Intelligent Design: a Catechism

[QMan]

QMan wrote:
Below are some reasons why for many people a designer is probable:
1. The accepted historical accuracy of the miracles and teaching of Jesus Christ. To avoid this You must argue that Christ did not exist and/or that he was simply a charlatan. Of course, the historical accuracy of Christ's life is well established.

uwot wrote:
The majority of people who believe in a designer, people of faiths other than Christianity, don't believe this any more than people of no faith.
Whether he was a charlatan or not, people exaggerate the achievements of their cult figures.

Qman:
I will use the Philosophy 101 ground rule here that you cannot use an unproven or unprovable to prove something else.
Thus, these two arguments with regard to Christ belong in that category and therefore are simply idle speculation and do not invalidate my point.

QMan wrote:
2. The continual occurrence of solidly verified miracles throughout history.

uwot wrote:
I think what you mean by 'solidly verified' is very different to my understanding.

Qman:
Unless you are a competent physician who can evaluate whether a miraculous instantaneous healing has occurred you are not in a position to dispute the term "solidly". You will simply have to rely on someone else's competence (or deny that others are just as competent and observant as you).

uwot wrote:
I would not detract from Dr Neal's testimony. Again, I have no reason to doubt her experience, but the point I have made to Todd Moody is that if you simply accept the testimony at face value, in this instance, Mary went to heaven and back, while it may be true, you are ignoring the opportunity to potentially discover something interesting about what else could cause such an experience; you are not doing science.

Qman:
Clearly, from her testimony, the "what else" was ruled out by Mary as she was a competent observer and actually did science. If she assumed that something else caused this she would have to be talking to herself, be hallucinating. She new that was not the case and what she experienced was real. Also, she stated that what she had been told generally came true.

uwot wrote:
And that is what makes relying on the testimony of individuals or a book so dangerous. It is not just religious books, the same can be said of Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Mao's Little Red Book. The fact that some people are prepared to "accept evidence from other qualified individuals", makes them easy to manipulate.

Qman:
I hope you are not equating God and his field manual to be in the same class as those characters. It seems we have a dilemma here. Since 99.9..,% of any individual's knowledge is not experienced but passed on from outside sources, we obviously depend on that process for us to function properly. Sure, things can go wrong with that, but that does not mean you throw out the baby with the bath water. Personally, I have long since discarded the idea that I am the only competent and qualified observer and evaluator. I will therefore trust based on my evaluation of the probabilities associated with the information I receive. If there is low probability and also speculation, obviously I have to pick the former. That probability should of course be increased whenever feasible with further study and experimentation.

uwot wrote:
The first people despots get rid of are people who challenge them; "the complicating intellectual class" .

Qman:
Why would that be the case? Are they troublemakers?


QMan wrote:
In other words, the designer has decided not to play ball along those lines. However, he has clearly stated in his lab or designer manual (the bible ) which type of experiment he would participate in and what the test conditions, the lab environment, setup, and the tools are that are required for the experiment to produce results. But, of course, that means the experimenter has to read the manual and follow instructions (now, how hard could that be?). Clue (there are other clues), in the manual you find (paraphrased) "seek me with all your heart in all sincerity and you shall find me."

uwot wrote:
I think that is essentially what Todd Moody is trying to do, he is trying to reach a point where you do not question, you do not challenge. This may seem harmless enough in science, but it is an attitude that has been exploited by people who have made life a misery, or short, to countless people. I don't know whether god exists, but one who insists we make ourselves vulnerable to despots big and small, hasn't thought it through.

QMan wrote:
Now, obviously this is a test protocol that physical scientist are allergic to.

uwot wrote:
This is just silly; physical scientists look for physical evidence. If "the designer has decided not to play ball along those lines" then even you admit there isn't any.

Qman:
Have I been misunderstood here? What I am saying is that scientists in the physical sciences frequently seem to have deliberate blinders on. How can you develop a theory about a multiverse (Hawkings, e.g.), try to use that to show that God does not have to exist, but at the same time ignore the fact that God in his field manual gives you the experimental (social science) methods to proof that he does exist. The physical scientist does not accept that fact (hence the allergy analogy). The field manual experimentation is designed with the individual in mind, involves a one on one relationship with a very personal God and obviously demands a different type of experimental approach towards your test subjects (the individual and God). That type of experiment is far more often implemented in the social sciences, including marketing and consumer research, mostly involving questionnaires and statistical recording of responses and experiences. Nevertheless, the methods used like formulating null and alternate hypothesis, statistical evaluation of data, and arriving at conclusions with confidence bounds is the same as in the physical sciences. As I said, the test methodology, lab setting and tool set is provided in the field manual. That field manual (the bible) is readily available to anyone interested in running their own experiment. My suggestion is to set aside a time period of 6 to 12 months for the experiment to complete, evaluate the data, and then report back with the results (perhaps in this forum?). Now, this is all perfectly obvious and I must therefore suspect that personal bias, preconceived notions (or an allergic response?) prevents the scientist from pursuing this course of action.

Clearly, the smart scientist realizes that this type of experiment, which would be mostly centered on the experimenter building up a personal relationship with an entity that he considers to be a figment of imagination may be far more demanding and involved on a personal level then he/she would be willing to get involved with compared to what he is doing currently, namely, scribbling some theories at the desk, handing on instructions to lab assistants, and analysing results for which he thinks he knows the answers beforehand anyway.

[Arising_uk]

QMan wrote:
Below are some reasons why for many people a designer is probable:
1. The accepted historical accuracy of the miracles and teaching of Jesus Christ. To avoid this You must argue that Christ did not exist and/or that he was simply a charlatan. Of course, the historical accuracy of Christ's life is well established. ...

Where is this historical evidence?

You could also argue that much has been distorted and misreported as everything was written much later and through the process of time and translation many errors could have occurred.

[QMan]

QMan wrote:
Below are some reasons why for many people a designer is probable:
1. The accepted historical accuracy of the miracles and teaching of Jesus Christ. To avoid this You must argue that Christ did not exist and/or that he was simply a charlatan. Of course, the historical accuracy of Christ's life is well established. ...

Where is this historical evidence?

You could also argue that much has been distorted and misreported as everything was written much later and through the process of time and translation many errors could have occurred.

Please go to your search engine and type in "historical evidence for Christ."

[uwot]

uwot wrote:
The majority of people who believe in a designer, people of faiths other than Christianity, don't believe this any more than people of no faith.
Whether he was a charlatan or not, people exaggerate the achievements of their cult figures.

Qman:
I will use the Philosophy 101 ground rule here that you cannot use an unproven or unprovable to prove something else.
Thus, these two arguments with regard to Christ belong in that category and therefore are simply idle speculation and do not invalidate my point.

Do you have any idea how many Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Zoroastrians, Rastafarians, Sikhs, etc. etc. there are? Christianity might be the majority view in your neck of the woods, but it is a big world out there and not much of it agrees with you.
Cult figures and political nutjobs have always had their achievements inflated; Pythagoras for instance was said to have had a golden thigh and to have bitten a snake to death, which to Ancient Greeks were signs of divinity. By your reckoning, I am bound to believe that Pythagoras was divine because the story says so.

Clearly, from her testimony, the "what else" was ruled out by Mary as she was a competent observer and actually did science. If she assumed that something else caused this she would have to be talking to herself, be hallucinating. She new that was not the case and what she experienced was real. Also, she stated that what she had been told generally came true.

If you choose to believe Dr Neal's assessment of her experience, that is entirely your prerogative. I am very pleased that she survived being dead, but being a doctor, even an ex-dead one doesn't make you immune to halucinations. Stories of journeys into the afterlife are common and much older than christianity, people can and do make up stories for propaganda purposes. I am not suggesting Dr Neal is not sincere in her belief, but that doesn't make it true.

uwot wrote:
And that is what makes relying on the testimony of individuals or a book so dangerous. It is not just religious books, the same can be said of Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Mao's Little Red Book. The fact that some people are prepared to "accept evidence from other qualified individuals", makes them easy to manipulate.

Qman:
I hope you are not equating God and his field manual to be in the same class as those characters.

No. Those characters were not hiding from physical science. I also think you will find that large sections of the bible, in particular the new testament are of known authorship and it wasn't god. The problem is not any particular book, the problem is that some people put them to very poor use.

It seems we have a dilemma here. Since 99.9..,% of any individual's knowledge is not experienced but passed on from outside sources, we obviously depend on that process for us to function properly.

I think Kayla's observation that 74.3% of statistics are made up on the spot is aposite. Your estimate is an absurd exaggeration. I knew, for instance, that dogs go woof long before anyone told me.

Sure, things can go wrong with that, but that does not mean you throw out the baby with the bath water. Personally, I have long since discarded the idea that I am the only competent and qualified observer and evaluator.

Yes, it didn't take me long to reach that conclusion.

I will therefore trust based on my evaluation of the probabilities associated with the information I receive. If there is low probability and also speculation, obviously I have to pick the former. That probability should of course be increased whenever feasible with further study and experimentation.

Believing other people isn't the problem.

uwot wrote:
The first people despots get rid of are people who challenge them; "the complicating intellectual class" .

Qman:
Why would that be the case? Are they troublemakers?

This is. That you can dismiss 'complicating intellectuals' who challenge regimes that slaughter millions of innocent humans as 'troublemakers' is mind-boggling. Is that really what your brand of christianity advocates?

Have I been misunderstood here? What I am saying is that scientists in the physical sciences frequently seem to have deliberate blinders on.

On the contrary, it is they who are looking farthest and deepest. They can only report on what they find, so far, no sign of god. It is preposterous and hypocritical that you accuse physical scientists of wearing blinkers when you yourself say there is nothing to see:

the designer has no intention of being a subject of investigation for the physical scientist.

How can you develop a theory about a multiverse (Hawkings, e.g.), try to use that to show that God does not have to exist,

No scientist, to my knowledge, has drawn the inference: There is a multiverse, therefore there is no god.

...but at the same time ignore the fact that God in his field manual gives you the experimental (social science) methods to proof that he does exist. The physical scientist does not accept that fact (hence the allergy analogy). The field manual experimentation is designed with the individual in mind, involves a one on one relationship with a very personal God and obviously demands a different type of experimental approach towards your test subjects (the individual and God). That type of experiment is far more often implemented in the social sciences, including marketing and consumer research, mostly involving questionnaires and statistical recording of responses and experiences. Nevertheless, the methods used like formulating null and alternate hypothesis, statistical evaluation of data, and arriving at conclusions with confidence bounds is the same as in the physical sciences.

Really? You can be 100% certain of how people respond to questions about what soap they buy, but if you want to know how they actually behave, you need to check their baskets. Anyway, why does god let himself be subject to this sort of 'science'? What has he got against physical scientists?

[QMan]

Hi Uwot,

Since, by the nature of this type of forum, things can simply end up being point and counterpoint without an apparent end in sight, I will wrap up my part for this train of thought. We have both given our point of view, which is all one can hope to do here. I am from the USA (that's why one sees ridiculous append times like 3am in the morning). Over here, I occasionally watch the TV personality Bill O'Reilly who has fair discussions on his show trying to present both sides of an argument and at the end he always says, let the viewer decide. In our case, I think, we must say, let the reader decide, in the hope that they may find something useful to take away.

For reference:
In the forum "Philosophy of Religion", topic "Delusions of Man regarding God and religion" page 2 you will find my append providing references concerning the multiverse theory as proposed by Stephen Hawkings and analyzed by the Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox. This will clarify what I was referring to. Hope you have a good day.

[tmoody]

You are going around the houses to get back to where you started; why don't you just come clean.

You are looking for evidence to prove there is a God.

I find it offensive that you think it's appropriate to try to "bust" me by some kind of analysis of my motives.

First, by some kind of scientific trail; then by some other mode of reasoning.
How ridiculous.

That's barely an assertion, and not an argument.

And how far have you come from this 2001 article to the present, and your recenty published second edition...

If you want to know my personal opinions about God and any connection to ID, by all means ask me. Until then, I'll thank you to put a lid on the conjectures. When it comes to me, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

There are scientific theories that have metaphysical implications that reach beyond what the science itself can establish. It's not ridiculous.

I frankly have no dog in the race. I don't have any theological or emotional investment in ID. I took an interest in it when Darwin's Black Box was first published, and have intermittently followed it since then. In terms of natural theology, the best it can offer is circumstantial evidence for a creator of some sort. But if ID turns out to be wrong, I'm perfectly okay with that.

[tmoody]

If you accept a conclusion such as 'It was god what done it.' you have ruled out any further meaningful investigation; there is no more science to be done on the subject. Unless there is the potential, at least theoretically, to investigate the agency itself, in other words, to 'see' the designer, there remains the possibility that something else is responsible and that something else is worth investigating. If god comes out and says, 'Aw shucks, ya got me.' we no longer need to do science.

It isn't the business of science to keep scientists busy. Explanations terminate--even naturalistic ones. If there is every a successful "theory of everything" it'll be a "science stopper" too--at least, if "successful" means "unchallengeable."

In the real world, scientists keep challenging even the most successful theories. Even if ID were to become widely accepted, that wouldn't change.

As I've said repeatedly, I see now way to get from a mere design inference to "God done it" without the addition of premises that themselves lack scientific warrant. So the best that ID can do is an inference to an unknown designer. I'm fine with that; you're not.

It's a bit more than that; you ask what X is. You ruled out things that don't exist, Gold Watch Crabs for example, and insist I tell you something in nature that I believe supports the ID hypothesis. The point is, I don't believe anything actual thing does or even could do. As I say, it is not possible to exhaust alternatives to ID, failing to investigate those alternatives is unscientific, ergo; ID is unscientific.

I didn't ask you to tell me something in nature that you believe supports ID. I asked you to say what kind of thing would, in your view, possibly (not actually) count as evidence for ID in nature. You've answered that nothing could. Since you haven't denied the possibility of ID, that leaves you with a theory that is possibly true, for which there couldn't possibly be evidence. As I say, I'll pass on that epistemology.

It's not possible to exhaust alternatives to any scientific theory, given sufficient imagination and ingenuity. Nobody suggests that ID should be accepted so that work on alternatives can be quickly abandoned.

[Arising_uk]

Please go to your search engine and type in "historical evidence for Christ."

Oops! My apologies, looks like there is agreement that a person called Jesus of Nazareth existed but this 'Christ' bit still seems up for grabs, as does the idea that there is a non-partisan accurate description of his life, as it looks like the Bible was knocked-up by the Romans to quell their heretical strife and they picked what suited their needs, religion by committee so to speak.

Do you think it might have been better for Christianity to have kept updating it over the years when material was rediscovered or revealed? For example, add the Nag Hammadi stuff as appendices? Or maybe even ask the Vatican to open their libraries to see what we else can find? Although I guess this could be problematic as in the KJ Bible there's a pretty strong copyright claim right at the end.

[QMan]

Please go to your search engine and type in "historical evidence for Christ."

Oops! My apologies, looks like there is agreement that a person called Jesus of Nazareth existed but this 'Christ' bit still seems up for grabs, as does the idea that there is a non-partisan accurate description of his life, as it looks like the Bible was knocked-up by the Romans to quell their heretical strife and they picked what suited their needs, religion by committee so to speak.

Do you think it might have been better for Christianity to have kept updating it over the years when material was rediscovered or revealed? For example, add the Nag Hammadi stuff as appendices? Or maybe even ask the Vatican to open their libraries to see what we else can find? Although I guess this could be problematic as in the KJ Bible there's a pretty strong copyright claim right at the end.

??? What's the Christ bit?

Did you ask the Vatican to do so? And why not?

[Arising_uk]

??? What's the Christ bit?

Well he wasn't born and named 'Jesus Christ' was he? So the 'Christ' part is an add on and I assume Christians mean it to mean some kind of divinity but the historical evidence of such a thing appears a little short.

Did you ask the Vatican to do so? And why not?

No, because I have little interest in such stuff other than just in passing the time with Christians. I also think the answer would be no, unless of course you're a Vatican theologian approved and vetted by the authorities.

[Arising_uk]

Only a small point but I thought "panspermia" was the idea that life came from meteorites, comets, etc. Not sure where this 'directed panspermia' came from other than sci-fi?

[tmoody]

Only a small point but I thought "panspermia" was the idea that life came from meteorites, comets, etc. Not sure where this 'directed panspermia' came from other than sci-fi?

Directed Panspermia was put forward by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, I believe.

[Arising_uk]

Directed Panspermia was put forward by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, I believe.

Thank you. Goggled it and for me Crick was certainly losing it, philosophically that is. As he's still left with the chicken and egg problem of where did these extra-terrestrials get their DNA from? Unless of course he's proposing that there was some kind of super-natural creation elsewhere or that a different set of evolutionary conditions held elsewhere that enable their formation. Still, off-topic I guess.

Oh! And I thank you for, I think, being the first PN writer to defend their article upon the forum. Hope it's not been too much of a trial.

[QMan]

??? What's the Christ bit?

Well he wasn't born and named 'Jesus Christ' was he? So the 'Christ' part is an add on and I assume Christians mean it to mean some kind of divinity but the historical evidence of such a thing appears a little short.

Did you ask the Vatican to do so? And why not?

No, because I have little interest in such stuff other than just in passing the time with Christians. I also think the answer would be no, unless of course you're a Vatican theologian approved and vetted by the authorities.

You know, the best way to pass some time with Christians is to meet them in person by going to church. Turns out many of them are pretty nice people (and would love to convert an atheist or agnostic). They get brownie points with the big guy for that
So, why don't you help them out?

[Arising_uk]

You know, the best way to pass some time with Christians is to meet them in person by going to church. Turns out many of them are pretty nice people (and would love to convert an atheist or agnostic). They get brownie points with the big guy for that
So, why don't you help them out?

If you mean by a 'Church' a place where people go to pray then I don't do that as Jesus said not to. Otherwise I meet them when they knock on my door to convert me, or in the street when they do that as well, but mainly I prefer to meet them online or in a pub where the conversation can flow.

Still, I think we're going very off-topic here so maybe best to end it.