Our Debt to the Scientific Atheists

[John_Harshman]

Is making claims about what God would or would not do an example of bad theology?

[Faizal_Ali]

Way to go, “Eddie”. Here is another “claim” I have made in the course of this discussion:

@Faizal_Ali

@colewd

The pieces of evidence are the individual discoveries made. The double slit experiment is one example. The discovery of how photosynthesis works at the molecular level is another.

Those are just deceptions perpetrated upon us by the omnipotent god who created and controls everything.

Do you expect me justify that as well?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Eddie

They represent Faizal’s freely offered opinion on what an omnipotent God would think or do.

No. Please re-read his post. At no point does Faizal make any claims about what a God would do.

[SlightlyOddGuy (Matt)]

I think we’re getting closer, I can feel it!

@colewd

Hi Matt
Discoverability (by design) is the hypothesis.

Discoveries are pieces of evidence supporting the hypothesis. The nature of those discoveries is also evidence for the hypothesis.

Okay, so discoverability by design is the hypothesis, and the discoveries is the evidence—or rather, the nature of the discoveries. Did I get that right?

@colewd

In addition the utility of using pieces of the universe (matter and living organisms) to help examine evidence is also evidence for the hypothesis.

To me, this reads as “discoverability is the evidence for the [discoverability by design] hypothesis. Would you agree or disagree? If you disagree, would you mind sharing how you view it differently?

Thanks in advance!

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Rumraket

Please re-read his post. At no point does Faizal make any claims about what a God would do.

You’re the one who needs to re-read. He wrote:

@Faizal_Ali

quantum mechanics is an excellent example of how the universe is such that our brains are not particularly well suited to understand how it works at the most basic level. What our brains are suited to is figuring out ways to predict what is and is not likely to occur in our surroundings. That is what would be expected if our minds are the result of evolution and natural selection. Not if they were designed by an omnipotent being with the express purpose of allowing us to understand the universe.

First, it’s quite evident from the context (a debate with Bill Cole, who is a Christian who believes in God, and thinks God is the designer), that Faizal Ali’s “omnipotent being” is meant to refer to God.

Second, even though our minds more easily handle the routine things Faizal mentions, it does not follow that they don’t have the capacity to go beyond such routine reasoning, and come to a deeper understanding of nature; and indeed, the very existence of modern physics and chemistry (or for that matter, evolutionary theory) proves that the human mind can be pushed to higher levels of understanding. And how does Faizal know that God would not have designed human beings exactly in this way, so that they would attain understanding of difficult things such as quantum physics etc. only later in their history? How can he say that God would not be expected to design human beings in that way? He could not say that without some prior notion of what God is like, what his motives are and what means he might use to achieve them. Faizal was implicitly theologizing. I challenged him to make his implicit theology explicit. He has declined the challenge.

He also declined the challenge to show where ID is “bad theology” according to even a single religious tradition.

It’s clear he wants to be able throw out comments about God and theology in these discussions, without taking responsibility for those comments by defending them when they are challenged. This is not discussion in good faith.

If he doesn’t provide defenses of his statements, I won’t respond further, to him or to anyone here who is running interference for him. If he is not bluffing, if he really has good reasons for his statements, he should be able to state those reasons without help from others.

[Faizal_Ali]

Kindly quote where I have made any explicit claim about what I believe an omnipotent god would think or do. Thanks in advance!

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Faizal_Ali

Kindly quote where I have made any explicit claim about what I believe an omnipotent god would think or do.

The claim was implicit, but it was there in your words. Do you know what “implicit” means? I’ll give you an example.

Suppose I were to ask you, “When did you stop beating your wife?” In that case, I would be making no explicit claim that you ever beat your wife, but I would be making an implicit claim. And you would be right to say that I was accusing you of beating your wife.

You made a claim that a certain human understanding of nature would be expected to be the way it is if man arose through random mutation and selection, but that it would not be expected to be that way if man came from an omnipotent designer (which in your discussions always means God) who desired human beings to understand nature. You could not possibly claim the last part without some view of your own about how that omnipotent designer would think or what he would intend, etc. You can’t say what would be “expected” if such a being existed without some conception of the nature or operation of that being. If you can’t grasp this implication of your own claim, then logic is definitely not your strong suit.

So you were indirectly making a theological claim. You can choose to flesh it out, i.e., to specify what are the characteristics of the omnipotent designer such that he would not create human beings who found quantum theory difficult to arrive at. Or you can admit that you don’t really have any evidence that an omnipotent designer would not do that.

Similarly, you can choose to specify one significant theological doctrine in one significant religious tradition, in comparison with which ID is “bad theology”, or you can admit that you have no such examples, due to lack of knowledge of religious traditions and/or lack of any examples of ID theology.

I’m assuming you will do neither, but will continue to seek nit-picking, hair-splitting, legalistic, purely technical verbal dodges to avoid defending what you clearly stated or implied. I will ignore all such evasions. If you don’t answer directly, I’ll assume it’s because you cannot defend your claims. And if you don’t care what I think, that’s fine, we can just end this ridiculous discussion quickly.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@SlightlyOddGuy

Okay, so discoverability by design is the hypothesis, and the discoveries is the evidence—or rather, the nature of the discoveries. Did I get that right?

Hi Matt

As John Harshman commented we have 2 hypotheses.

1. Discoverability (vs no Discoverability)
   2.Design (vs no Design)

Discoveries apply to hypothesis 1. The nature of the discoveries apply to hypothesis 2.

@SlightlyOddGuy

To me, this reads as “discoverability is the evidence for the [discoverability by design] hypothesis. Would you agree or disagree? If you disagree, would you mind sharing how you view it differently?

In this case an example of a piece of evidence is a microscope. Where matter (metal glass etc) was able to make an instrument capable (with the addition of human design) of additional discovery.

This supports hypothesis 2 as the ability to use the raw materials of the universe to better understand
the universe looks intentional IMO.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

The claim was implicit, but it was there in your words. Do you know what “implicit” means?

And there goes yet another irony meter…

@Eddie

You made a claim that a certain human understanding of nature would be expected to be the way it is if man arose through random mutation and selection, but that it would not be expected to be that way if man came from an omnipotent designer (which in your discussions always means God) who desired human beings to understand nature. You could not possibly claim the last part without some view of your own about how that omnipotent designer would think or what he would intend, etc.

Close. As you say, I discussed what we human beings would expect of an omnipotent being under those circumstances. But such a being is not obliged to satisfy our expectations. That has been the main thrust of my argument here with @cole: That it is pointless for us human beings to have firm expectations regarding whether and how an omnipotent god would create a universe so that we could understand it. A position that, interestingly enough, you have endorsed yourself.

No, I did not explicitly state this position. It was, rather - wait for it - implied.

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

This supports hypothesis 2 as the ability to use the raw materials of the universe to better understand
the universe looks intentional IMO.

You really need to engage with hypotheses 3-6. Your naked opinion counts for nothing.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Eddie

@Faizal_Ali

Kindly quote where I have made any explicit claim about what I believe an omnipotent god would think or do.

The claim was implicit, but it was there in your words. Do you know what “implicit” means?

I know what implicit means, and there is no such claim, explicit or implicit.

@Faizal_Ali is not saying

• ‘an omnipotent god would do such-and-such’,

he is saying

• ‘if an omnipotent god did such-and-such, we would see this’

You could try saying that he’s making an implicit claim about how an omnipotent god might do such-and-such, but the ‘omnipotence’ aspect makes that problematic.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Roy

@Faizal_Ali is not saying

• ‘ an omnipotent god would do such-and-such ’,

he is saying

• ‘ if an omnipotent god did such-and-such, we would see this

That is correct. But, to be more complete, I am saying “We, as human beings, would expect an omnipotent god to do x if it wanted to achieve y .”

There is no requirement, however, that such a being act in accordance with our expectations, which are primarily based on our experience with how we observe our fellow human beings behaving.

This points to a more basic problem with @colewd /@vjtorley 's argument, in that it begs the question by assuming we human beings are endowed with ability to use our senses and reasoning ability to determine what such a being would and would not do. @Eddie has already expressed his agreement with my position that such an assumption is unwarranted.

Of course, someone as well-versed in philosophy as “Eddie” claims to be would be aware that it is common in philosophical discussion to assume one or more of the premises of an opponent’s argument, even if one does not actually accept these premises, in order to demonstrate that the argument fails even if these premises are assumed to be true.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Roy

@Faizal_Ali is not saying

• ‘ an omnipotent god would do such-and-such ’,

he is saying

• ‘ if an omnipotent god did such-and-such, we would see this ’

That is correct as far as it goes, but you’re failing to complete the argument to reach the implicit conclusion. Here is the completion that you are (deliberately?) suppressing:

“… and we don’t see this; therefore, no omnipotent God did such-and-such.”

This conclusion is implied by the setup of the argument, which amounts to: “We do see what would be expected if man arose out of unplanned evolutionary processes; we don’t see what would be expected if man came into being as the result of a deliberate decision of an omnipotent God; therefore, man arose out of unplanned evolutionary processes.”

So he’s making a claim about what would be expected of man if an omnipotent God existed, and that amounts to a claim about what kind of human being an omnipotent God would choose to create. If you say – or even only imply – that an omnipotent God would never created human beings with an intellect that would make the discovery of quantum physics hard (though not impossible), you are claiming to know something about what an omnipotent God might or might not do. That’s theologizing, plain and simple. Atheist writing these days is full of such theologizing.

@Faizal_Ali

As you say, I discussed what we human beings would expect of an omnipotent being under those circumstances.

Your “we” is impertinent. You were not speaking for “we human beings”, but for yourself, or for a certain segment of your fellow atheists. Many human beings would be careful not lay down any “expectations” about what an omnipotent God might choose. Among those many are a good number of theologians.

@Faizal_Ali

That has been the main thrust of my argument here with @cole: That it is pointless for us human beings to have firm expectations regarding whether and how an omnipotent god would create a universe so that we could understand it.

If that was your argument, then paragraph that I was objecting to was written poorly. It did not convey that idea. It conveyed the idea:

“We do see what would be expected if man arose out of unplanned evolutionary processes; we don’t see what would be expected if man came into being as the result of a deliberate decision of an omnipotent God; therefore, man arose out of unplanned evolutionary processes.”

If you’re now saying that we shouldn’t have any expectations about what an omnipotent God might do, that’s fine, but then your line of argument leading to “therefore unguided evolution” collapses. It collapses because it rests on a premise that has not been established, a premise about the kind of world an omnipotent God would create.

So if you’re not guilty of faulty reasoning, you’re guilty of very unclear writing. In either case, you left the strong impression of implying a theological claim about what kind of human beings (specifically with regard to their powers of reasoning about nature) God would create. I have exposed both the theological character of such a claim, and its dubiousness. So I’ve done my job in improving this discussion. Whether you will back down even slightly, e.g., even to the point of admitting that you didn’t write as clearly as might have, and might well have left a wrong impression, remains to be seen, but as there is little historical precedent for such an admission, I do not expect one.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Faizal_Ali

“We, as human beings, would expect an omnipotent god to do x if it wanted to achieve y .”

Even with the qualifier “if it wanted to achieve y” the expectation is unwarranted. If God wanted human beings to be able to understand quantum physics, he might still have chosen to create human beings who would find the thinking involved in quantum physics difficult, such that it would take centuries of intellectual development before quantum physics would be grasped. He might have wanted such a long historical development to take place. There is no “expectation” that an omnipotent God would not do this. It’s your expectation you are recording, and by representing it as a universal or appropriate expectation, you are merely indicating how you suppose an omnipotent God would think, intend, or act regarding the human capacity (to understand quantum physics, etc.) in question. You are working from your conception of an omnipotent God. And that’s fine, as long as you indicate this, and don’t use pronouns such as “we” to suggest that people in general conceive of God in that way. It’s your generalization from your own conception of what an omnipotent God is like that I was objecting to.

@Faizal_Ali

Of course, someone as well-versed in philosophy as “Eddie” claims to be would be aware that it is common in philosophical discussion to assume one or more of the premises of an opponent’s argument, even if one does not actually accept these premises, in order to demonstrate that the argument fails even if these premises are assumed to be true.

Yes, but in that case, it is normal to state explicitly that one is doing that. It is not good practice to leave it unclear whether one is endorsing a statement or only accepting it temporarily for the sake of argument. In your paragraph that I quoted, you failed to state you were doing this, and thus, you have only your own writing to blame if anyone thought you were giving your own view. I respond to what people actually write, not to what they might be thinking but have failed to say.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

This conclusion is implied by the setup of the argument, which amounts to: “We do see what would be expected if man arose out of unplanned evolutionary processes; we don’t see what would be expected if man came into being as the result of a deliberate decision of an omnipotent God; therefore, man arose out of unplanned evolutionary processes.”

That is not my argument at all. It’s not even the conclusion for which I am trying to argue.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@colewd

In this case an example of a piece of evidence is a microscope . Where matter (metal glass etc) was able to make an instrument capable (with the addition of human design) of additional discovery.

This supports hypothesis 2 as the ability to use the raw materials of the universe to better understand
the universe looks intentional IMO.

Let us presume that you are correct in microscopes not being possible in a universe not designed to be discoverable. That would require that the laws of refraction to not apply to the microscope, and therefore that the reduced speed of light due to scattering as it travels through dense medium not apply. But why should just microscopes be excepted? So if the universe pervasively behaved such that microscopes do not work, then the fundamental physics and constants of the universe would be unrecognizable and nothing would be as it is. So this presumption hangs on an absurdity, that the universe could exist - designed or otherwise - and microscopes not be possible.

Now let us presume that the familiar universe is not designed for discovery. All this requires is that the optics of microscopes work the same way nature works, and that discovery is an just an extension of the resolving capacity of the optics of our naked eyes. The purpose of light scattering is not to discover cells, classify minerals, or fab microchips; the familiar universe would not be here otherwise, let alone our eyeballs. It would seem that reality does not require anything additional or intentional to unlock discovery.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Faizal_Ali

That is not my argument at all. It’s not even the conclusion for which I am trying to argue.

If that’s so, then you wrote unclearly. I’ve explained in great detail why. I won’t repeat the explanation.

[SlightlyOddGuy (Matt)]

@colewd

Hi Matt

As John Harshman commented we have 2 hypotheses.

1. Discoverability (vs no Discoverability)
   2.Design (vs no Design)

Discoveries apply to hypothesis 1. The nature of the discoveries apply to hypothesis 2.

Okay, this is pretty clear, thanks!

@colewd

In this case an example of a piece of evidence is a microscope . Where matter (metal glass etc) was able to make an instrument capable (with the addition of human design) of additional discovery.

This supports hypothesis 2 as the ability to use the raw materials of the universe to better understand
the universe looks intentional IMO.

Sorry, do you agree or disagree with my previous question (we can do “lean yes, lean no” if you prefer):

@SlightlyOddGuy

To me, this reads as “discoverability is the evidence for the [discoverability by design] hypothesis. Would you agree or disagree? If you disagree, would you mind sharing how you view it differently?

It sounds like you may be disagreeing, but I don’t want to make any assumptions here—it’s landed me in hot water before. If you are disagreeing, it’s not entirely clear to me how you see that they differ… would the microscope in your example fit into the discovery category, the discoverability category, or a third category, and if the latter, how would you distinguish that category from the previous two?

Can’t wait to hear your thoughts!

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@RonSewell

Let us presume that you are correct in microscopes not being possible in a universe not designed to be discoverable.

Hi Ron
My claim is that microscopes are evidence for a discoverable by design universe. PCR machines, CT scan machines and thermometers are also evidence for a DBD universe.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

Your “we” is impertinent. You were not speaking for “we human beings”, but for yourself, or for a certain segment of your fellow atheists.

That’s ridiculous. As a psychiatrist, he has a far deeper understanding of the frailties of human thought than you do.

It’s just fascinating that you relentlessly discount the expertise of others and expect everyone to respect yours, which we shouldn’t because you are pseudonymous.

@Eddie

If that was your argument, then paragraph that I was objecting to was written poorly. It did not convey that idea. It conveyed the idea:

“We do see what would be expected if man arose out of unplanned evolutionary processes; we don’t see what would be expected if man came into being as the result of a deliberate decision of an omnipotent God; therefore, man arose out of unplanned evolutionary processes.”

Faizal didn’t write that. Why did you enclose it with quotation marks?