of this event is 100% *somewhere* even if its not here on earth. (This argument is synthesized from memory... don't really remember who said it or where it was I read it.) In either case, your reduction of the atheist position to chance as a sort of "replacement god" completely dodges the above argument without addressing it. In this particular instance, we know enough about chance to be able to say "yeah, if you have infinite time you will eventually exhaust all possibilities." As our universe is expanding, we do indeed have infinite time. This is the argument for "chance" that I find compelling, not the chance that you have constructed. In this light, it doesn't tell us a creator doesn't exist, only that it is not necessary to posit one to explain the origin of life. - The type of utility when I was originally bringing in the utility of basing human thought on that which is unthinkable, is in the sense of knowledge, i.e. epistemological. I left it too implicit. One of the definitions of "esoteric" means "of an internal nature." Exoteric knowledge would be "knowledge of the outside world," and that is what we are talking about with abiogenesis/design/creation, etc. - The psychological frameworks we discussed have merit, but are 1) Esoteric and 2) they do not give us knowledge about anything other than ourselves. I would say however that although you attribute those ethics to religious systems, I would say that those systems would be developed sans deities in the first place. Virtually all religions recreate the ethical systems under consideration, which means to me that the religions themselves are independent of the origin of these ethical principles. Religions are used to justify these rules, not create them. The "social contract" does more to inform us about ethics and man's place concerning them. - Religion's root words mean that religion by nature is a means with which a person synthesizes everything they know. As such, it is a meta-narrative that allows the person to put "things in their place." However, in terms of exoteric knowledge, I have only seen religions attempt to place artificial limits on what it is that humans can and can't question. - As for my uncharacteristic comment, I retract it fully. Sometimes I read things wrongly, and that's exactly what it was that I was doing. I hope you'll forgive the offense! - Your argument that since much about the universe is unknowable we can't know what's natural needs some qualification, I will address it with a later post.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"