LUCA latest: Shapiro redux (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, July 11, 2023, 18:15 (499 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Yes, it fits your preconceived bias.

dhw: I had never even heard of Shapiro until you summarized his theory in your excellent book The Atheist Delusion ten years ago. I am now revising my “brief guide” to incorporate it. Thank you so much for introducing me to it. Finding one theory more convincing than another, and explaining why one does so, is nothing like the preconceived bias which insists on a belief even though the believer himself can make no sense of it (see the thread on your theory of evolution).

DAVID: Don't fool yourself. It feels so good to you, you will put it your "brief guide". Preconception is involved.

dhw: Of course nobody would express any kind of belief if they didn’t believe it before they expressed it. Your only objection to Shapiro’s theory seems to be that he did his research on bacteria, which you have now withdrawn. I find his explanation of the vast variety of life forms more convincing (though still unproven) than your own rigid belief that your God deliberately created them all, although 99% had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to create. As you cannot find a single reason why he would use such a method to achieve such a purpose, I would certainly regard your belief as “preconceived bias”. I would regard my support for Shapiro’s theory as a well-reasoned argument, just as I see your support for the theory of intelligent design as a well-reasoned argument. It is only when you cling to an irrational belief - which does not even make sense to you - and reject any alternative and well-reasoned theory, that I would accuse you of preconceived bias.

I developed my ideas about God from a ground zero agnostic viewpoint. No bias involved. You expressed a need for Shapiro in adapting his ideas. That is evidence for preconceived bias. I have not withdrawn my objection to his theory based on bacteria.