philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, September 23, 2018, 13:44 (2042 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

"DHW (to David) : So your God is capable of creating instant speciation, but for some reason he does NOT instantly create the one species he actually wants to create."

TONY: (This is the 'he didn't do it my way' argument.)

I am attacking David’s idea that his God only wanted to create one species (Homo sapiens), which incidentally you have also opposed. If you can explain the logic of the above, then please do so.

TONY: No, by "set us straight"you say things like;

"dhw: Ugh, we weren’t even around to admire 90+% of the wonders he created. And what a strange way to prove his existence to us. (TONY: he didn't do it my way) All he had to do was stop hiding himself behind your quantum wall. Anyway, why would he want to prove himself to us?"

Not he didn’t do it my way, but I don’t accept the logic of a God who wants to prove himself to humans by creating weird and wonderful creatures, most of which we never knew, but at the same time hides himself. You and David rightly emphasize logic in your case for design, but the moment you speculate about his purposes, logic goes out of the window. And I do not regard David's argument that God must think differently from us as a satisfactory basis for belief.

TONY: And:
"DHW [to David]: Why not acknowledge the possibility (which is all it can be) that what we have IS God’s goal – namely, a massive free-for-all, full of nice and nasty, good and evil, joy and sadness, birth and death, extinction and survival?..so ask yourself why there is a higgledy-piggledy bush instead of a straight line to Homo sapiens, and why your God hides, and maybe the answer is that he wanted a higgledy-piggledy bush and once he had set the wheels in motion, he wanted to stop and watch. If he exists, he’s created a great show."

TONY: As if somehow he should pop out and give us all the answers to all the questions. Hence my constant reference to you wanting "to have tea with God" in order for you to even acknowledge him. As if that is somehow his responsibility. Isn't the struggle how WE grow, as people?

I have already given my reasons for neither believing nor disbelieving in him. But when you claim that he “wants credit” for his work, I don’t see why I shouldn’t speculate on possible reasons why he remains hidden. In the passage above, I describe the spectacle, and I suggest this is what he wanted. Now please tell me, irrespective of your own subjective views on your God’s nature, why what I have written is illogical.

TONY: Now, my belief is that he left us good reference materials, and for the people that can't or won't read it, a wonderful library of his creations to ask questions about and learn. And the parts of his good life guides we ignore, life tends to kick us in the gonads until we get the point.

If he exists, he’s certainly left us loads of questions and things to learn about. Many religions and philosophies offer us good life guides, although unfortunately some can also be used for gonad-kicking, as demonstrated by the many horrific acts performed in the name of your God.

TONY: Let me ask a simple question. Have you spent as much time researching ANY supposedly 'holy text' compared to the time and energy you have devoted to the study science or philosophy?

Probably not. I was made to study the Old Testament in my Jewish youth, and was appalled by some of God’s actions. Later I read the New Testament for myself, and preferred its emphasis on love rather than fear. I was never a scientist (David has been by far the best of my science teachers!), have merely dabbled in philosophy, and after a period of religious turmoil, settled into calm agnosticism around my mid twenties. However, the fascination remained and remains. Dawkins’ unbalanced views in The God Delusion were what sparked the idea for my agnostic “guide” and for this website, which has enabled me to broaden my knowledge through good folk like David and yourself, but not to make the irrational leap of faith you would both like to see.

TONY: What I am asking is, what part of nature do you see that has no serious purpose?

I’m sure every organism has the serious purpose of its own survival, just as I am equally sure that life has gone on despite the disappearance of 90%+ of them. I have no doubt that wind, rain and sun etc. are essential to life as we know it. But I really don’t know what this has to do with your God’s purpose for creating the universe and life.

DAVID: But you always downgrade the importance of my balance of nature statements.

Originally you tried to use it to bolster your anthropocentrism. Nowadays most of your statements show the self-evident fact that if there is a change in the balance of nature, the balance of nature changes (e.g. by the effects of human interference, or the impact of natural disasters). Nothing to do with your anthropocentrism or your God’s purpose.