@ken: Does your desire for immortality affect your interpretation of

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

Does your desire for immortality affect your interpretation of scientific data? In other words if you can’t find meaning in your personal existence without God, do you strive to find whatever evidence you can to prove God and discount everything that militates against God?

Frankly I don’t have any problem with that as long as the bias of creation science is admitted. Atheists should do likewise. Agnostics as a matter of definition do not hold either bias. However just because we don’t know does not mean we won’t continue to make objective inquiries.

Bias is like inertia… it is a force that tends to cause one to continue to go in the same direction as one was previously going. In other words, one’s notions of reality or the nature of the empirical world in which one lives produce a bias that resists adopting contrary points of view. In some sense, such biases can be good, as they create a degree of skepticism or pause regarding new ideas. However, biases can be so strong that they will prevent one from ever accepting the possibility of error. It is at this point that personal bias can become a real problem.

As far as my own biases, I’m sure, as already noted, that my biases affect me. That’s true of everyone – including you. I know you like to trumpet the concept of your own purely objective perspective. However, what you are claiming for yourself is impossible for humans. You’re only fooling yourself in thinking that your position is more objective, rational or “scientific”. You do actually have a very clear bias against the concept of the likely existence of any kind of God that is any more rationally detectable than garden fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster… or any other fairytale invention. Does this concept of empirical reality not form a bias for you based on your own past experience and mental capabilities?

Consider, for example, the arguments of Thomas Kuhn regarding the inherent subjectivity in science and other forms of “rational” thought and understanding:

According to Thomas Kuhn, “When scientists must choose between competing theories, two men fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.” For this reason, the criteria still are not “objective” in the usual sense of the word because individual scientists reach different conclusions with the same criteria due to valuing one criterion over another or even adding additional criteria for selfish or other subjective reasons. Kuhn then goes on to say, “I am suggesting, of course, that the criteria of choice with which I began function not as rules, which determine choice, but as values, which influence it.”

That being said, having an admitted bias does not mean that said bias cannot be rationally overcome if one is at least open to the possibility of being wrong… open to potentially falsifying evidence.

This is one of the dangers of “Christian-evolutionists”, like Pauluc and Erv Taylor (and even creationists like Professor Kent, David Reed, and others), who hold to the value of empirically-blind faith in the empirical truth of certain fantastic claims of the Bible… a faith, or bias if you will, that cannot be falsified or challenged by evidence of any kind – not even in theory. They pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible, based on “faith” devoid of the need for support from empirical evidence, while, at the same time, shaking their heads in pity at the blindness and ignorance of those who believe many of the other claims of the Bible which are no more contrary to the claims of modern science than our their own beliefs regarding the existence and nature of God, the nature of Jesus, or the hope of eternal life through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus from the grave.

At least be consistent in Wonderland. When in Wonderland, what sense does it make to pick and choose what is and isn’t most likely true about what the place says about itself?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

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