Another way of Looking at Design (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Friday, November 13, 2009, 19:36 (5488 days ago) @ xeno6696

On this thread and under "Practical Consequences", Matt has raised several important issues, and so I'll try to answer them in one go.-Matt: [...] if we can find a better way to do certain reactions, that means the maker is more like us; flawed, and not supremely intelligent.-If there is a maker, I have no problem with the idea that he might be "more like us" and "flawed". I have repeatedly put forward the suggestion that the design might reflect the designer. As for "supremely intelligent", if he was able to design something we have so far failed to design, namely life, I reckon that puts him way above us. We gave Crick and Watson the Nobel Prize just for cracking DNA.-Matt: And if we cannot claim that it was designed, then the only option is "not designed".-This has always been a problem between us. The third option is to suspend one's judgement. The argument that we cannot claim it was designed is as hollow as the argument that we cannot claim it was not designed. We can only believe, disbelieve or not believe according to what we personally consider to be reasonable.-Matt: A question I've had of you that is still outstanding, is how you go about accepting (on some level) completely untestable claims? (Accepting in such a way, that you view them as valid oppositions to material explanations is what I'm driving at here.)-You've raised the same point in your "Practical Consequences" post, and given a partial answer yourself: "I assume all claims are false until found reasonably true. [..] We all know that I have a high threshold for evidence ... which might well be another real sticking point. To me, evidence is something that can actually be studied; so evidence is inherently material in nature." -I don't like the word "accept", because it's too positive, but "valid opposition" is fair enough, so long as you realize it means I regard both explanations as equally reasonable/unreasonable. Life is too complex for me to believe that it could have been initiated by chance, so out goes non-design. Apart from the complexity of life, and with one possible exception I'll come to in a moment, I see no evidence of a UI actively at work in our world, which seems to me to be governed by chance and human will; furthermore, belief in such a being raises the unanswerable question of its own origin, which thus replaces one mystery with another. Out goes design. -However, one of these options must have at least a degree of truth. If there is no God, the sheer randomness of life makes perfect sense. It's the simplest of all the options. But the simplest is not necessarily the truest. To embrace it, we have to accept the claim that life can spontaneously arise out of inanimate matter, and that consciousness can be created by little physical blobs (in mind-bogglingly complex configurations which take extreme intelligence just to unravel). You assume all claims are false until found reasonably true. I don't make this assumption (e.g.. that the theory of abiogenesis is false), but since there is no evidence of any kind to back these claims, I do not accept them even as reasonably true, i.e. I do not believe them.-The alternative ... a designer, whom I would see as a scientist not a miracle-worker ... is equally unacceptable, for the reasons given, but when it comes to evidence there is one more area to be considered (the possible exception I referred to). You call it the "supernatural", which is a term I dislike. In her discussion with Frank, BBella asks most pertinently: "Is it possible there are natural laws that are not yet evident or are not yet fully realized by humanity [...]?" You and I part company when you refuse to consider (I don't mean accept) evidence other than material. On this forum alone, BBella and Frank have undergone what we might call "mystic" experiences, and although David turned from agnosticism to panentheism through his scientific studies, he too ... like myself ... has witnessed the acquisition of apparently inaccessible knowledge. I haven't met David, BBella or Frank, but just as I would never dream of saying the theory of abiogenesis is false, I would never dream of telling them that they are faking, deluded, off their heads. Nor would I assume as you clearly do that every one out of millions of other similar experiences is the result of faking, delusion or madness. I keep an open mind. We all have our subjective limits of credulity, though, which is why I'll switch off if that old drunk Paddy O'Reilly tells me about his leprechauns. Of course even what we might call the bona fide experiences are not material evidence you can study, but just as materialism makes sense after the initial leap of faith, so too do these experiences, which ... if you take the initial leap ... suggest that there may be dimensions of existence beyond our current comprehension. Since our knowledge of ourselves and our universe is so riddled with gaps, I can't take either of these leaps, which leaves me, as we have noted before, both more sceptical and more open-minded than you! However, I hope you will now see why I regard both options as equally reasonable/unreasonable.