Friday, November 5, 2010

David Hume: Here I Triumph

The three fictional characters in David Hume’s eighteenth century Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion were more than archetypes of the day. Cleanthes, Demea and Philo represent timeless metaphysical viewpoints on creation that long predate the Enlightenment and remain common today.

Cleanthes, who in part represented English natural theologians in Hume’s day, argued not only that the complexity of the world proved that it was designed, but that the world was a happy place and this was evidence for god.

Hume had an easy time ridiculing this view. Philo, who represented Hume, as well as Demea agreed that “A perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures,” and that nature is arranged so as “to embitter the life of every living being.”

If the natural theologian’s god would have the world be happy, and yet the world is not happy, then we must seek a different god. Philo concluded, against Cleanthes, that god does not will the happiness of man nor animal.

Cleanthes’s design argument was powerful. Philo admitted the argument was a great challenge for him, but it was neutralized by the evil in the world. “I needed all my skeptical and metaphysical subtlety to elude your grasp,” admitted Philo, but “Here I triumph.”

For Philo, the world’s evil indicated a more distant and mystical god. He charged Cleanthes with anthropomorphizing god. Cleanthes, said Philo, made god out to be too much like His human creatures. For example, the natural theologians were fond of comparing the human body with machines such as clocks. No one doubts that a clock was designed, so why not the body as well? Hume, through his character Philo, used the problem of evil to negate this argument. Better to view god as distant and unknowable, and a creation that somehow arose on its own.

Hume had no problem with god being infinitely powerful and wise, but he must also be transcendent and incomprehensible:

But as all perfection is entirely relative, we ought never to imagine that we comprehend the attributes of this divine being, or to suppose that his perfections have any analogy or likeness to the perfections of a human creature. Wisdom, thought, design, knowledge; these we justly ascribe to him; because these words are honorable among men, and we have no other language or other conceptions by which we can express our adoration of him. But let us beware, lest we think that our ideas anywise correspond to his perfections, or that his attributes have any resemblance to these qualities among men. He is infinitely superior to our limited view and comprehension; and is more the object of worship in the temple, than of disputation in the schools.

In other words, while we may have faith in god, we must not think we understand him well enough to infer his actions in the material world. He may be the god of our hearts, but not of our heads. As Darwin would later argue, while it is tempting to see god as the master engineer who crafted complex organs such as the eye, this would make god too much like man.

Darwin agreed that the perfection of the eye reminds us of the telescope which resulted from the highest of human intellect. Was it not right to conclude that the eye was also the product of a great intellect? This may seem the obvious answer but Darwin warned against it, for we should not “assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man.” Better to imagine the eye as the result of natural selection's perfecting powers rather than having god too much involved in the world.

This anthropomorphic warning and the problem of evil were by no means Hume’s only arguments for a purely naturalistic origins story. There was, for example, the problem of dysteleology:

And what surprise must we entertain, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving? Many worlds might have been botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out: Much labour lost: Many fruitless trials made: And a slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages of world-making.

Here Hume converts metaphysical arguments against design into an anticipation of Darwinian evolution and even the multi-verse. The eighteenth century Linnean hierarchy was revealing a biological world of repeated designs. Was this not the sign of “a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art”? As Niles Eldredge recently explained:

Could the single artisan, who has no one but himself from whom to steal designs, possibly be the explanation for why the Creator fashioned life in a hierarchical fashion—why, for example, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and birds all share the same limb structure?

Hume also argued that the design argument raised a fatal infinite regress. Divine creation explains the world’s complexity and evidence of design as the result of the creator. The world is complex so it must have been created. But doesn’t this mean that the creator is also complex, and so must have been created? Using this logic we would then need to ascribe the intelligence of the creator to an even greater creator, and so on. Divine creation leads to an infinite regress of creators.

“How therefore shall we satisfy ourselves,” asked Hume, “concerning the cause of that being, whom you suppose the author of nature?” Is it not arbitrary to stop at the first Creator? “If we stop, and go no farther; why go so far?  Why not stop at the material world?  How can we satisfy ourselves without going on ad infinitum? And after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression?”

Or as one recent evolutionary textbook put it:

Omnipotent beings are themselves well-designed, adaptively complex, entities. The thing we want to explain has been built into the explanation. Positing a god merely invites the question of how such a highly adaptive and well-designed thing could in its turn have come into existence.

These are but a few of the metaphysical arguments that called for an evolutionary narrative in the Enlightenment years. And they did not begin, nor end, with the Enlightenment. Hume marshaled several of the powerful and timeless arguments that laid the foundation for Darwin. From a scientific perspective it could not be more obvious that evolution is a stretch. The biological world just happened to arise all on its own? And this is said to be an undeniable fact, as much as is gravity? It is astonishing that grown men engage in such folly.

But from a philosophical and theological perspective, evolution is compelling. If the evolutionists are correct about even just one of their many metaphysical arguments, then evolution must be true. The uncertain details, as evolutionists like to say, deal with how it happened, but there must be no question that it happened. Religion drives science, and it matters.

47 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter:

    "The uncertain details, as evolutionists like to say, deal with how it happened, BUT THERE MUST BE NO QUESTION THAT IT HAPPENED."
    =====

    And that last part of the statement is so true. Debating the HOW IT HAPPENED is perfectly acceptable, but the ORIGINS part is an off limits unholy "Sacred Secret" for which ONLY the Ecclesiastical Nested Hierarchies have the right to assume. It's merely the obligation of the paritioners to follow these blind guides and where ever they lead them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hunter on the previous thread:

    Hume, for instance, is generally known as an empiricist, yet his promotion of evolutionary thinking was pure rationalism.

    So, if one questions the arguments of natural theology, as Hume did, one is promoting evolutionary thinking? That is a false dichotomy: If natural theology fails, there are any number of conceivable theological or naturalistic alternatives.

    Hume was brilliant and ahead of his time in many ways, but he was not gifted with precognition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter: The uncertain details, as evolutionists like to say, deal with how it happened, but there must be no question that it happened.

    Like all scientific claims, the assertion of Common Descent, evolutionary change, adaptation, are subject to questioning. However, the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution are so strongly supported that to deny them is perverse. Any argument against the Theory of Evolution has to acknowledge that strong support and introduce an alternative explanation that accounts for the evidence while offering new avenues of empirical confirmation.

    Simply repeating "Religion drives science, and it matters" doesn't constitute such an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hunter, after quoting a textbook argument against the explanatory efficacy of a creator god, commented:

    These are but a few of the metaphysical arguments that called for an evolutionary narrative in the Enlightenment years.

    Another false dichotomy. Enlightenment arguments about the lack of explanatory power in the concept of a self-caused creator god did not entail any suppositions about other explanations for the diversity of life that might be developed in future years. No precognition there, either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Zachriel:

    "Simply repeating "Religion drives science, and it matters" doesn't constitute such an argument."
    =====

    Sure it does. Your continued presence here prosyletizing your faith based statements and beliefs proves exactly that point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Eocene: Sure it does. Your continued presence here prosyletizing your faith based statements and beliefs proves exactly that point.

    Did you actually have a point to make concerning the requirements of a scientific argument?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zachriel:

    "Did you actually have a point to make concerning the requirements of a scientific argument?"
    ======

    That is the VERY point. "Religion Drives Science and it Matters."

    The very term science is yet nothing more than a modern day fuzzy and muddled term where humans apparently have long since forgotten it's original meaning and purpose. It's a platform for metaphysics, philosophy and politics. Proof of this is all the wasted time spent on promoting a mythology, when real world solutions for what ails our environment could be forthcoming to prevent our planet's complete destruction.

    Instead we have nothing but some stupid game playing of Left-wingers verses Right-wingers and every kook idealogy in between with neither side having the truth about anything.

    Yes that's is the point:
    "Religion Drives Science and It Matters"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eocene: The very term science is yet nothing more than a modern day fuzzy and muddled term where humans apparently have long since forgotten it's original meaning and purpose.

    Interesting. For most scientists, science is a methodology for testing hypotheses by comparing entailed empirical predictions to observation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Zachriel:

    "Interesting. For most scientists, science is a methodology for testing hypotheses by comparing entailed empirical predictions to observation."
    ======

    And yet Cornelius has brought in example after example of metaphysics and philosophy storytelling injected into science without proofs and these being labled as FACTS. Then rather than admit this, the parishoners of the faith make excuses for the lying because it makes them feel warm and snuggie with such bedtime stories.

    We also need these geniuses to stop predicting and start coming up with hard answers and real world solutions for a reversal of the present global ruin caused by the junk science they invented in the first place. Unfortunately this seems unlikely since the answers do not require a materialistic fix-it-pill, but rather a spiritual one. Cause and effect.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eocene: And yet Cornelius has brought in example after example of metaphysics and philosophy storytelling injected into science without proofs and these being labled as FACTS.

    He claims so, but when we look at the actual scientific findings, his claim is unsupported. And that's why we keep returning to a discussion of the evidence. But for some reason, no one wants to talk about it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cornelius:
    The biological world just happened to arise all on its own? And this is said to be an undeniable fact, as much as is gravity?

    No, I think what is generally considered a fact is that life evolved over time. Whether or not it happened "all on it's own" is not something that science can easily address (if by "all on it's own" you mean without some supernatural agent).

    What science is trying to figure out are the mechanisms by which evolutionary change occurs. And it's not so much that these mechanisms must not be supernatural forces, it's just that postulating supernatural forces as the cause of anything has never turned out to be a fruitful hypothesis.

    I'm curious why you rail so much against the metaphysics underlying evolutionary science when there is clearly as much of that going on in other sciences. Maybe you should start a blog called "hawking's-god.blogspot.com".

    ReplyDelete
  12. Norm Olsen:

    I'm curious why you rail so much against the metaphysics underlying evolutionary science when there is clearly as much of that going on in other sciences.

    What metaphysics do you detect underlying physics or chemistry?

    ReplyDelete
  13. CH,

    It's difficult to know exactly what position Hume actually held due to the particular climate at the time. While he did not officially declare himself an atheist, the threat of infidelity charges by the Church of Scotland likely had a strong effect on his writings. For example many of his writings were not acknowledged or published until near or after his death.

    As such, it's possible that Hume was really promoting a non-metaphysical, secular position by illustrating the diversity of metaphysical arguments regarding God's similarity to man.

    In other words, saying one ought not compare God to man is not the same as illustrating we do not have enough information to know if any of our concepts of God are accurate. Therefore, choosing one over the other is a matter of faith, not science.

    ReplyDelete
  14. CH quoted Hume:

    “How therefore shall we satisfy ourselves,” asked Hume, “concerning the cause of that being, whom you suppose the author of nature?” Is it not arbitrary to stop at the first Creator? “If we stop, and go no farther; why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? How can we satisfy ourselves without going on ad infinitum? And after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression?”

    Here, Hume is explicitly noting what appears to be an arbitrary theological position. Again, this does not necessitate that Hume himself is actually practicing metaphysics. He's criticizing choosing any one particular metaphysical view over another.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pedant:
    What metaphysics do you detect underlying physics or chemistry?

    I guess I should re-phrase that and say that most of the scientific theories that we use to explain reality are in some sense metaphysical, at least to the same degree that evolutionary theory is (although I admit that I don't know the precise definition of "metaphysics", even after looking up several references).

    I'm thinking of theories like the Big Bang, Quarks, black holes, etc. Take quarks for example; physicists talk about them like it's a given that they exist (oh what folly!). And yet, no one has ever detected one and the evidence for them is purely circumstantial (correct me if I'm wrong).

    So why no wailing and moaning about the arrogance of Quarkists? Why aren't we rushing to defend the views of the non Quarkists? Teach the controversy! Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

    So, is the belief in quarks more or less "metaphysical" than the belief in evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Norm Olsen:

    "I guess I should re-phrase that and say that most of the scientific theories that we use to explain reality are in some sense metaphysical, at least to the same degree that evolutionary theory is (although I admit that I don't know the precise definition of "metaphysics", even after looking up several references)."
    ======

    Probably one of the more honest takes I've read here about the use of metaphysics.

    My best defintion would be a priori(or a preconceived idea formed beforehand) of speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation (in this subject's case scientific method), analysis, or experiment. It's where a story is purposely injected into research where there are zero facts to back up. If you consider the word 'meta' (beyond) and physics the root word for physical, then it would be merely assuming something which has no physical evidence or in the case of science, no naturalistic explanation for nothing but a preconceived idea or belief system.

    For example there are some modern day scientists who start considering the possibility of there being perhaps parallel universes out there somewhere which takes them outside of the bounds of that almost sacred dogma of naturalistic material explanations ONLY. Just recently I turn the TV channel over here to science program that was considering such new age philosophical questions as , "What if we really are nothing more than someone else's simulation and our reality isn't what we think?" Suddenly the Sci-Fi flick, "The Matrix" is considered some type of possibility by people always promoting themselves as the true Rationalists of the world.

    When you seriously and carefully listen to some of the diliberate side stepping of what should otherwise be logical questions that even a child would grasp and eastern religious philosophy is instead presented forth as opposed to realistic common sense answers, then the metaphysics becomes the rule of the day and at that point any conversation or discussion is best discarded into the dust bin.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Norm Olsen,

    Thanks for your response. I think Dr Hunter uses the word metaphysics as a pejorative, because he considers scientific theories to be absolutely held presuppositions, which of course they are not. (That's why they are called theories.)

    And I'm pretty sure that theories about the Big Bang, Quarks, black holes, etc., are not metaphysical, because they are empirically testable and they explain data.

    Just as the theory of evolution is testable and explains data.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just recently I turn the TV channel over here to science program that was considering such new age philosophical questions as , "What if we really are nothing more than someone else's simulation and our reality isn't what we think?" Suddenly the Sci-Fi flick, "The Matrix" is considered some type of possibility by people always promoting themselves as the true Rationalists of the world.

    Eocone,

    And here I thought you were an ID proponent.

    Perhaps a more accurate statement would be, you're an ID proponent, just as long as it doesn't conflict with your particular religious beliefs?

    Also, exactly how do you determine what is or is not common sense, or why reality would adhere to it? History clearly doesn't suggest this is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Eocene said...

    Just recently I turn the TV channel over here to science program that was considering such new age philosophical questions as , "What if we really are nothing more than someone else's simulation and our reality isn't what

    =========================

    What has that have to do with new age worldviews?
    The word Meta where is your reference for the meaning of that word?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Scott:

    "Eocone,

    And here I thought you were an ID proponent.

    Perhaps a more accurate statement would be, you're an ID proponent, just as long as it doesn't conflict with your particular religious beliefs?"
    ======

    I'm not any kind of proponant for either the Politico/Religio views of Creationism - Evolutionism - Intelligent Designism. Isn't Science is supposed to be neutral and ONLY naturalistic in it's explanations, right ??? But we all know it's not.

    Is it wrong to think about evolution or creation when conducting research ??? Absolutely not. But story invention and insertion where data and other evidence are clearly lacking and emphatically/dogmatically calling them facts is hardly Scientific. It's religious. Now there's nothing wrong with speculation, assumption, stories, etc. But lable and honestly point it out as such. Unfortunately, we don't get such honesty and integrity.
    -----

    Scott:

    "Also, exactly how do you determine what is or is not common sense, or why reality would adhere to it? History clearly doesn't suggest this is the case."
    =====

    Hmmmmmmm, ??? perhaps as the wise old Shamman, you're now going to give us a tutitorial on "MAYA" (illusion) , what is truth ??? , what is knowledge ??? , ????????????????????????????????????????
    ????????????????????????????????????????
    ????????????????????????????????????????
    ????????????????????????????????????????

    Haven't we been down this "Dead-End" before ???
    ????????????????????????????????????????

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ambiorix:

    "What has that have to do with new age worldviews?
    The word Meta where is your reference for the meaning of that word?"
    =====

    The show was being pond off as science and clearly an area where science traditionally has stayed away from since science has historically been promoted by the Evolutionists as ONLY naturalistic physically explainable observations.

    The reference to 'Meta' was the use of the word for explanations "beyond" the "Physical" , hence Evolutionists use of the discipline(in this case - systematic instruction given to a disciple) of metaphysics is to conjure up and fabric those infamous "Just-So-Stories" where clearly evidence is not there or at best muddled and fuzzy. The problem comes when calling these fables and myths facts.

    The usage of the term "New Age" is because over the history of my discussions with individuals who believe in Evolutionism, there becomes a point when they are backed into a corner, their seeming logic dead-ends and rather than ponder the very real question of whether there could possibly be a creator, they will float off into a sort of drugged stupor of orignally found in 1960s "Counter Culture Protestors" where insertion of eastern religious thought began to be mixed into conventional/traditional scientific thinking and the conversation deteriorates from that point forwards.

    It was at that same point where Pontius Pilate condescendingly and smirkingly made his famous retort(To reply, especially to answer in a quick, caustic, or witty manner.), "What Is Truth?" that Jesus refused to reply as Pilate who was not in any way interested in the truth of the matter. History hasn't changed much has it ???

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eocene said...

    The show was being pond off as science...


    LOL!

    "Pond" off as science?

    Oh my oh my oh my.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Eocene said....

    History hasn't changed much has it ???

    ========================

    Someone could just have easily directed that question at you!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Eocone wrote,

    I'm not any kind of proponant for either the Politico/Religio views of Creationism - Evolutionism - Intelligent Designism.

    Really? Yet you keep reminding us of how science is trying to avoid the truth that is supposedly right in front of us. And what is this supposed truth?

    To give an example, in a comment on an earlier post, you wrote:

    If you disagree, then provide us an example of how an informational code containing encoded plans and ideas with purpose and intent morphs from nothing more than chemcials and physics ???

    So, apparently, this obvious truth is that DNA actually represents plans, ideas and intent of a designer. However, given an abstract designer, this is clearly an unfounded assumption as I illustrated in a follow up comment. In other words, it appears to be a story that is purposely injected into research where there are zero facts to back [it] up.

    Unless you smuggle in some additional assumptions, we simply cannot reach this conclusion from empirical observations. So, it would seem, you're either a proponent of whatever it is you're smuggling in, or this claim is simply unfounded.

    But story invention and insertion where data and other evidence are clearly lacking and emphatically/dogmatically calling them facts is hardly Scientific. It's religious.

    More hand waving!

    You're trying to create a false dichotomy between what you consider face value facts, which is supposedly evident via common sense, and everything else. However, as Karl Popper put it, all knowledge is theory laden. This includes whatever you assume to be common sense facts.

    Haven't we been down this "Dead-End" before ???

    If, by dead end, you're referring to how you attempted to avoid the question, then yes. We've been here before. Should I interpret your gratuitous use of punctation as another avoidance technique?

    Again, the question is two fold.

    01. How do you determine what is common sense?

    02. On what basis do you assume that reality would conform to however you define common sense?

    ReplyDelete
  25. In regards to [02] take the following article which illustrates our minds ability to create what appears to be a unified experience out of what is clearly incomplete information.

    http://bit.ly/ck2Xvq

    Given this phenomena, exactly why should you expect reality to reflect what you consider common sense conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Amboiorix:

    "Someone could just have easily directed that question at you!"
    =======

    Sorry, I'm not into Chrisitian mysticism or any other type of receiving visions, dream interpretations, astrology, inquiring of the dead or any other kind of mysticism."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Scott:

    "Given this phenomena, exactly why should you expect reality to reflect what you consider common sense conclusions?"
    =====

    Seriously, this same stupid definitions shell games went nowhere last time and is most certainly pusposed for the same failed conclusion here. You want someone to play along, then sit cross legged in the sand box, chant Kumbaya over and over and just maybe someone else ignorant of this tactic will bite. I'm sure you'll both find a local mud puddle where you can pretend it's a pre-biotic soup reality. Given enough Pot thrown into the mix, anything illusioned in the mind may seem possible.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Scott said...

    In regards to [02] take the following article which illustrates our minds ability to create what appears to be a unified experience out of what is clearly incomplete information.

    http://bit.ly/ck2Xvq

    Given this phenomena, exactly why should you expect reality to reflect what you consider common sense conclusions?

    =========================

    This argument can just have easily been applied to any number of scientific theories.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Scott:

    "You're trying to create a false dichotomy between what you consider face value facts, which is supposedly evident via common sense, and everything else."
    =====

    LOL. No, when I point to any scientific experiment which claims proof of evolutionary philosophy and I ask the question "What does the scientist conducting the experiment represent in that experiment ??? , There of course being ONLY two possible answers. Seeing how there are ONLY ever two alternatives anyway in the creation vrs evolution debate, undirected blind forces or intelligent design, I have always been accurate. The implication just never look good for your Church so you refuse to give a straight forward answer without some far out new age philosophical rant. Still, ya gotta love all that "Intellect Speak". Keeps all the Layman in their place even if it's only in your own imagination.

    *eyes rolling*

    -----

    Scott:

    "However, as Karl Popper put it, all knowledge is theory laden."
    =====

    Well that certainly explains why our social and natural world is so mired down in the muck. Nobody has clue one how to fix things. Proof you say ??? Watch any World News Reports, any time and in any country and 24/7!!!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ambrorix wrote:

    This argument can just have easily been applied to any number of scientific theories.

    My point is that sensory input, and intuitive conclusions we might derive from them, are subject to being pre-unified before we consciously evaluate them. We must be aware of this possibility and attempt to compensate for it, rather than naively pretend it does not exist.

    For example, the woman who had the stroke was not a neurobiologist. As such, the possibility that her brain would present a view of the world that only seemed intuitively true was likely something she did not anticipate. At best, she was monetarily confused regarding the ownership of her arm. However, science does anticipate this sort of scenario. Lone arguments from incredulity, intuitions or what some would call common sense are insufficient.

    Another example is optical illusions. Despite the fact that our senses tell us we are observing movement or that one table is longer than the other, we can still rationally know that this is in fact false though the application of measurement or other means. Even when the measurement is removed, and the illusion reappears, we're not bound to accept what we see just because we observe it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Eocene wrote:

    Seeing how there are ONLY ever two alternatives anyway in the creation vrs evolution debate, undirected blind forces or intelligent design,

    Again, you're making assumptions which are not evident. Theistic evolution is just one example.

    Here's another. If you're a Christian, it's likely you think that God had the ability to make us robots, but consciously chose against it. This likely fits into your intuitions regarding our desire for ultimate justice, the existence of good and evil, the flow of time and determinism, etc.

    However, despite accepting the idea that God was hands off in regards to our choices, the idea that God would be hands off in regards to biological complexity apparently doesn't fit your intuitions. As such, you reject it.

    Again, it's unclear why you'd expect reality to actually adhere to this sort of dichotomy as, from my perspective, accepting it in one case but rejecting it in another seems arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
  32. However, despite accepting the idea that God was hands off in regards to our choices, the idea that God would be hands off in regards to biological complexity apparently doesn't fit your intuitions. As such, you reject it.

    Great, Scott.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hume was not an atheist, but a theist.

    “Wherever I see Order, I infer from Experience that there, there hath been Design and Contrivance. And the same Principle which leads me into this Inference, when I contemplate a Building, regular and beautiful in its whole Frame and Structure; the same Principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect, from the infinite Art and Contrivance which is display'd in the whole Fabrick of the Universe.” (Hume 1977, 120; A Letter From a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh).

    Hume stated: “The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent Author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion.” (Hume The Natural History of Religion 1757).

    "In The Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume wrote: “Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent Power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single Being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. …All things in the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one Author.” (Hume 1956, 26).

    “The order of the universe proves an omnipotent Mind.” (Hume 1978; Treatise, 633n).

    Obviously Hume supported the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Scott:

    "Again, you're making assumptions which are not evident. Theistic evolution is just one example."
    =====

    No, most of those labling themselves with the bold title of "Theistic Evolutionist" on these forums are often atheists playing games. Try and narrow them down on why they believe in any type of god in the first place and they are predictably mute.
    -----

    Scott:

    "However, despite accepting the idea that God was hands off in regards to our choices, the idea that God would be hands off in regards to biological complexity apparently doesn't fit your intuitions. As such, you reject it."
    =====

    No I reject it on the evidence or lack of it to the contrary. But certainly not the blind faith required by your Church.
    -----

    Scott:

    "Again, it's unclear why you'd expect reality to actually adhere to this sort of dichotomy as, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, ACCEPTING IT IN ONE SENSE but rejecting it in another seems arbitrary."
    -----

    Okay then. So, what does a scientist's fingerprints involved in conducting any evolutionary experiment represent ??? You say blind unguided without purpose undirectedness. I say intelligent design. Hence we evidently have each one his own version of reality. We'll just have to let all the quiet lurkers out there in cyberspace decide for themselves.

    Thanks for playing.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Eocene: So, what does a scientist's fingerprints involved in conducting any evolutionary experiment represent ???

    If we conduct an experiment to determine the amount of salt that can be dissolved in water, does that mean saltwater is necessarily "designed"?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Zachriel:

    "If we conduct an experiment to determine the amount of salt that can be dissolved in water, does that mean saltwater is necessarily "designed"?
    ======

    Nice deflection again. I said evolutionary experiment and you example an experiment not even remotely dealing with your faith. Again, nice.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Pedant:
    Just as the theory of evolution is testable and explains data.

    If it was testable I would still be an evolutionist and so would the many other people who have had it with the lies of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Eocene: I said evolutionary experiment and you example an experiment not even remotely dealing with your faith.

    What is the distinction? Why does an experiment with salt and water tell us something about nature, but observations of evolution do not?

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Eocene wrote:

    No, most of those labling themselves with the bold title of "Theistic Evolutionist" on these forums are often atheists playing games.

    While I can see why you might try to portray them as such to downplay the issue, these forums do not represent the entirety of theistic thought on matters such as biological complexity. The Biologos site is just one such example.

    I wrote:

    "However, despite accepting the idea that God was hands off in regards to our choices, the idea that God would be hands off in regards to biological complexity apparently doesn't fit your intuitions. As such, you reject it."

    Eocene wrote:

    No I reject it on the evidence or lack of it to the contrary. But certainly not the blind faith required by your Church.

    I should just take you at your word, yet theistic evolutionists are really atheists?

    You say blind unguided without purpose undirectedness. I say intelligent design.

    And, I'm suggesting this is a false dichotomy, for reasons which I've already illustrated.

    Which leads us back to the question you're apparently trying to avoid: why do you expect reality to adhere to your particular conception of common sense?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Zachriel:

    "What is the distinction? Why does an experiment with salt and water tell us something about nature, but observations of evolution do not?"
    ======

    As usual you are clearly deflecting again. Any evolutionary experiment must prove undirectedness, no guidance, no purpose, intent or manipulation by an intelligence, no matter what the source. You people have never proved your religiosity on this pivitol dogmatic corner stone of your Church.

    But certainly every experiment has a purposing intelligence behind it, it's just that from your own fogma you've yet to prove any evolutionary one is unguided without purposed manipulation by an intelligence for pulling the rigged strings for an intended outcome. How come ???

    ReplyDelete
  42. Scott:

    "And, I'm suggesting this is a false dichotomy, for reasons which I've already illustrated.

    Which leads us back to the question you're apparently trying to avoid: why do you expect reality to adhere to your particular conception of common sense?"
    ======

    You haven't demonstrated anything with the exception of some mystical alternative universe reality scam. There is no purpose of debating and playing these fuzzy definitions shell games of what is common sense?, what is morality?, what is evolution?, what is natural selection?, and the ultimate deflection ploy - what is truth ??? The only important question is, has this experiment at self-determination been even remotely successful ??? The answer is clearly a resounding NO.

    Look, according to Genesis chap 3, you have all the free-willed right to create any worldview your heart (seat of motivation) desires. If you want anal sex with another man, then go for it. If you want to shack up with a woman and produce 10 offspring without the benefit of marriage then go for it. If you want to drink like a fish or smoke like a train, then go for it. The list of your own definitions of morality are long and loud and you have every right to pursue them. However, it isn't necessary to lie and use eastern religious philosophical concepts cleaned up with generous amounts of "Intellect Speak" and injecting it into your version of science for nothing more than a justification crutch to stand on. You already have the permission to pursue life as you see fit until such time as there'll be a conclusion to the matter. The evidence is clear, your side's custodialship of our planet Earth is a complete total failure and eviction is the ONLY alternative to save what yet remains.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Eocene:

    "As usual you are clearly deflecting again. Any evolutionary experiment must prove undirectedness, no guidance, no purpose, intent or manipulation by an intelligence, no matter what the source."

    You really don't have a clue about science, do you?

    Every scientific theoretical model makes a number of positive assumptions. A model for the evolution of trait (vector) X typically makes assumptions about the genetics underlying X, mutation rates, effects of X on reproduction and survival, population dynamics, mating system, life history of the species, etc. Those are all positive assumptions.

    Of course there are also infinitely many assumptions that are NOT being made, such as "and then a miracle happened" or "mutations are guided by an invisible hand" or "a green fairy increases the survival probability by 10% every 17 years".

    Ideally, one should verify the positive assumptions before testing the model predictions. However, it is ludicrous to demand that the assumptions that are NOT being made are all ruled out - i.e. proving a negative - but that is exactly what you are asking!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Eocene:

    "The evidence is clear, your side's custodialship of our planet Earth is a complete total failure and eviction is the ONLY alternative to save what yet remains."

    I want some of what you are smoking!

    What is "your side" supposed to mean? Perhaps you would care to explain why pro-ID sites are almost universally and quite vocally global warming deniers?

    Eviction? Are you saying the Big Landlord in the Sky will throw us out?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Eocene: As usual you are clearly deflecting again. Any evolutionary experiment must prove undirectedness, no guidance, no purpose, intent or manipulation by an intelligence, no matter what the source.

    Doesn't adding salt to water show directedness, guidance, purpose, intent, manipulation. You're not making a clear distinction.

    What if, for instance, we show by experiment that mutations are uncorrelated (i.e. random) with fitness?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Eocene wrote:

    The only important question is, has this experiment at self-determination been even remotely successful ??? The answer is clearly a resounding NO.

    and...

    Look, according to Genesis chap 3

    Eocone,

    You seem to be suggest it's common-sense to conclude our current state of affairs represents an experiment in self-determination by God. Is this an accurate conclusion?

    If so, why do you expect reality to adhere to this common-sense interpretation?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Eocene,

    I'm still waiting for your response. The ball is in your court.

    ReplyDelete