A Centuries-Old Quandary
There was wide agreement among DAP participants that any postulate of SDA [special divine action] exacerbates the theodicy problem, so a lot of energy was expended in trying to deal with this.
In other words, divine action that is intentional and particular exacerbates the thorny problem of evil. If God is all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing, then there would be no evil in the world. Since there is evil, then God must not be all-good, or all-powerful or all-knowing.
Better to restrict the divine action to law-like, uniform actions so our good God is not responsible for this bad world.
This idea that God would not have intended for this world goes back to antiquity and forms the basis of the powerful metaphysics that underwrites evolution. As the Epicureans explained, the world must have arisen on its own. It must have evolved.
This idea is so intuitive and so compelling that evolutionists do not even think of it as metaphysical or religious. It drives them to the conclusion that the world must have arisen spontaneously but the absurdity is lost on them, so powerful is the religion.
And while the DAP participants were all theists, this powerful metaphysic is by no means limited to them. Atheists believe just as ardently as any theist that no creator would ever have designed or created such a world. As PZ Myers wrote in the Los Angeles Times:
We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.
In other words, special divine action is a problem. This time, however, this truth comes from an atheist, illustrating once again that the key distinction is not between theist versus atheist or between religion versus science. This is the myth of the Warfare Thesis.
But the key distinction is at a deeper level of raw religious beliefs and the Divine Action Project is yet another example of this.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
"
ReplyDeleteIn other words, divine action that is intentional and particular exacerbates the thorny problem of evil. If God is all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing, then there would be no evil in the world. Since there is evil, then God must not be all-good, or all-powerful or all-knowing."
Dinesh D'Souza explores this problem in his book God Forsaken. It should be required reading for high school students.
It drives them to the conclusion that the world must have arisen spontaneously but the absurdity is lost on them, so powerful is the religion.
ReplyDeleteYou think that a natural origin of the Universe is absurd. Is that idea more absurd than the idea that a Super Human (god or demigod) willed the Universe into being?
Pedant:
DeleteYou think that a natural origin of the Universe is absurd
Yes, me and every other scientist. Spontaneous origins is not a good scientific hypothesis. Do I really need to explain that?
Is that idea more absurd than the idea that a Super Human (god or demigod) willed the Universe into being?
Which, once again, demonstrates evolutionary thinking. That question is, of course, irrelevant, except for evolutionists who believe they know it all. They know the complete set of alternative origins theories, they know everything about gods and demigods, and they impose their religious beliefs on others as though they were facts and then insist that they are all about science, and that their religious dogma is nothing more than objective science, and that it is a fact. Pathetic.
Pedant:
DeleteThe problem is that some people insist that no explanation of origins is allowed to go outside the laws of nature that we are familiar with. The laws of nature rule out spontaneous origins, make them very unlikely.
CH: Yes, me and every other scientist. Spontaneous origins is not a good scientific hypothesis.
DeleteSo, then why do you keep promoting Lamarckanism which, like many at the time, includes spontaneous origins. For example, it was though that mice spontaneously appeared from piles of old rags and hay. That’s not a good scientific hypothesis.
Furthermore, it’s one important aspect, among others, that separates Darwin’s theory from Lamarck’s.
CH: Do I really need to explain that?
Yes, you do. As I keep pointing out, biological Darwinism isn’t spontaneous.
For example, you wrote…
CH: So if you don't believe the world spontaneously arose, then you must believe there was some assistance along the way somewhere. Can you describe that?
However the term, “assistance” as your using it here is, as you like to say, an Aristotelian property like dryness. It needs to be explained. It’s as if you think “assistance” is an immutable primitive or a black box that we cannot make progress on.
IOW, how do agents actually provide assistance and can that process be mimicked by natural systems? Can we differentiate between assistance provided by intelligent agents and systems that mimic it, based on explanations about how agents cause transformations?
If you have no explanation about how intelligent agents bring about changes, then it boils down to "some intelligent agent must have wanted it that way", which could be anything logically possible, including a world that looks as if it evolved, but didn't. It's an explanation-less theory. Furthermore our inability to differentiate implies we cannot make any progress on the subject. It's a claim that assistance is, well, magic, or so bizzar that conventional logic doesn't apply to it.
From the same comment…
Scott: …consider all of the conceivable transformations of matter. In this group, there are transformation that are prohibited by the laws of physics, such as traveling faster than the speed of light, and those that are possible. Of the latter, there are two types: transformation that occur spontaneously, such as the formation of stars from gravity, hydrogen and other stellar materials and transformations that only occur when the requisite knowledge is present, such as the transformation of air, water. etc., into plants, trees, etc.
So, I’ll ask again, is there a type of transformation that I missed by which outcomes could be obtained?
Why don't you start out with explaining how intelligent agents would actually provide assistance in the case of biological adaptations, then point out how biological darwinism does fit that explanation. Please be specific.
DeleteTime to insert the standard disclaimer: the theory of evolution is not a theory of origins, it was not devised to address the question of origin of life, the Universe(s) and everything and it says nothing about origins. Of course it points towards the question of origins but it is perfectly possible to conduct research in biology without ever having to consider such a question.
ReplyDeleteWhen, however, a religion like Christianity proffers its God as The Creator then it is directly addressing the question of origins The nature of that God, as defined in Christian belief, becomes a legitimate topic for comment and criticism by both believer and non-believer alike.. I, as an agnostic/atheist, can point out that there is a problem squaring the concept of a deity who is necessarily good with the existence of evil or to the question of why would an necessary and eternal being create a universe at this time - or even at all. Raising those issues does not bolster the theory of evolution with metaphysical arguments, it questions the logic of certain parts of Christian belief.
I am sure that the theologians involved in the Divine Action Project discussions found them absorbing and stimulating but then so might science-fiction fans find a debate on the relative merits of an Imperial Star Destroyer and a Federation Starship - and with about as much basis in fact.
Was the universe created or did it appear ex nihilo? I don't know and neither does anyone else, whatever they might believe. All I can say is that, in the absence of a creator, all we appear to be left with is spontaneous origins.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
May The Force be with you.
Ian:
DeleteTime to insert the standard disclaimer: the theory of evolution is not a theory of origins, it was not devised to address the question of origin of life, the Universe(s) and everything and it says nothing about origins.
Do you ever tire of your canards? Evolution did not begin in 1859. Cosmological evolutionary theories go back to antiquity and continue to this day. They research the evolution of the Earth-Moon system, the solar system, galaxies, quasars, the universe, the multi verse, etc. And life scientists routinely teach and research the origin of life, sometimes referred to as chemical evolution. It is in biology textbooks, popular books, research papers, conferences and so forth. Evolutionists know no limit. They claim that everything evolved, from consciousness and altruism to the entire universe. Then when their absurdities are pointed out, the wave function suddenly collapses to those changing gene frequencies. That's all it was ever about don't you know.
I, as an agnostic/atheist, can point out that there is a problem squaring the concept of a deity who is necessarily good with the existence of evil
Wrong again Ian. You can make no such argument, because no such argument exists. You believe this because you're thinking, which is to say evolutionary thinking, silently incorporates religious beliefs which it otherwise tries to hide. You pretend to be an objective scientist when in fact you make a mockery of science with your religion.
It's hilarious that Cornelius conflates theory of biological evolution with formation of the solar system, galaxies, and so on.
DeleteHow about evolution of a quantum state, Cornelius? Is \exp(–iHt/\hbar) \psi(x) also objectionable in fundamentalist circles?
Just wondering.
oleg: How about evolution of a quantum state, Cornelius? Is \exp(–iHt/\hbar) \psi(x) also objectionable in fundamentalist circles?
DeleteThat is just knee-slapping funny!
Cornelius Hunter Do you ever tire of your canards?
DeleteThere is no canard. There is your persistent perpetration of the fallacy of equivocation in your use of the word "evolution".
Cornelius Hunter Evolution did not begin in 1859. Cosmological evolutionary theories go back to antiquity and continue to this day. They research the evolution of the Earth-Moon system, the solar system, galaxies, quasars, the universe, the multi verse, etc.
The fact that scientists and others use the word "evolution" loosely to describe how the universe has changed over time does not mean that biological phenomena have cosmological analogues. There is no stellar DNA that encodes the bauplan of each star. There are no breeding populations of stars that pass on their joint properties to offspring. There are no species of planets that vie with each other for scarce resources. There are no fit or unfit asteroids. There is only, at best, a very tenuous analogy.
Cornelius Hunter They claim that everything evolved, from consciousness and altruism to the entire universe.
People can claim whatever they like. They can claim creationism or intelligent design are science but the claim alone don't make them science.
Cornelius Hunter I, as an agnostic/atheist, can point out that there is a problem squaring the concept of a deity who is necessarily good with the existence of evil
Wrong again Ian. You can make no such argument, because no such argument exists.
Sure, it does. I just made it and I'm far from being the first.
Ian:
DeleteSure, it does. I just made it and I'm far from being the first.
Well you paraphrased it. You didn't actually spell out the argument. And you can't. One way to find out is to give it a try. You cannot do it without introducing more premises.
Cornelius Hunter Well you paraphrased it. You didn't actually spell out the argument. And you can't. One way to find out is to give it a try. You cannot do it without introducing more premises
Deletehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
Ian:
DeleteRe: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
Yes, those are the arguments. Note the plural. There are several because there is no single argument that works merely from the stated premises. You have to add to them.
To quote Myers in context…
ReplyDeleteContrary to Allen's claim that we aren't interested in criticizing the important elements of religious belief, we are: We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does. It wouldn't be a place almost entirely inimical to our existence, with a history that reveals our existence was a fortunate result of a long chain of accidents tuned by natural selection. Most of the arguments we've heard that try to reconcile god and science seem to make God a subtle, invisible, undetectable ghost who at best tickles the occasional subatomic particle when no one is looking. It seems rather obvious to us that if his works are undetectable, you have no grounds for telling us what he's been up to.
Does the phrase "for the benefit of human beings" not represent an important aspect of religious belief, which Myers is criticizing? If the phrase “benefit of human beings” does not constrain what God would or would not do, then it’s unclear how including it serves an explanatory purpose.
Furthermore, perhaps God doesn’t pull strings and shape history for the benefit of human beings. But that’s not the God that Meyers was criticizing.
Apparently, were not supposed to take conceptions of God seriously, in that the specific properties they propose would actually have deducible conclusions.
Is that what you're suggesting.
If so, it's unclear how such a conception can actually be an explanation for anything. Rather, it would be just one giant naked assertion, which includes the assertion that it's beyond criticism. This is a bad explanation, for reasons I've outlined elsewhere. It's curricular. The idea that it's beyond criticism is protected by the assertion that it's beyond criticism.
Again, you seem to want to have it both ways. God represents an explanation for phenomena, but has no deducible consequences.
But, like all ideas, conceptions start out as conjectures, guesses. We make progress when we criticize them. If you can't criticize God then you must have some alternate epistemology in mind by which knowledge grows.
For example, one might suggest we know some things are true because God, being infallible, divinely reveals truths to us via some infallible means that does not not require interpretation on our part. The problem with this is that it's unclear how this would work, in practice. And, apparently, that's beyond criticism as well because God divinely revealed to us that he actually does so occasionally.
Again, see this article, which addresses these very issues.
Strangely, every time I reference this article, no one seems to have any criticism of it. Apparently, it's just wrong. Period.
No criticism to be found. No surprise here.
DeleteSo, due to the lack of criticism, apparently it's wrong because it's been revealed to be wrong by an authoritative source? But that's precisely what the article criticizes. It's self perpetual bad philosophy.
Pedant: You think that a natural origin of the Universe is absurd
ReplyDeleteCH: Yes, me and every other scientist.
I didn't know that. Every scientist on Planet considers the idea of a natural origin of the Universe absurd? How can you possibly know that? Would you quote Sean Carroll or Brian Greene in support of that claim?
Spontaneous origins is not a good scientific hypothesis. Do I really need to explain that?
Yes, please. You might start by unpacking what you mean by the word "spontaneous." Why do you use that word instead of "natural"?
Pedant:
DeleteYou might start by unpacking what you mean by the word "spontaneous."
A spontaneous process occurs without any external input. It occurs on its own.
Why do you use that word instead of "natural"?
It's just a matter of precision. Spontaneous is a specific scientific term which evolutionists avoid, even though it is precisely what they are claiming. As I have discussed here many times, they use Aristotelian and teleological language to avoid stating precisely the absurdity they are claiming is a fact.
Pedant: You might start by unpacking what you mean by the word "spontaneous."
DeleteCH: A spontaneous process occurs without any external input.
Pedant,
Fundamentalist Christians want an interventionist God. If you internalize this, everything will make sense.
Yes, Oleg, I've heard that, but I'm prepared to let Dr Hunter explain his position at greater length.
DeleteThere is no there there.
DeleteIt's his petard.
DeletePedant: Is that idea more absurd than the idea that a Super Human (god or demigod) willed the Universe into being?
ReplyDeleteCH: That question is, of course, irrelevant, except for evolutionists who believe they know it all.
There's no need to become unglued. It's a perfectly reasonable question. Which do you consider more ridiculous, the idea that the Big Bang had a natural origin, or the idea that the Big Bang was ignited by a demigod?
CH: A spontaneous process occurs without any external input.
ReplyDeleteOnce again I ask: Did the Big Bang require an external input? How do you know that?
Spontaneous is a specific scientific term...
Great, please refer me to your source.
Pedant:
DeleteOnce again I ask: Did the Big Bang require an external input? How do you know that?
I have no idea. For all I know the entire world just happened to form spontaneously, all by itself. But what I do know is that you don't know either, that this is a religiously-driven conviction, it is not a fact, and it certainly is not from science. As always, the evolutionist tries to avoid his absurdity by demanding certainty from the skeptic. I'm not the one making ridiculous claims.
Great, please refer me to your source.
"Spontaneous Processes = Processes that can proceed with no outside intervention. "
http://www.phys.ttu.edu/~cmyles/Phys4302/Lectures/Lecture03d%20-%20Spontaneous%20Processes%20&%20the%202nd%20Law.ppt
Anything else? Would you like the definition of "metaphysics"?
Again, science doesn't determine if a theory is or is not science. That would be scientism.
DeleteRather, what is or is not science is a philosophical question. It's based on an explanation for how knowledge grows. Specifically, the subset of the growth of scientific knowledge.
CH: Would you like the definition of "metaphysics"?
Definitions, per se, aren't particularly useful. I'd rather you explain the difference between metaphysics and philosophy.
For example, Aristotle, didn't actually use the term "Metaphysics", even though the word has it's origin in Greek words "beyond" and "physics". He refereed to it as the "first philosophy". And, since the beginning of modern philosophy in the seventeenth century, philosophy has expanded to include problems not normally considered metaphysical, while problems previously though to be metaphysical are now separate subjects of philosophy, including the philosophy of science.
So, it would be helpful if you differentiated between the two.
Pedant: Once again I ask: Did the Big Bang require an external input? How do you know that?
ReplyDeleteCH: I have no idea. For all I know the entire world just happened to form spontaneously, all by itself. But what I do know is that you don't know either, that this is a religiously-driven conviction, it is not a fact, and it certainly is not from science. As always, the evolutionist tries to avoid his absurdity by demanding certainty from the skeptic. I'm not the one making ridiculous claims.
Of course you've been making ridiculous claims. You've been claiming that the idea that the origin of the Universe does not require the action of an external agent is absurd. Am I wrong?
Whatever made you think that I was claiming to know anything about the cause (if any) of the Big Bang? I think that it is the height of arrogance for you to pontificate about what you think that I think what I know.
CH,
ReplyDeleteAnything else? Would you like the definition of "metaphysics"?
That will be the day, when you reveal to us your definition of metaphysics.
CH, when I asked you to provide the source for your concept of "spontaneous, " you gave me a link to a PowerPoint that I can't read. Is that the best you can do>
ReplyDelete