@pauluc: What is different between your polished cube and a …

Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by Sean Pitman.

@pauluc:

What is different between your polished cube and a pyrite crystal? Would a person unfamiliar with crystal structure think there was any difference between gypsum, quartz or tesselated pavement and your granite cube and which would they really think was man made?

As already explained, the scientific detection of design requires one to spend some time investigating the material in question as it relates to known mindless (without apparent deliberate thought or intelligence) processes of nature. One cannot simply look at something and determine that it was or was not most likely designed without such prior investigative experience. That is, after all, a fundamental aspect of real science – doing some actual investigative work.

Granite Cubes

Why else do you think I use the material of granite, in particular, in the shape of a highly symmetrical polished cube to illustrate my point of design? Obviously, it is because those with even a little experience with the material of granite know that it is not formed into such a shape outside of the input of deliberate design.

Is the perfect inverted cone at the entrance to an ants nest designed with foresight with an understanding of geometry or purpose? Is the positioning of structures within the ant colony intelligent and designed? Do things like the specific positioning of the cemetery and trash heap and the priorities in the efficient use of food sources mindful?

Is a new car that was produced on an automated assembly line entirely by mindless computers and robots really the product of “nature” outside of any intelligent input or foresight? To whom or to what do you give the credit for the existence of the car you drive? – the mindless robots that directly made your car, or the very intelligent designer(s) who made the robots?

You see, just because an ant may not itself have an intelligent mind (like my laptop computer) this does not mean that the abilities of the ant are therefore not themselves detectable as being the evident result of an intelligent mind. This is part of the problem with your understanding of “methodological naturalism”. Real scientific methodologies in no way prevent one, a priori, from detecting the need to invoke theories of intelligent design to explain various features of nature – to include certain features of living things.

I am in no way denigrating the sense of awe and wonder and the beauty that I see in the world at every level from the macroscopic to microscopic but I do not think these issues have any evidentiary value in the process of understanding natural processes or in creating models of biological processes or origins.

Tell me then, how are you able to tell that a highly symmetrical polished granite cube was clearly designed with deliberate foresight and intelligence? – even if happened to be found on an alien planet like Mars by one of our rovers?

You simply aren’t being consistent here. The detection of intelligence behind certain features of the natural world is indeed within the realm of science. The scientific methods used to detect intelligence can be universally applied to all things within the natural world – to include living things. If certain features of living things meet the scientific basis of determining the intelligent origin of artifacts, then upon what basis are living things excluded from such a determination? – outside of non-scientific motivations of personal philosophy and/or religion?

Like all the prophets before Him Jesus’ use of popular concepts and citation of the work of others does not constitute an endorsement of or elevation of the cited work to absolute truth in every detail. He cited the tower falling on in Siloam on 18 (Luke 13:4). Does this mean that it definitely occurred rather than a parable? He cited the Samaritan helping a Jew attacked on the way to Jericho (Luke 10:30). Does that mean this man definitely existed?

As already noted for you, Jesus spoke in the language of personal experience – not just in quoting the works or words of others. He claimed to have pre-existence – to have personally witnessed far distant historical events. That, I would think, is a problem for your position.

As an aside, yes, the historical events of the “Good Samaritan” or the accident in Siloam are believed to be real historical events well known to those to whom Jesus spoke. They were not parables nor where they intended to be taken as such.

Was Matthew or Jesus wrong when He is recorded (Matt 10:23) as saying they would not travel through all the town of Israel of Judea before the coming of the Son of Man? Was Matthew or Jesus incorrect in indicating the destruction of Jerusalem was the same as the end of the world (Matt 24)?

You are quoting prophetic statements here, not statements regarding historical facts. For many biblical prophecies there is a conditional element involved (beyond the potential error of interpreting prophecies to begin with – to include the fact that for the Jewish mind of that day the destruction of Jerusalem was equivalent to the end of the world. So, Jesus mercifully merged the two events into one account).

“It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed… But those to whom it was first preached, went not in ‘because of unbelief’ (Heb. 3:19). Their hearts were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He could not fulfill His covenant with them… [Otherwise] Christ would have come ere this to receive His people to their reward.” – White, SM, B1, p. 67-69.

If you apply the same rigor and scrutiny to the understanding the text of scripture as you seem to apply to scientific literature I suspect you would formulate a more nuance view of revelation than the fundamentalist view of inerrancy that sees only absolutely truth or a God that is a liar.

If someone directly claims to have pre-existence, to have seen various historical events, and those events are shown to be quite different from what was described, what does that naturally do to the credibility of the witness?

I’m sorry, but it seems to me that your attitude here is very much in line with “fundamentalist” concepts of faith regardless of empirical evidence. Upon what basis do you believe that Jesus was in fact God incarnate? or that He will come again to take you to Heaven? – if much of what He said, claimed for himself, and evidently believed, was so clearly contrary to what you believe or “accept” that “science” is telling you? How can your God have been so far out of touch with reality and yet be trusted, in any sort of rational way, with regard to any of the other fantastic metaphysical claims that He made about your own future after this life?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

A “Christian Agnostic”?
@ken:

Effective atheist, closet creationist, close to classic IDist or creationist?

Are you sure it is my agnosticism that is changing rather than your opinion of what I am?

I didn’t say that you were effectively an atheist. What I said was that your arguments for agnosticism were effectively atheistic. There’s a difference. Your arguments for God’s likely existence are obviously the opposite of atheistic – certainly not agnostic either.

After all, someone who claims to believe that the existence of God is “likely”, because of ultimate origin arguments, doesn’t match most people’s concept of an “agnostic”.

So, please do forgive me if I am still way off base regarding your true position…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


A “Christian Agnostic”?
@Ken:

You have transported me from an atheist to a closet creationist in the width of a thread my friend. 🙂 I wonder what you will create me as next?

What have I done? – besides point out that someone who claims that God’s existence is “likely”, based on arguments for ultimate causation requiring a God-like intelligence and creative power, isn’t what most people would call an “agnostic”?

In short, your “agnostic” arguments are the very same ones used by atheists like Dawkins and Hawking and your “God likely exists” arguments are essentially the same ones used by IDists and creationists. How then can I be faulted for suggesting that you’re not really an agnostic or an atheist? While you’re not a classic creationist or IDist by any means, you seem to me to be, at least for now, far closer to such than to pure agnosticism… which is a very hard position to hold, in its pure form, for very long I would think. Certainly Hawking couldn’t do it for long. Eventually one decides, like you, to try to figure out which way the turtles seem to be going…

Of course, you could end up falsifying my hypothesis… 😉

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


A “Christian Agnostic”?
@Ken:

Now I think Hawkings thinking about our universe has evolved since he wrote Brief History of Time, because he is looking at turtles ( metaverses) a level or two upwards. However Grand Design implies grand designer doesn’t it. Can design ever be mindless?

Yes, Hawking has apparently evolved, or devolved if you prefer, from the position of agnosticism to atheism since he wrote A Brief History of Time.

As far as your question as to if a “design” can be “mindless”, the answer to that question is yes – depending upon what you mean by the term “design”. As far as we can tell, anyway, what appears to be “mindless nature” does in fact have certain creative powers (discussed further below).

Who or what created the matter for the first turtle? Ever seen a turtle appear out of nothing, ex nihilo?

This is exactly the reason why many scientists and philosophers have come to the conclusion that the “first cause”, whatever it may be, had to itself have been eternal. Of course there are those, like Hawking for instance, who argue that something can indeed come from nothing… but that belief certainly isn’t scientific in that it is not testable in a falsifiable manner and has no useful predictive power.

I told you I was intrigued by Intelligent Design and Deism didn’t I? And I still say that creation of the original matter for the original universe out of nothing is not a rational proposition. Why? Because science and mathematics can not explain infinity, first cause or infinite regress. And philosophy doesn’t seem to do much better (Munchhausen Trilemma).

Now you’re sounding like a creationist 😉

Can turlles read? For their sake I’ ll state it again: when the atheists, sceintists or philosphers rationally explain to me how ‘original’ matter and energy, that ultimately led to intelligent life, arose out of the mindless void, then I’ll become an atheist.

Me too! The only difference between you and I is that you are impressed with the unlikely appearance of original matter/energy out of nothing without a pre-existent eternal intelligence, while I am also impressed by the origin of the informational complexity needed to get otherwise random non-directed energy/matter to produce useful stuff. Consider that the origin of useful information is just as problematic for the atheistic mindset as is the origin of basic energy/matter itself (By the way, atoms and basic atomic particles are informationally rich, as are the fined-tuned fundamental constants of the universe).

If a faith construct ever satistifactority answers my questions then I’ll join that religion. (All come up relativistically short so far).

Science itself is a faith construct. You cannot make any conclusions as to the likely nature of empirical reality without taking a leap of faith, to one degree or another, beyond that which can be absolutely known.

This was Wesley Kime’s point in arguing that faith and science are forced to walk hand-in-hand. This is also the point of well-known philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn. You simply cannot avoid taking on a “faith construct” of some kind – no one can. The only choice any of us really has is which faith construct to take on…

Part of the problem is what we mean by mindless. Can a human mind know the mind of God?

Not in totality of course since we are finite and God, by definition, is infinite. However, we can known what God has given us to know about himself. In other words, we are capable of comprehending certain limited aspects of God.

What may appear as mindless nature may not be mindless at all if we figure out the Grand Design. I think both Einstein and Hawkings understood and understand this dilemma. In fairness and with great respect I think in what you and Dr. Kime in your own way are trying to do as well: marry faith to science for a more fuller and optimistic view of reality. Please note, especially my friend Wes, that I have stated that this is laudable. Not toying around here, I mean what I say.

Faith and science are already married since one cannot exist without the other. It is just that some fail to recognize when they are in fact taking leaps of faith.

Beyond this, you seem to be making the same point that the founders of modern chaos theory made. In short, randomness cannot be proven. What appears to be a random sequence from one perspective may actually be determined by a simple formula from another perspective. The same thing is true about what appears to be the result of a mindless mechanism. Ultimately, from a different perspective, the same phenomenon may have been known or produced by some deliberate purpose.

The problem, of course, is that our perspective is limited. We can only deal with the limited information that we currently understand. So, the best we can say is that certain phenomenon appear to be the result of apparently mindless mechanisms while other phenomena (like highly symmetrical polished granite cubes, or your automobile) much more clearly require the input of deliberate intelligence.

Might I be stretching the boundaries of agnosticim in saying that even though I cannot prove it – because ultimate creation ex nihilo and infinite regress makes no sense to me – the case for an ultimate grand designer/ force makes more rational, ‘likely’ sense?

You are definitely stretching the boundaries of agnosticism to argue for God’s “likely” existence. This is why I have been saying for some time now that you are not a true agnostic. You are a closet creationist to at least some degree. You present some of the very same arguments used by intelligent design advocates and even creationists in favor of the very likely existence of a God or God-like intelligence behind it all.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.