From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Apr 24 2005 - 09:10:32 BST
Mark, Ham,
I'm impressed that Mark finds the motivation to argue in such detail ...
I find myself stopping at the point "not up to snuff regarding our current
understanding of the physical universe" whenever anyone cites an "old
philosopher" verbatim as if to prove something. Philosophology teaches
us a lot about historical approaches to philosophical arguments and
their counter arguments, from which we learn the pitfalls, but rarely
actual answers or expalantions in current language.
I sit back in amazement everytime I see a post arguing the creationism
/ blind watchmaker debate in the 21st century. If someone has to do it
I'm glad it's not me.
When Ham says "But who says that ultimate reality must conform to
man's reason?". I say the reason why me (man) are debating it is to
update our reason to reality, not to dogmatically stand by some
previous idea of reason despite reality.
As I said in my "bootstrapping" comment - if you believe the
metaphysical (essential) foundation of reality is necessarily closed
to man - why do you waste your breath debating it ? As long as you can
explain the shape of the hole, why worry about the unattainable peg ?
Asks a pragmatist :-)
It's the classic religious challenge to the scientist - bet you can't
prove me wrong. Err, right, so what ?
Ian
PS Mark, whose is the animal / vegetable quote ? Paley ?
On 4/24/05, Mark Steven Heyman <MarkHeyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2005 at 4:30, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> msh said:
> I've asked several times for your answer to Hume's refutation of the
> Intelligent Design argument. You give no response, yet continue to
> claim that ID is a strong argument for the existence of Essence.
>
> ham:
> Hume's so-called "refutation of an intelligent creator" is nothing
> more than the empiricist's dismissal of *a posteriori* knowledge.
>
> msh:
> A proposition is knowable a posteriori if it is knowable on the
> basis of experience, so I have no idea what you're saying when you
> claim that empiricists dismiss a posteriori knowledge. Your
> statement makes no sense at all, so I won't even try to address it.
>
> ham:
> Since nothing like an "intelligent designer" is implanted in our
> minds, we cannot infer intelligent design from our sense experience.
> Reason has no right to add anything to this experience, or to alter
> the information received by imputing meaning to it. Where, then,
> does the notion of ID come from, and how do we recognize it? The
> analogy he uses is as follows:
>
> "If we see a house,. we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that
> it had an architect or builder because this is precisely that species
> of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of
> cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a
> resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a
> similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect."
> [Dialogues, Part II].
>
> By setting up an inappropriate analogy and claiming that the universe
> does not resemble a house, he says we can't conclude that there is a
> universal architect. Pardon me, but that argument is really dumber
> that it is weak.
>
> msh:
> So, let's see, you dusted off your old copy of Dialogues Concerning
> Natural Religion, carefully reread all 12 parts, and have now
> summarized Hume's criticism of the design argument as "dumb," citing
> as evidence a single quote from Part 2, which, BTW, you have
> completely misinterpreted. Let's at least give the old Scott a fair
> reading, shall we?
>
> For anyone interested in what Hume actually said, as opposed to
> simplistic quotes pasted out of context from some ID infatuated web
> site, here's a link to the Dialogues:
>
> http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm#A1
>
> We need to keep in mind that Hume's language is at times poetic and
> dated, and, of course, not up to snuff regarding our current
> understanding of the physical universe. Nevertheless, though the
> Dialogues were written more than 200 years ago, they are still among
> the most impressive, and unanswered, criticisms of the Design
> Argument.
>
> A careful reader of the dialogues will discern no less than six
> objections to the Design Argument. Since any one of them is
> sufficient to put the Design Argument on ice, I'll spare you an
> analyis of all six. Here are the four I find most interesting,
> though I will be happy to discuss the other two if you so desire:
>
> 1) The analogy between the universe and man-made items is very weak.
>
> This is the point being made in the "dumb" quote Ham has clipped
> above. Hume's house analogy isn't dumb; in fact, as is plain from
> the surrounding paragraphs, his analogy is intended to show the
> weakness of analogies such as "the watch" that offered by Paley more
> than 50 years later. For an analogy to be convincing, there must be
> substantial similarity between the analogy's object and target. I
> know my heart pumps blood through my veins, so I can safely infer
> that your's does the same. There is a strong similarity between you
> and me in that we are both human animals. But is the same inference
> valid between a man and a sunflower? Can we really infer a designed
> universe from the the fact that a watch was designed by a man? It
> should be clear that the universe does not resemble any made-made
> artifact at all. The analogy simply doesn't hold.
>
> 2) - Analogies to the the origin of the universe are meaningless,
> since the "creation" would be a single, unprecedented, and in fact
> unique event.
>
> We have only one universe. Analogies are meaningful only when we can
> compare and contrast a variety of objects or ideas. It is both
> meaningful and useful to compare the attributes of humans,
> sunflowers, tides and watches, but to what do we compare the
> universe?
>
> 3) Intelligence is not the only active cause in the world.
>
> It's obvious that natural phenomena do not require creative
> intelligence to occur. Perfectly symmetrical crystals of quartz,as
> well as dozens of other minerals, will form during the cooling of
> silicon rich magma, and this process is understood without reference
> to intelligent design. The ebb and flow of tides can be explained in
> terms of simple well-understoof gravitational interactions. No ID
> required. In short, there is no reason to believe that because some
> things are intelligently designed, a watch for example, that
> everything in nature must be ID as well.
>
> 4) Even if signs of intelligence are everywhere, it does not follow
> that intelligence created the universe.
>
> This is my personal favorite of Hume's objections. Think of the
> rovers NASA has landed on Mars. They send back their data and
> eventually "die." Now imagine that intelligent life evolves on Mars,
> say several million years down the road, and a smart Martian stumbles
> across one of NASA's rovers. To her, the rover is clearly too
> complex to be anything other than the result of intelligent design.
> Is she logically justified in offering the rover as proof of the
> intelligent design and creation of the universe?
>
> ham:
> I find Paley's "Watchmaker" argument a far more convincing defense
> for ID.
>
> msh:
> I'm sure you do. Still, I'll snip the pasting of Paley's watchmaker
> argument, as it was made 50 years after Hume had refuted the
> formulation in general. I've always thought that if Paley had been
> reading philosophy rather than trying to invent arguments for the
> existence of God, he would have saved himself considerable
> embarrassment.
>
> ham:
> That argument, as you probably know, is still effectively used by the
> ID proponents.
>
> msh says:
> I have no doubt that Paley's argument is effectively used by ID
> proponents in convincing ID enthusiasts that their desired belief is
> logically sound. Of course, the argument has NO effect on anyone who
> has actually read, and is capable of understanding, Hume's
> criticisms.
>
> msh said earlier:
> In the absence of time, the causality principle is meaningless. Even
> in the presence of time, any notion of an uncreated source, primary
> cause, unmoved mover is logically indefensible, unless you simply
> assume the truth of what you are trying to prove.
>
> ham:
> Or, unless one assumes that a primary cause is a primary source, as I
> do.
>
> msh says:
> Exactly. Your arguments will never fail, if you simply assume what
> you are trying to prove.
>
> For now, I'll snip the stuff re the Ontological argument, since it is
> off-topic for this thread, and because your reference to Clinton
> caught with his pants down made me laugh. However, I do want to
> address this point...
>
> ham:
> I make the claim that Essence [e.g., God] "is" without the
> contingency of either "being" or "existing". From a rational perspective, you'll
> tell me that makes no sense. But who says that ultimate reality must
> conform to man's reason?
>
> msh says:
> You are the one who claims that Paley's analogy, a rational argument,
> supports the notion of an intelligent creator of the universe, so you
> obviously believe that reality conforms to man's reason. Why then do
> you claim otherwise only when reason works against your desired
> belief?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
> --
> InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
> Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
> Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
>
> "The world plainly resembles more an animal or a vegetable than it
> does a watch or knitting-loom. Its cause, therefore, it is more
> probable, resembles the cause of the former. The cause of the former
> is generation or vegetation."
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 24 2005 - 09:14:48 BST