• Gnomon
    3.8k
    The scientific cosmology of THEISM vs DEISM vs ACCIDENTALISM

    In his 2021 book, Return of the God Hypothesis, historian & geo-physicist Stephen Meyer makes a detailed case (science-based and non-scriptural) for Intelligent Design (ID) in evolution as opposed to Dumb Accidents (DA)*1. He's “comfortable with the standard evolutionary story, but with a theistic spin”(Wiki). So he is touting Christian Theism, but tolerantly admits that Agnostic Deism (intelligent but absentee design) also fits the evidence. In my view, the primary difference between Theistic Creation and Deistic Design is Teleological Evolution (front loaded with criteria set in the beginning) versus Divine Intervention (with a few miracles sprinkled into the process ; mostly done to validate prophets, but also to change social and weather patterns to annihilate unruly humans). Ignoring that proviso, his argument sets the philosophical Design *2 inference against the un-designed serendipity cosmology of Atheism.

    He even quotes a Catholic theologian who makes a deist-like argument in favor of Intelligent Design . Surprisingly, Denis Lamoureux uses the term "Evolutionary Creation" in contrast to the Genesis account of Instant Creation. He says "God organized the big bang so that the deck was stacked", and "lets it unfold deterministically" to produce life. That sounds more like a cosmic computer Programmer than the magical spoken-command creation of Genesis. Ironically, the theologian also says that "to invoke a specific instance of design after the initial creation would imply a violation of natural law by invoking the activity of a 'God of the gaps' ". Hence, he thinks pseudoscientific Intelligent Design arguments should be termed "interventionist Design Theory", implying that the supposedly omniscient creator had to make post-creation corrections after his seven day opus, divinely assessed as “good” and “very good” in Genesis.

    Meyer then argues against the theologian by asking "are laws creative?" Obviously, natural laws (regularities) alone would simply repeat the same patterns over & over. So he astutely concluded that "laws are the wrong kind of entity to generate the informational features of life" (e.g. DNA). However, fixed laws (criteria ; limits) plus fortuitous jostling (competition) would combine stability with variability to produce Natural Selection as postulated by Darwin. Conjecturally, randomness (e.g. energetic vibrations) shuffles the original “deck” (initial conditions) into novel combinations, then natural Laws (rules of the game), such as thermodynamics, would weed out the lawless (unfit) forms.

    For a more mundane example : in a dice game of Craps (pure chance), the little cubes sitting still would spell out a fixed number of dots, up to 12. But by shaking & rolling the dice (jostling), that static combination is randomized to display alternative numbers, and if you are lucky, "seven come eleven". Hence, if evolution works as Darwin observed --- by variation & competition --- then Luck or Chance or Probability plays a role in the Selection of viable (life-possible) forms of material objects*3. Moreover, Quantum Theory has found that statistical uncertainty (probability ) is essential to the fundamental functions of Nature. But Luck alone, sans organizing influences, is not a winning strategy, even given infinite rolls of the dice.

    For another instance of the role of regulated irregularity, design engineers originally programmed (initialized) their computers with specific criteria for limiting variables, in order to pre-define the output within a certain predictable range. But as the desired functions became more complex and unpredictable, they were forced to emulate Darwinian natural design. By that I mean their Evolutionary Programs*4 were set-up to use Trial & Error (stochastic*5) procedures to sift-out the "fittest" forms for whatever function the programmers intended : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna .

    In Nature, the laws are by definition stable & consistent, but some destabilizing force causes material forms to change over time, to evolve. And not just random change, but progressive evolution : e.g. from simple-minded ape to philosophical homo sapiens. Physical (causal) Energy alone is aimless, except to move toward the "heat death" of ultimate Entropy. But when combined with those specifying Natural Laws (motion, conservation, etc.) the tumbling dice of evolution may occasionally hit upon a lucky (fitness) number, which will allow them to move on to the next stage of the ecological game : Darwinian selection. Darwin's implicit invisible hand then uses the lawful selection criteria (embodied in the environment) to weed-out the unfit, choosing from the various or mutated options resulting from the “antecedent” randomizing stage.

    The vital element in the game of Life, though, is biological Information, as found in the form of complex chemical patterns (DNA). Hence, German bio-chemist Manfred Eigen concluded that "our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law, that leads to the origin of information". Yet, as Meyer noted, "the regularities we refer to as laws describe highly deterministic or predictable relationships between antecedent conditions and subsequent events". And, "potential information content mounts as improbabilities multiply". Subsequently, the probabilistic law of Entropy weeds out the impossible, allowing only the “fit” forms to pass the sieve. Thus, we know that matter can be transformed over time, as lawlike information is scrambled by competing forces to produce the lovely novelties --- formless Plasma to spiraling Galaxies, and colorless formless Amoeba to the rainbows of flittering-twittering Birds --- that science has discovered in Cosmology and Biology. [images below]

    Another kind of vital Information is found in the Initial Conditions (program inputs) of the Big Bang that somehow pointed ahead to the highly-processed current conditions of our blue dot in the darkness of the cosmos. In the 20th century, based on astronomical evidence and the Big Bang theory, cosmologists began to stumble upon surprising “coincidences”*6 in 26 fundamental Cosmic Constants (“tuned” pre-settings) that appeared to be essential to evolution of Life and Mind. Based on those parameters, the so-called Anthropic Principle*7 made the emergence of living & thinking creatures seem almost inevitable*8. [image below]

    The causal power of the Big Bang, and those law-like settings in initial conditions of the material world, along with the sifting mechanism of competitive selection, could be interpreted to imply that eventually something like genesis-seeking homo sapiens would evolve on a temperate planet without the necessity of remedial divine intervention. Yet Meyer still finds the miracle-working God of the Bible to be more plausible than the nature god (Logos) of Deism & Plato, and more feasible than the Fortuna (goddess of Chance) of Atheism. On the other hand, Anti-Theists seem to find the miracle of Design by Accident*9 (Creative Random Chance ) to be more believable than the notion of Platonic Logic & Intention programmed into the Initial Conditions. Perhaps more relevant to some on this forum, long prior to the 21st century evidences that Meyer analyzes --- Big Bang beginning, Abiotic theories, DNA Genetics, and Information Theory --- David Hume skeptically deconstructed the design arguments of his day*10. Which “hypothesis” do you find the best fit to explain the existence of the living & thinking creatures of the world as we know it today? :smile:

    PS 1 : Apologies for the length and complexity of this introductory post. This is not a formal academic or scientific book review, but merely an amateur philosophical commentary on one chapter : Inference to the Best Metaphysical Explanation. Other constructive comments are solicited. Ad hominems and Straw Men not welcome. [my bold in all quotes]

    PS 2 : For transparency, I must admit that I am skeptical of the mythical accounts (Genesis) of instant creation, and the notion of divine interventions in ongoing evolution, that are implicit in the typical Intelligent Design hypothesis. But Meyer's detailed critique of alternative pre-bang origin theories (Multiverse ; Inflation ; etc.) seem to be credible. To his credit, Meyer includes several chapters --- Conjectures and Refutations --- that respond reasonably & cogently to technical criticisms of his previous books by scientists & philosophers, including Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. But he makes no attempt to justify the scriptural basis of on-going or dispensational Interventionist beliefs.

    Footnotes & Comments :

    *1. Accidentalism is a philosophical theory that some events occur without a cause, or that events can happen by chance or haphazardly. It's related to other theories such as indeterminism and tychism. ___Google AI overview

    *2. Design : from de- “out” + signature “to mark,” from signum “a mark, sign”.
    The word design refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, and is sometimes used to refer to the inherent nature of something – its design.

    ___ Wikipedia

    *3. Viable statistics :According to current scientific understanding, the probability of life emerging on a planet with suitable conditions is considered to be relatively high, although the exact odds are difficult to quantify due to the complex nature of abiogenesis, but the early emergence of life on Earth suggests a fairly significant chance of life arising given the right environment and enough time; however, the probability of intelligent life evolving is considered much lower. ___Google AI overview
    Note --- Statistical Probability is not an accident, since it is predictable.
    "Statistical probability is not accidental" means that when a statistically significant result occurs, it is highly unlikely to be due to mere chance; it suggests a real phenomenon or pattern is likely at play, rather than just a random occurrence.”___Google AI overview

    *4. Evolutionary programming is one of the four major evolutionary algorithm paradigms. It is similar to genetic programming, but the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve. ___Wikipedia

    *5. Stochastic design method : Stochastic design uses random variables and probability to simulate long-term sequences and account for uncertainty. The word "stochastic" means randomness. ___Google AI overview

    *6. Five coincidences that make existence possible :
    From a hot, dense, near-uniform initial state, stars, galaxies, and living planets emerged.
    https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/5-coincidences-make-existence-possible/

    *7. The anthropic principle is a methodological principle that states that the universe's parameters must allow for life to exist. It's also known as the observation selection effect.
    The anthropic principle is based on the idea that the universe's conditions are so delicate that life would not be possible if any of the
    natural constants were slightly different. It's often used in cosmology to test theories about the universe. ___Google AI overview
    Note --- Darwin's model for Natural Selection was intelligent farmers who bred domestic animals with the intention to improve certain features of the stock. But Who pre-selected the critical cosmological parameters, and for what purpose? “Nobody knows” is the Agnostic & Deist position. But Meyer implies, without specifying, that it was the Yaweh/Jehovah of Judeo-Christian scripture.

    *8. Emergence of Life Probability : According to current scientific understanding, the probability of life emerging on a planet with suitable conditions is considered to be relatively high, although the exact odds are difficult to quantify due to the complex nature of abiogenesis, but the early emergence of life on Earth suggests a fairly significant chance of life arising given the right environment and enough time; however, the probability of intelligent life evolving is considered much lower. ___Google AI overview

    *9. "Design by Accident" is a concept in design theory, primarily popularized by Alexandra Midal, which argues that significant design innovations and advancements often arise from unexpected sources, unintended consequences, or "accidents" rather than solely through deliberate, planned design processes; essentially challenging the traditional notion of design as a purely intentional and controlled activity, highlighting the role of serendipity and unforeseen developments in shaping design history and practice. ___Google AI overview
    Note --- Design by Accident is literally an oxymoron. Yet, we can't deny that randomness (accident ; chance) is an essential factor in Evolution. But without the Selection factor it only results in chaos.

    *10. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume criticized contemporary attempts to support religious beliefs in a supernatural deity by inference from appearances of design in the makeup of the world, and then by analogy with human design of artifacts. Hume interpreted the notion of a rational step-by-step designing deity as illicitly humanizing the supernatural God of scripture. When such inferences are disallowed though, we are left with no reasonable answers to the philosophical quest for understanding of ultimate origins. Hence, Hume might advise us Principle Seekers to “shut-up and calculate”. Pragmatic scientists with here & now projects may be dissuaded by such logic, but theoretical scientists and questing philosophers cannot be so easily turned away from their whys of wisdom.
    https://iep.utm.edu/design-arguments-for-existence-of-god/


    PLASMA
    Mv32sjNKMis2SrhxUrPXQX-320-80.jpg

    GALAXY
    potw2114a.jpg

    AMOEBA
    wmgL4ax5vrV8tn4dBueP2e.jpg

    BIRDS
    801468794_eddc168c88_b.jpg

    ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
    300px-Spacetime_dimensionality.svg.png
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    @Gnomon – An interesting summary of Stephen Meyer's polemical thesis; however, dress-up "Intelligent Design" any way – with any jargon – you wish, it is always both fallacious (re: argument from ignorance (i.e. god-of-the-gaps)) and scientistic pseudo-science (re: non-explanatory (i.e. "god did it" ), ergo experimentally untestable (i.e. does not make any unique predictions). Thus, he has not made a compelling case, or sound argument, against contemporary cosmological or evolutionary theories and/or in favor of (a) more testably explanatory model(s).

    Fwiw by contrast, here is the link to a short summery of particle physicist and philosopher Victor J. Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (2007) ...

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    *1. Accidentalism is a philosophical theory that some events occur without a cause, or that events can happen by chance or haphazardly. It's related to other theories such as indeterminism and tychism. ___Google AI overviewGnomon

    An aside. One of the problems for me is the emotional ladenness of this kind of wording. 'Accident' is already contrived as unfortunate. 'Chance' and 'haphazard' also sound like they have a criticism built into the very wording. It's a way of wrapping it all up as 'meaningful' versus 'dumb luck'... Essentially a William Lane Craig move.

    The term "natural laws" also carries the implication of a lawmaker, illustrating how our choice of language can guide us toward specific conclusions and shape a realm of imaginative possibilities. Similarly, the word "design" implies the presence of a designer, though it might more accurately be described as something that 'appears' to exhibit design when viewed from a particular perspective.

    I'm not an academic in this field of cosmology, so I won't allow myself the luxury to speculate on things only a handful of experts can understand.

    It often feels to me that these kinds of arguments come from former devout Muslim or Christians who in the deconstruction of their faith need to salvage some notions of teleological purpose, but frame them in a scientific language to, perhaps, feel less embarrassed about the conclusion.
  • Wayfarer
    22.7k
    Luke Barnes refutes Victor Stenger.

    'The will not to believe is just as strong as the will to believe' ~ Prof Ian Stevenson.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    :up: :up:

    Luke Barnes refutes ...Wayfarer
    :sweat:
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    It often feels to me that these kinds of arguments come from former devout Muslim or Christians who in the deconstruction of their faith need to salvage some notions of teleological purpose, but frame them in a scientific language to, perhaps, feel less embarrassed about the conclusion.Tom Storm
    The Intelligent Design movement did originate as a response to the aggressive New Atheists in the late 20th century. And their ID arguments were directed mainly at believers who might be swayed by the authority of well-known scientists. But in the intervening years, think-tank organizations such as the Discovery Institute have recruited practicing scientists who can reconcile scientific "facts" with their religious beliefs. Stephen Meyer is one of those experts, and he is not in the least "embarassed" by his controversial conclusions.

    Consequently, they can go toe-to-toe and fact-to-fact with the New Atheists, without resorting to "thus saith the lord" assertions. So, I was impressed by Meyers' scientific acumen and his ability to construct plausible philosophical arguments from known scientific facts. However, he makes no attempt to convince the reader of any particular religious creed. Besides, I long ago concluded that the Christian Bible, which was the sole authority for my childhood religion, is not the revealed Word of God, but the tribal myths of priests. So, while I respect the book for its literary importance, I don't accept its jurisdiction in matters of scientific or historical fact.

    Nevertheless, I have independently reached the conclusion that the universe, as depicted by a broad array of scientific facts, shows signs of Teleological Evolution (e.g Anthropic principle). But I doubt that the Mind behind the design is the kind of God-king depicted in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. So, while I practice no religion, and remain Agnostic about the implicit designer/programmer, for my philosophical purposes I take Teleology seriously. I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system).

    My personal "-ism" has been repeatedly attacked by the trolls on this forum, apparently because they feel the need to "salvage" their own "devout" Atheistic metaphysical beliefs. Hence, they typically resort to Ad Hominem and Straw Man arguments instead of scientific or philosophical reasoning. Yet, I posted this thread with the hope that such a hot topic can be discussed calmly and reasonably and philosophically. This assumes that few of us are experts in Physics or Biology or Cosmology. So, we need to remain humble enough to avoid haughty or supercilious attitudes.

    Therefore, the topic to be addressed is not Christianity or Islam or Jehovah or Allah, but the notion of trial & error Evolutionary Creation of the current cosmos over eons from law-like Initial Conditions as discovered by Astronomers, not Astrologers. It's a modern concept that was unknown to the writers of ancient scriptures. But 1500 years ago, Greek philosophers postulated the necessity for philosophical principles, such as Logos or First Cause, long prior to our modern notions of Initial Conditions or Big Bang beginning. Can we treat this hot topic, not as a hot potato, but as a legitimate philosophical conundrum? :smile:

  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    Can we treat this hot topic, not as a hot potato, but as a legitimate philosophical conundrum? :smile:Gnomon

    Variations of the teleological argument are amongst the most common arguments we hear, so I don't think anyone is saying it isn't a hot topic for many people.

    I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system).Gnomon

    Why have you found it important to do this?
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system). — Gnomon
    Why have you found it important to do this?
    Tom Storm
    I explain the whys & wherefores in great detail in the Enformationism thesis and blog. As the name implies, it is based on the expanding role of Information in 21st century science, and has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Yet, the Materialist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death. That negative attitude is contrary to the positive outlook of some religions, which are viewed as mawkishly optimistic, and needs to be suppressed by any means necessary.

    However, my philosophical perspective centers on Energy (negentropy ; EnFormAction) as the causal & organizing force behind the progressive stages of evolution that modern science has discovered since the Big Bang creation event. The basic facts are well established, but the interpretation of those data points remains to be worked-out, not by pragmatic scientists, but by theoretical philosophers.

    Why is it important? Ask Plato and Aristotle why they produced non-religious theories that have influenced the world for 1500 years. Like them, I remain Agnostic about the pre-bang source of Natural Laws (Logos) and of cosmic causation (First Cause). I don't expect salvation from the Entropic Reaper. But I have nothing better to do with my retirement time than to dabble in Ontological & Epistemological philosophy. :smile:

    Enformationism :

    This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical and scientific hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.

    This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.

    I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.

    https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    Well I ask mainly because I am interested in why people think certain ways. Some people are theorists and system builders by inclination and see philosophy as an enterprise to build Truth. I think of it more as a series of systems people identify with for various reasons often, it seems to me, these are dispositional and aesthetic, with post hoc reasoning bolted on afterwards.

    Yet, the Atheist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death.Gnomon

    There is no atheist worldview. This is a talking point from William Lane Craig.

    Atheism is simply about whether or not you belvie a god exists. Some atheists I know are into theosophy, mysticism, magic, astrology, etc.

    I think the group you are thinking of are a particular crew of scientistic secular humanists. Those who feel that they must have an alternative physicalist cosmology to the ones provided by mythologies.

    Why is it important? Ask Plato and Aristotle why they produced non-religious theories that have influenced the world for 1500 years. Like them, I remain Agnostic about the pre-bang source of Natural Laws (Logos) and of cosmic causation (First Cause). But I have nothing better to do with my retirement time than to dabble in Ontological & Epistemological philosophyGnomon

    I'm more interested in the emotional need such cosmology satisfies. It seems to me that some people need answers to certain quesions, others don't. I often wonder why that is.

    Does the argument from contingency interest you too?
  • Wayfarer
    22.7k
    It's a pretty carefully put-together OP, but on an unpopular topic.

    The first forum I signed up to was on Richard Dawkins website, around 2008, which played host to many of these debates. Hilariously vituperative. Some of the representative atheists' views were hostile to the point of hysteria.

    Then there was a labyrinthine thread that ran for years across various forums (although not this one or its predecesor) by one Perry Marshall, who is a software executive that also has an interest in the argument from biological information. His main argument is simply that DNA is a code, not a pattern, and that there are no instances in nature of spontaneously-occuring codes, ergo it implies an intelligent act. Those debates brought in many references to a book by Hubert Yockey, who studied the application of information theory to biology. I looked at a copy in a library, but it really takes postgrad level biology and information science to understand. Suffice to note that whilst Yockey strongly rejected any attempt by ID to enlist him, but he also said that the question of the origin of DNA was an undecideable question in the formal sense. Which could be taken as 'scientific support for agnositicsm'.

    I must admit that I am skeptical of the mythical accounts (Genesis) of instant creationGnomon

    Those accounts are plainly mythological in origin. There are two creation myths in Genesis. There are inumerable creation mythologies in sorrounding Semitic and other ancient cultures. I think attempts to justify any such myths from a scientific perspective are wildly misplaced. But then, for those who never thought that they were intended as literal accounts, the fact that they're *not* literal accounts doesn't have nearly the signficance that the Dawkins of this world seem to want to attribute to it.

    And what does 'instantaneous' mean? Like the sudden appearance of the entire Universe from an infinitely minute and dense singularity? (Mind you, Georges LeMaitre, who came up with the 'big bang' cosmology, strenuously objected to the comparison, wanting to keep the religious and scientific accounts separate. )

    I think a philosophical point behind many of these arguments is the question of whether and in what sense science accounts for scientific laws. The way popular atheism often frames it, science can account for or explain the order of nature with reference to scientific laws. But the nature of scientific laws is not itself a scientific question, but a metaphysical one. We don't know why the regularities of nature are such that they can give rise to complex matter, as distinct from hot plasma or simple chaos. But I question whether that is a scientifically adjuticable matter, but again, at best that justifies agnosticism (a term, let's not forget, that was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, 'Darwin's Bulldog', about just these questions. And it's also interesting to note that he deplored atheism as much as creationism.)
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    It seems to me that some people need answers to certain quesions, others don't. I often wonder why that is.Tom Storm
    Perhaps some emotionally need certitude, or an illusion of knowledge (i.e. severe allergy to admitting what (that) they don't know (e.g. woo-of-the-gaps)), whereas others do not have such an acute anxiety and even thrive from exploring intractable unknowns, indicative by their willingness to say "I/we don't know". The latter seems to me (I don't mean to stereotype / caricature) an artistic-philosophical-scientific disposition and the former more magical-mythic/cultic-mystical than not.

    an alternative physicalist cosmology to the ones provided by mythologies
    :up: e.g. Thales and the other Milesian as well as Ionian & atomist Pre-Socratics ...
  • Wayfarer
    22.7k
    severe allergy180 Proof

    :chin:
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    Yet, the Atheist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death. — Gnomon
    There is no atheist worldview. This is a talking point from William Lane Craig.
    Tom Storm
    I assume you are saying that there is no specific Atheist dogma. Likewise, there is no single Theist creed. But I was thinking about a general attitude toward the world, that varies between Theism on one end and Atheism on the other. My personal view is somewhere in the middle. As far as my Christian relatives are concerned, I qualify as a hell-bound Atheist and unrepentant unbeliever. :wink:

    Atheist Worldview :
    Atheism is a label that describes a person's answer to the question of whether or not they believe in a god, but it doesn't define their worldview. Atheists typically believe that the existence of a god is unlikely and that there is no good reason to believe in one. However, an atheist's worldview can vary widely, and they can hold a variety of beliefs and values. ___Google AI overview
    Note --- Based on my philosophical research over many years, I have concluded that the existence of something like a First Cause/Creator is not only "likely", but also logically necessary. And Meyer's book gives some philosophical & scientific reasons for reaching that deduction from available evidence. I assume that W. L. Craig has come to a similar conclusion, but he's also a "Christian apologist", I am not. Also, due to my dabbling in Deism, the Atheists on this forum probably would not accept me into the cool-guy club. :cool:


    I'm more interested in the emotional need such cosmology satisfies. It seems to me that some people need answers to certain quesions, others don't. I often wonder why that is.
    Does the argument from contingency interest you too?
    Tom Storm
    Sounds like you are trying to put me in a fervent religious nut box. But I am by nature and by nurture a Stoic dispassionate person. So, I don't have any visceral "need" for a slam-dunk cosmology or authoritative assurances of answers to vexing questions. My intellectual rejection of the biblical basis of my childhood religion was not accompanied by strong emotions. And yet, I had been told by my religious authorities that eternal Hell was the destination for unbelievers. So, it took a while to get over that uncertainty about my eternal destiny. But I no longer worry about such mythical maybes. Do you have some "emotional need" that motivates you to post on a philosophy forum? Apparently, I do have some intellectual need to ask philosophical questions. Do you? :nerd:

    "Argument from contingency" ? No, I've never given that Scholastic reasoning much thought. But the scientific Big Bang theory portrays our space-time world as Contingent (e.g. not eternal): hence without a plausible First Cause, the Cosmos is open-ended and un-defined. Is that OK for you? Apparently, some scientists are bothered by that discrepancy, so they make up just-so stories about 26-dimensional String Worlds, Multiverses, Parallel Universes, and Many Worlds, none of which is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, no more valid than any God postulate. :smile:

    The “Argument from Contingencyexamines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God.
    https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    There is no atheist worldview.Tom Storm
    No doubt.

    However, do you agree 'there is a naturalist (or anti/non-supernaruralist) worldview of the few' in contrast to 'the supernaturalist (or anti/non-naturalist) worldview of the many'? (i.e. like 'Jacob and the angel' (or 'Sisyphus and his stone'), Logos-seeking self always struggling with Mythos-pretending ego, respectively?)
  • wonderer1
    2.2k
    The Intelligent Design movement did originate as a response to the aggressive New Atheists in the late 20th century.Gnomon

    You are asserting misinformation again. What a surprise.

    The Intelligent Design movement might reasonably said to have been kicked off with The Wedge Document:

    Overview

    The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers.

    The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

    "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
    "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
    There are three Wedge Projects, referred to in the strategy as three phases designed to reach a governing goal:

    Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity
    Publicity and Opinion-making
    Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
    Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms the strategy's Christian, evangelistic orientation:

    Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to popularize our ideas in the broader culture.[12]

    The wedge strategy was designed with both five-year and twenty-year goals in mind in order to achieve the conversion of the mainstream. One notable component of the work was its desire to address perceived social consequences and to promote a social conservative agenda on a wide range of issues including abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, and other social reform movements. It criticized "materialist reformers [who] advocated coercive government programs" which it referred to as "a virulent strain of utopianism".

    Beyond promotion of the Phase I goals of proposing Intelligent Design-related research, publications, and attempted integration into academia, the wedge strategy places an emphasis on Phases II and III advocacy aimed at increasing popular support of the Discovery Institute's ideas. Support for the creation of popular-level books, newspaper and magazine articles, op-ed pieces, video productions, and apologetics seminars was hoped to embolden believers and sway the broader culture towards acceptance of intelligent design. This, in turn, would lead the ultimate goal of the wedge strategy; a social and political reformation of American culture.

    In 20 years, the group hopes that they will have achieved their goal of making intelligent design the main perspective in science as well as to branch out to ethics, politics, philosophy, theology, and the fine arts. A goal of the wedge strategy is to see intelligent design "permeate religious, cultural, moral and political life." By accomplishing this goal the ultimate goal as stated by the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the "overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies" and reinstating the idea that humans are made in the image of God, thereby reforming American culture to reflect conservative Christian values, will be achieved.[13]

    The preamble of the Wedge Document[14] is mirrored largely word-for-word in the early mission statement of the CSC, then called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.[13] The theme is again picked up in the controversial book From Darwin to Hitler authored by Center for Science and Culture Fellow Richard Weikart and published with the center's assistance.[15] The wedge strategy was largely authored by Phillip E. Johnson, and features in his book The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism.

    Origins
    Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999, by Tim Rhodes,[16] having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."[17] Meyer once claimed that the Wedge Document was stolen from the Discovery Institute's offices.

    New atheism might be said to have been kicked off six years later with the publication of The End of Faith by Sam Harris, and planes being flown into buildings by religious terrorists on 9/11 was the motivation for new atheism.
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    Sounds like you are trying to put me in a fervent religious nut box. But I am by nature and by nurture a Stoic dispassionate person.Gnomon

    Just as you insist on putting atheists into fanatic scientism boxes? ( :wink: that's just a quip)

    Not at all. I’m an atheist more by aesthetics and emotion than by reason. The argumentation comes after the fact. Theism doesn’t assist me to make sense of the world, so my atheism is ultimately an emotional response. As I’ve often said, belief in gods—or in any supernatural guiding principle—is more like a preference, akin to sexuality. You can’t control what you’re drawn to; the real task is to understand why.
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    However, do you agree 'there is a naturalist (or anti/non-supernaruralist) worldview' of the few in contrast to 'the supernaturalist (or anti/non-naturalist) worldview of the many'?180 Proof

    Yes, I think that's fair. I dislike The Atheist Worldview because it belongs to those ignorant talking points of Muslim and Christian apologists who have to turn the discourse into a team sport.
  • Moliere
    4.8k
    Hrm.

    Sounds like you're one of those blasphemous philosophers....
  • Clearbury
    207
    A monkey randomly hitting the keys of a typewriter will eventually produce something resembling all the works of Shakespeare. Similarly, if we assume an Epicurean view of the physical universe - that it is ultimately composed of tiny atoms moving around indeterministically - then given enough time, there would be outbreaks of order. They'd be incredibly rare, but they would occur from time to time. And it is only in such ordered outbreaks that there could develop entities capable of observing and theorizing about the order they're witnessing.
    Given the above, this seems the more reasonable thesis about the order we observe. And it does not affect the power of this case to note that the odds of order arising from disorder is vanishingly small.

    These points were made by Hume, but I don't see that anything in the opening post challenges them.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    Just as you insist on putting atheists into fanatic scientism boxes? ( :wink: that's just a quip)Tom Storm
    A quip from the hip! :joke:
    No, I don't put Atheists into "fanatic scientism boxes". That would be Materialists, who imagine that they have a special relationship with Science. I have another empty box, with no label, for Atheists. My box is also empty, and labeled "Agnostic but Inquisitive". :smile:

    PS___ Do you know any Atheists or Materialists, who would like to discuss the philosophical ideas in the OP, instead of just putting them in a pigeonhole that can be easily dismissed as bird-sh*t?
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    Do you know any Atheists or Materialists, who would like to discuss the philosophical ideas in the OP, instead of just putting them in a pigeonhole that can be easily dismissed as bird-sh*t?Gnomon

    I don't think I know any materialists. I would avoid the word materialists and swap it with naturalists, as most would now describe themselves - materialism being understood as too reductive. I would probably consider myself a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical naturalist. I have not ruled out idealism, for instance.

    But for me as a non-scientist, non-philosopher, I do not have the luxury to speculate about the nature of reality. I leave that to the people with qualifications and stratospheric IQ's. My own preference here is that the nature of reality (which apparently is hidden) is mostly unimportant and has no bearing on how I conduct my life.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    A monkey randomly hitting the keys of a typewriter will eventually produce something resembling all the works of Shakespeare.
    These points were made by Hume, but I don't see that anything in the opening post challenges them.
    Clearbury
    The imaginary random monkey Bard seems to be an article of faith for some believers in providential Chance. Meyer's book does address the mathematical implausibility of the typing monkey myth. The OP does address Hume's argument, by noting the modern scientific facts that he was ignorant of. :smile:


    Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds
    https://phys.org/news/2024-10-monkey-unable-hamlet-lifetime-universe.html

    Richard Dawkins’s Weasel Program Is Bad in Ways You Never Dreamed
    The program “evolves” a string of gibberish letters into a line from Hamlet: “Methinks it is like a weasel.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    But for me as a non-scientist, non-philosopher, I do not have the luxury to speculate about the nature of reality. I leave that to the people with qualifications and stratospheric IQ's. My own preference is that the nature of reality is mostly unimportant and has no bearing on how I conduct my life.Tom Storm
    OK. I apologize for disturbing your "dogmatic slumber". :smile:

    “I freely confess: it was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago, interrupted my dogmatic slumber,” says Kant in the Preface to the Prolegomena
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    However, do you agree 'there is a naturalist (or anti/non-supernaruralist) worldview' of the few in contrast to 'the supernaturalist (or anti/non-naturalist) worldview of the many'? — 180 Proof
    Yes, I think that's fair. I dislike The Atheist Worldview because it belongs to those ignorant talking points of Muslim and Christian apologists who have to turn the discourse into a team sport.
    Tom Storm
    Do you agree with 180's slur that anyone who discusses the nature of Nature on a philosophy forum is a "New Age nut", or perhaps a "Muslim and Christian apologist". Is that an Ad Hominem or a Red Herring or some other fallacy, used to avoid grappling with difficult questions? Are Ontology & Cosmology disallowed in your philosophy? Both attempt to view Nature from the outside. :smile:


    Cosmology is the study of the universe's nature, including its origin, development, structure, history, and future.. Google AI overview

    In philosophy, a "privileged viewpoint" refers to a perspective or standpoint that is considered to provide a more accurate or complete understanding of a situation due to the unique position or experience of the person holding that view, often implying that this perspective is superior to others due to their specific access to knowledge or insights not readily available to others; this concept is closely tied to "epistemic privilege" where someone has privileged access to certain knowledge, like their own thoughts, through introspection. Google AI overview
    Note --- Both Muslims and Christians claim to have access to a "privileged viewpoint" on questions of Epistemology and Ontology. Gnomon does not make such a claim.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    :up:

    :up: :up:

    belief in gods—or in any supernatural guiding principle—is more like a preferenceTom Storm
    for fact-free, non-corroborative stories (rationalized with pseudo-philosophizing) rather than fact-based, corroborative stories (interpreted via critical philosophizing)
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    OK. I apologize for disturbing your "dogmatic slumber". :smile:Gnomon

    Hmm, the borrowed quote is not quite right. Slumber is fine - do you know how difficult it is to get a good sleep? Dogmatic - no. I have no inflexible commitments to any particular account of reality as explained.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    I don't think I know any materialists. I would avoid the word materialists and swap it with naturalists, as most would now describe themselves - materialism being understood as too reductive. I would probably consider myself a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical naturalist. I have not ruled out idealism, for instance.Tom Storm

    Sure you do. You just don't like to rudely call a spade a spade. Do you see the deficiencies of metaphysical Materialism (Energy is physical but immaterial), that are glossed-over in sensable
    Naturalism?

    From a biased perspective of Methodological Naturalism, any super-naturalism would be invisible and unthinkable. Does the supernatural Multiverse hypothesis make any sense from your perspective? Does Plato's Idealism expand your perspective to include General Principles that are known only via rational inference instead of sensory perception? :smile:


    Energy is considered a physical quantity that describes the ability to do work, but it is not a material substance; meaning it cannot be physically touched or seen, unlike matter, and is only observed through its effects on objects or systems. ___Google AI overview

    As I’ve often said, belief in gods—or in any supernatural guiding principle—is more like a preference, akin to sexuality.Tom Storm
    For philosophers, such as Plato & Kant, General Principles are inferences, not preferences. Whether they are "guiding" may be more like a gender preference. For Gnomon, they are like Laws of Nature : known only by inference from observing the behavior of the dynamic world. :smile:
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    Do you agree with 180's slur that anyone who discusses the nature of Nature on a philosophy forum is a "New Age nut", or perhaps a "Muslim and Christian apologist".Gnomon

    This sounds defensive. You borrow my phrase here but I have not said anyone is a Muslim or Christian apologist, just that a few moves made here are reminiscent of their moves. does not seem to be saying this to me. He seems to investigate things and then assesses on the basis of his philosophical reading and understanding what fits into the bogus pile and what does not. Isn't that what you do? Don't most of us do this? The difference is that our piles (and the reasoning which built them) look different.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    Hmm, the borrowed quote is not quite right. Slumber is fine - do you know how difficult it is to get a good sleep? Dogmatic - no. I have no inflexible commitments to any particular account of reality as explained.Tom Storm
    Sorry! I was not calling you "dogmatic", only hinting that your chosen philosophical perspective might be missing something that is right under your naturalist nose, so to speak. I appreciate the moderation of your posts. Some other methodological Naturalists are so dogmatic that I don't waste my time dialoging with them. :smile:
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    This sounds defensive.Tom Storm
    My mashup of 180 and T.Storm comments was indeed defensive. He aggressively and dismissivley attacks my posts with implications that my personal ideas are merely parroted religious doctrines. Since I no longer dialog with him, I sometimes get in a Parthian shot in a post to someone else. I apologize if the arrow came too close for comfort. :yikes:

    PARTHIAN SHOT
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyi0jkAobjTWOcmzwwSQ5uSAqfcQI-VWEl0qI8Xx-vk0X09kK2DNDYmCogL9ASYwZ-MPM&usqp=CAU
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.