Festive Drinks Quiz - 5 January
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
So Called Intelligent Design ... Actually Kind Of Dumb Isnt It?
77 Answers
people claim that gods way is 'intelligent' design ... on the basis that we are just too well made to have happened naturally - and that god only cares about us and thats why animals dont have souls etc
but if that was the case, and god only cared about humans and made the world for our benefit, then why is there are a whole load of utterly pointless and dangerous creatures in it?
if the sole purpose of earth is to home humans - why is so much of it inhospitable, dangerous and just horrible?
he cannot blame us for all this - blame our freewill - which is the excuse he usually uses for anything bad that happens - because we did not create bacteria, volcanoes, termites, swamps etc etc
now i know with the worlds ecosystems in place all these things are necessary - but why have eco systems at all?
why make it so we need insects and bacteria etc?
why isnt the planet just covered in stuff that doesnt need any sort of ecosystem - surely the really intelligent thing would have been to make everything self contained? and nice. and clean. etc
why arent the only living species on the planet, humans and human food - ie cows, pigs etc ... and maybe a few that are just nice, like cats and dogs etc?
why create all the stuff we never need or even see and can kill us?
so whats so intelligent about it?
if you worked in a company and were tasked with creating a species and habitat for them - you would be sacked in utter disgrace if you created somewhere that looks nice for them ... and then added a load of pointless stuff, wasted spaces and dangerous stuff ...wouldnt you?
no-one would be calling you 'intelligent'
we dont design our houses to be full of dangerous and inhospitable areas do we? and we do our best to keep anything dangerous out... we aim to make it as nice and comfortable as possible....so why hasnt god done the same?
the world is full of amazing, wonderful and interesting things, but surely thats not the only reason for their existence? - just for us to look at pictures of them in books and go 'ooh, cool!' - because most humans will never ever see most of it for real.
so, creationists, can you tell me why he did it this way?
but if that was the case, and god only cared about humans and made the world for our benefit, then why is there are a whole load of utterly pointless and dangerous creatures in it?
if the sole purpose of earth is to home humans - why is so much of it inhospitable, dangerous and just horrible?
he cannot blame us for all this - blame our freewill - which is the excuse he usually uses for anything bad that happens - because we did not create bacteria, volcanoes, termites, swamps etc etc
now i know with the worlds ecosystems in place all these things are necessary - but why have eco systems at all?
why make it so we need insects and bacteria etc?
why isnt the planet just covered in stuff that doesnt need any sort of ecosystem - surely the really intelligent thing would have been to make everything self contained? and nice. and clean. etc
why arent the only living species on the planet, humans and human food - ie cows, pigs etc ... and maybe a few that are just nice, like cats and dogs etc?
why create all the stuff we never need or even see and can kill us?
so whats so intelligent about it?
if you worked in a company and were tasked with creating a species and habitat for them - you would be sacked in utter disgrace if you created somewhere that looks nice for them ... and then added a load of pointless stuff, wasted spaces and dangerous stuff ...wouldnt you?
no-one would be calling you 'intelligent'
we dont design our houses to be full of dangerous and inhospitable areas do we? and we do our best to keep anything dangerous out... we aim to make it as nice and comfortable as possible....so why hasnt god done the same?
the world is full of amazing, wonderful and interesting things, but surely thats not the only reason for their existence? - just for us to look at pictures of them in books and go 'ooh, cool!' - because most humans will never ever see most of it for real.
so, creationists, can you tell me why he did it this way?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joko. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
birdie //Your ideology is grossly egotistical and self-reverential; hence you embrace the Anthropic Principal wholeheartedly...//
I'm not sure from what you write that you have a clear understanding of what is meant by "The Anthropic Principle". It is a rubric attached to several concepts some known as 'weak' and some 'strong' and it can refer to several conditions that are necessary to allow the emergence of carbon-based life, and they are not all related to the specificity of homo-sapiens.
You first accused me of being ignorant of it, and when I told you not only am I aware of it, but have known of it and been interested in it for a long time, you now accuse me pejoratively of embracing it "wholeheartedly". Because one knows of something isn't to "embrace" it. - I know what communism is, but that does not make me a communist.
Regarding the reading list, well I can highly recommend for starters the book I am just nearing the end of now; 'Science and Religion in Quest of Truth', by the 'distinguished scientist-theologian' John Polkinghorne (Past president and now fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge) which quotes on the back cover; 'For particle physicist J.P. - the only ordained member of the Royal Society - science and theology are not at loggerheads. They are instead attempts to formulate coherent and adequate accounts of the phenomena within their purview ... Polkinhorne's argument for the proposition that God is real is cogent and his evidence is elegant.' - New Scientist.
I'm not sure from what you write that you have a clear understanding of what is meant by "The Anthropic Principle". It is a rubric attached to several concepts some known as 'weak' and some 'strong' and it can refer to several conditions that are necessary to allow the emergence of carbon-based life, and they are not all related to the specificity of homo-sapiens.
You first accused me of being ignorant of it, and when I told you not only am I aware of it, but have known of it and been interested in it for a long time, you now accuse me pejoratively of embracing it "wholeheartedly". Because one knows of something isn't to "embrace" it. - I know what communism is, but that does not make me a communist.
Regarding the reading list, well I can highly recommend for starters the book I am just nearing the end of now; 'Science and Religion in Quest of Truth', by the 'distinguished scientist-theologian' John Polkinghorne (Past president and now fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge) which quotes on the back cover; 'For particle physicist J.P. - the only ordained member of the Royal Society - science and theology are not at loggerheads. They are instead attempts to formulate coherent and adequate accounts of the phenomena within their purview ... Polkinhorne's argument for the proposition that God is real is cogent and his evidence is elegant.' - New Scientist.
I first read Hume when I was about twenty-one (that’s a while ago). Specifically Dialogues concerning Natural Religion and A Natural History of Religion. A few years ago reread them with more delight. Then read them with even more delight put in mind of the History by LazyGun’s thread where he repeated the plausible (though in my opinion false) proposition that people are religious because of the comfort it gives them. The edition I’ve got contains both those works and a chapter from the Enquiry. I recommend it to all who are interested in rational debate. The works, of course, famously [attempt to] demolish the argument from design and were written some twenty years before Paley’s Natural Theology (you know, the savage and the watch analogy). The success of that book and the discussions on this thread show just how resilient the discredited argument from design in its original and newer forms (ID, fine-tuning, irreducible complexity etc.) is.
But as Hume points out it isn’t necessary to disprove an intelligent first cause in order to refute the traditional religious description of the Supreme Being. Let us concede to Khandro that it is just as he says it is: 1 followed by lot’s of zeroes = very smart creator with a plan in mind. OK, and so? An earlier poster has already (whether wittingly or otherwise I don’t know) quoted Hume on this by asking the question “How do we know that this isn’t a bodge job by some cowboy builder deity?”. Or, as Hume adds, or that it’s not the first poor effort of an apprentice demiurge? And why one creator, rather than many? Indeed, what possible inferences can we make about the nature of the creator(s)? By what leap of logic do you get from the clever designer to one of unlimited power and goodness? How does one derive from the observation that Khandro is on the whole a pretty decent chap who likes Beethoven the extraordinary conclusion that there is A Supreme Being who in important ways (moral, aesthetic,intellectual) is like Khandro? And how do you account for the bad design, pain, suffering? Based only on inferences drawn from what we see polytheism, Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism are all better explanations of the facts than the traditional monotheisms. Enlighten me, Khandro.
I’ll read the JP book. And trust you to know where the apostrophe goes..
But as Hume points out it isn’t necessary to disprove an intelligent first cause in order to refute the traditional religious description of the Supreme Being. Let us concede to Khandro that it is just as he says it is: 1 followed by lot’s of zeroes = very smart creator with a plan in mind. OK, and so? An earlier poster has already (whether wittingly or otherwise I don’t know) quoted Hume on this by asking the question “How do we know that this isn’t a bodge job by some cowboy builder deity?”. Or, as Hume adds, or that it’s not the first poor effort of an apprentice demiurge? And why one creator, rather than many? Indeed, what possible inferences can we make about the nature of the creator(s)? By what leap of logic do you get from the clever designer to one of unlimited power and goodness? How does one derive from the observation that Khandro is on the whole a pretty decent chap who likes Beethoven the extraordinary conclusion that there is A Supreme Being who in important ways (moral, aesthetic,intellectual) is like Khandro? And how do you account for the bad design, pain, suffering? Based only on inferences drawn from what we see polytheism, Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism are all better explanations of the facts than the traditional monotheisms. Enlighten me, Khandro.
I’ll read the JP book. And trust you to know where the apostrophe goes..
-- answer removed --
v_e; I'm pleased to learn that you are prepared to read Polkinghorne's 'S.R.Q.T.' and look forward to your views at a later date - over a bottle of Barolo '04? - He doesn't mention Hume in that book, but in a review of it in the TLS (which led me to buying it) Mark Vernon does; "... hence science of itself has little to say about profoundly important personal questions such as those of meaning and purpose, commitment and will, goodness and beauty. As Hume observed, it is a lot tougher to derive an "ought" from an "is" than many are inclined to believe."
I chiefly know of Hume's alleged connection with Buddhist thought. Schopenhauer usually gets the laurels for being the first European to embrace this, but perhaps he received it from first reading Hume? I don't know if Hume was versed in oriental languages but he had a Jesuit friend who had spent a long time in the far east (Thailand?) and he could have explained the tenets of Theravada Buddhism to him.
What you refer to as; //the discredited argument from design in its original and newer forms (ID, fine-tuning, irreducible complexity etc.)// is far from "discredited," the reason being that it is such a non-trivial argument.
More anon.
birdie; Point taken.
I chiefly know of Hume's alleged connection with Buddhist thought. Schopenhauer usually gets the laurels for being the first European to embrace this, but perhaps he received it from first reading Hume? I don't know if Hume was versed in oriental languages but he had a Jesuit friend who had spent a long time in the far east (Thailand?) and he could have explained the tenets of Theravada Buddhism to him.
What you refer to as; //the discredited argument from design in its original and newer forms (ID, fine-tuning, irreducible complexity etc.)// is far from "discredited," the reason being that it is such a non-trivial argument.
More anon.
birdie; Point taken.
The anthropic principle has been co-opted to indicate a creator of the universe, an intelligent designer ;The fine-tuned universe argument offers an image of a creator god fiddling with the various control knobs to arrive at design for the universe whose settings will most likely create life - and the ultimate expression of this purpose, amongst the faithful, is us, humanity. Problems abound. As a biological pinnacle, humanity is hardly a great model - just take a look at the anatomy of the eye, or the route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve for examples of that.
Co-opting the anthropic principle as evidence of an intelligent designer is an example of the projection of a belief over-riding logic. The fine tuned constants and their relationships are only remarkable or mirculous if one posits an intelligent designer working to an endpoint; otherwise they are unremarkable.
You can argue for the rather trite weak anthropic principle which is, simply, that "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist".
Building a proof upon a foundation which is itself a tautology, and an unfalsifiable one at that is a mistake.
Our observations to date tell us that, in fact, it would appear that life as we understand it - ie life on earth - actually appears to be pretty rare, and that therefore those physical constants do little to advance carbon based life; It could be argued that we are here in spite of those constants rather than because of them.
And such an argument also fails to take into account all the other factors that were undoubtedly important in the rise of mammals, and eventually humanity - like the chixcalub meteor strike for instance, which is thought to be the extinction level event that did for the dinosaurs and cleared away for our ultimate ancestor.
Jokos original question still stands - if there was an intelligent designer to the universe, why not create the whole thing a bit more intelligently, a bit less wastefully?
It seems to me that the anthropic principle is essential a logical fallacy, a gigantic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Douglas Adams on puddle thinking, of the theory of the fine-tuned universe...
". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in'an interesting hole I find myself in'fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
Co-opting the anthropic principle as evidence of an intelligent designer is an example of the projection of a belief over-riding logic. The fine tuned constants and their relationships are only remarkable or mirculous if one posits an intelligent designer working to an endpoint; otherwise they are unremarkable.
You can argue for the rather trite weak anthropic principle which is, simply, that "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist".
Building a proof upon a foundation which is itself a tautology, and an unfalsifiable one at that is a mistake.
Our observations to date tell us that, in fact, it would appear that life as we understand it - ie life on earth - actually appears to be pretty rare, and that therefore those physical constants do little to advance carbon based life; It could be argued that we are here in spite of those constants rather than because of them.
And such an argument also fails to take into account all the other factors that were undoubtedly important in the rise of mammals, and eventually humanity - like the chixcalub meteor strike for instance, which is thought to be the extinction level event that did for the dinosaurs and cleared away for our ultimate ancestor.
Jokos original question still stands - if there was an intelligent designer to the universe, why not create the whole thing a bit more intelligently, a bit less wastefully?
It seems to me that the anthropic principle is essential a logical fallacy, a gigantic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Douglas Adams on puddle thinking, of the theory of the fine-tuned universe...
". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in'an interesting hole I find myself in'fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
LG; Your synopsis of the Anthropic Principle (AP) is inaccurate and simplistic; the attribution of faults in human anatomy have nothing to do with it. AP and Fine Tuning (FT) are not interdependent, personally I reject several concepts within the rubric of AP but find the FT argument non-trivial.
In order to rebut all of this you really will be looking at low marks if the best you can do is go to AP in wikipedia where some fool has used a story about a puddle from 'The Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy' (Jeez!...so "last year") as an argument against it, and then quote that here. A six year old knows that puddles can't think! and the reason an inanimate object was craftily used by this former Monty Python was that any sentient being, even an ant, finding the sun too hot would move for shelter.
As you say yourself this kind of argument "may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
In order to rebut all of this you really will be looking at low marks if the best you can do is go to AP in wikipedia where some fool has used a story about a puddle from 'The Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy' (Jeez!...so "last year") as an argument against it, and then quote that here. A six year old knows that puddles can't think! and the reason an inanimate object was craftily used by this former Monty Python was that any sentient being, even an ant, finding the sun too hot would move for shelter.
As you say yourself this kind of argument "may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
@ Khandro.
Using a Fine- Tuned universe argument as proof of a deity is a logical fallacy, as great a fallacy as suggesting that the design of a human being is a pinnacle of design, evidence of an "intelligent designer". Its a fallacy that those seeking to show "evidence" of an intelligent designer continually fall into.
And "puddle thinking" might very well be "last years" thinking; But the accuracy of his satirisation of the thinking of the proponents of the "F-T universe" was as relevant then as it is now. Once cannot argue with the weak anthropic principle - we are here, so conditions in the universe must allow us to be here - but to draw any additional conclusions is a huge mistake. And its an unfalsifiable precept too.
Conditions in the universe are not fine-tuned for carbon-based organic life - we are restricted to a thin layer on one small planet in a universe of 100s of billions of planets - and we cannot even exist in all of that specific niche entirely unaided.
People have looked at some of those fundamental constants to see just how fine tuned they are. Obviously we cannot simply change those constants - we are not, after all, gods - but we can simulate such changes using computer modelling - and we find that those constants are not quite as fine-tuned as the proponents would have you believe.
You latch on to stuff that appears to prove or support your own worldview, Khandro. and then spin it out as a fact,rather than what it is, which is conjecture or opinion.
If you wish to surrender your objectivity and logical thinking to faith, thats fine, but you will not get very far trying to represent such thinking as scientific. or mainstream.
Using a Fine- Tuned universe argument as proof of a deity is a logical fallacy, as great a fallacy as suggesting that the design of a human being is a pinnacle of design, evidence of an "intelligent designer". Its a fallacy that those seeking to show "evidence" of an intelligent designer continually fall into.
And "puddle thinking" might very well be "last years" thinking; But the accuracy of his satirisation of the thinking of the proponents of the "F-T universe" was as relevant then as it is now. Once cannot argue with the weak anthropic principle - we are here, so conditions in the universe must allow us to be here - but to draw any additional conclusions is a huge mistake. And its an unfalsifiable precept too.
Conditions in the universe are not fine-tuned for carbon-based organic life - we are restricted to a thin layer on one small planet in a universe of 100s of billions of planets - and we cannot even exist in all of that specific niche entirely unaided.
People have looked at some of those fundamental constants to see just how fine tuned they are. Obviously we cannot simply change those constants - we are not, after all, gods - but we can simulate such changes using computer modelling - and we find that those constants are not quite as fine-tuned as the proponents would have you believe.
You latch on to stuff that appears to prove or support your own worldview, Khandro. and then spin it out as a fact,rather than what it is, which is conjecture or opinion.
If you wish to surrender your objectivity and logical thinking to faith, thats fine, but you will not get very far trying to represent such thinking as scientific. or mainstream.
-- answer removed --
The Polkinghorne book Science and Religion in Quest of Truth.
A rough summary:
Science and religion both seek truth, i.e. an intelligible explanation of the world we lie in.
Science has modest ambitions: to describe how things happen. Religion attempts to answer the more difficult questions of meaning, purpose and value. Both approaches are necessary, because if only scientific truth is admitted the important spiritual dimension of human beings is left unaccounted for.
There are things about the universe (its intelligibility, its fine-tuning for intelligent life, the moral and aesthetic feelings observed in ourselves) which do not compel us to the conclusion of a divine creator, but are plausibly explained by the postulate of a personal God. He affirms his own commitment to a specifically Christian understanding of what that personal God is like.
He argues against conflict and for dialogue between the two disciplines.
Revelation, miracles (where he does quote Hume, Khandro) and resurrection are not incompatible with modern science.
Evil and suffering in the world are an unavoidable possible consequence of a world of “free processes”.
He reiterates the evidence in support of the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, discusses prayer and the Trinity and eschatology.
His final chapter considers other religious accounts of the world which are seemingly incompatible with his own.
Nothing new here for those acquainted with Christian apologetics, Khandro. The only novelty was his anticipation of my argument against his free will defence. “One further question might be asked about the Fall. How can we be sure that life in the world to come will not be threatened… by a second such disaster?”. I’d been saving that question up for the next believer capable of debate who cited human free-will as an explanation of suffering and evil. JP’s explanation: “…in the brighter light of the new creation the divine love and power will be so clearly manifested that all …will freely … embrace the divine will without reserve”.
OK, so where to begin? Firstly, the alternative quest for truth might be labelled less tendentiously as philosophy. or even, metaphysics rather than theology. I think we should ask questions about what we mean by the terms good and evil, for instance. That's called ethical philosophy and it's unlikely that an ethical philosopher would end up as a Christian unless he'd started as one already.
Secondly, even if we allow the design argument and accept an intelligent first cause, by what process can you arrive at any view about the nature of the creatrix or her purposes from any observation of the external world or the internal one is our own mental and emotional states. You could arrive at JP's conclusions only if you had some independent evidence. But where is that evidence? Revelation, testimony? Surely it's not because St. Paul said it, is it? You might just as well believe what Mohammed said. Or Joseph Smith. Lastly, let's take the argument presented at the onset by the OP, poor design. This is JP on tsunamis: "One might have supposed ... for the creator to arrange the earth to have a solid crust, but this is not the case. The gaps between the [tectonic] plates allows mineral resources to well up ... and replenish its surface fertility..vital to maintaining.. life upon it". When I hear arguments like this I know that the guy opposite me has got a busted flush.
A rough summary:
Science and religion both seek truth, i.e. an intelligible explanation of the world we lie in.
Science has modest ambitions: to describe how things happen. Religion attempts to answer the more difficult questions of meaning, purpose and value. Both approaches are necessary, because if only scientific truth is admitted the important spiritual dimension of human beings is left unaccounted for.
There are things about the universe (its intelligibility, its fine-tuning for intelligent life, the moral and aesthetic feelings observed in ourselves) which do not compel us to the conclusion of a divine creator, but are plausibly explained by the postulate of a personal God. He affirms his own commitment to a specifically Christian understanding of what that personal God is like.
He argues against conflict and for dialogue between the two disciplines.
Revelation, miracles (where he does quote Hume, Khandro) and resurrection are not incompatible with modern science.
Evil and suffering in the world are an unavoidable possible consequence of a world of “free processes”.
He reiterates the evidence in support of the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, discusses prayer and the Trinity and eschatology.
His final chapter considers other religious accounts of the world which are seemingly incompatible with his own.
Nothing new here for those acquainted with Christian apologetics, Khandro. The only novelty was his anticipation of my argument against his free will defence. “One further question might be asked about the Fall. How can we be sure that life in the world to come will not be threatened… by a second such disaster?”. I’d been saving that question up for the next believer capable of debate who cited human free-will as an explanation of suffering and evil. JP’s explanation: “…in the brighter light of the new creation the divine love and power will be so clearly manifested that all …will freely … embrace the divine will without reserve”.
OK, so where to begin? Firstly, the alternative quest for truth might be labelled less tendentiously as philosophy. or even, metaphysics rather than theology. I think we should ask questions about what we mean by the terms good and evil, for instance. That's called ethical philosophy and it's unlikely that an ethical philosopher would end up as a Christian unless he'd started as one already.
Secondly, even if we allow the design argument and accept an intelligent first cause, by what process can you arrive at any view about the nature of the creatrix or her purposes from any observation of the external world or the internal one is our own mental and emotional states. You could arrive at JP's conclusions only if you had some independent evidence. But where is that evidence? Revelation, testimony? Surely it's not because St. Paul said it, is it? You might just as well believe what Mohammed said. Or Joseph Smith. Lastly, let's take the argument presented at the onset by the OP, poor design. This is JP on tsunamis: "One might have supposed ... for the creator to arrange the earth to have a solid crust, but this is not the case. The gaps between the [tectonic] plates allows mineral resources to well up ... and replenish its surface fertility..vital to maintaining.. life upon it". When I hear arguments like this I know that the guy opposite me has got a busted flush.
v-e: ["post 6:00pm" response] Interesting précis, I have even greater problems with the resurrection adherence, though I admire a man defiantly nailing up his colours, and along with tsunamis etc. looking at the broad canvas, this might be nit-picking.
n.b. many stacks are lost by players believing they know the hand of the guy opposite. More later.
n.b. many stacks are lost by players believing they know the hand of the guy opposite. More later.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.