Comment on Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God” by Sean Pitman.
@Brad:
This is multiply mistaken. First, Hacking does not agree that the universe is fine tuned; he simply grants it for the sake of argument.
I don’t see how anyone could seriously argue that our universe isn’t finely tuned to support complex life, but ok…
Second, and more seriously, the argument you attribute to Hacking is in fact the argument he rejects on the grounds that it commits the inverse gambler’s fallacy. Hacking draws a distinction between the hypothesis of a sequence of universes generated by chance (the hypothesis you describe, which commits the fallacy) and the hypothesis that all possible universes exist (a hypothesis you neglect, which does not commit the fallacy).
Point taken. I’ve corrected this error as well in my original post. Do let me know if I have done this properly or if any additional notation is needed to make such edits clear. I’ve sent you a personal E-mail along these lines if you feel more comfortable responding in private to me directly on such points.
However, Hacking’s argument that those who appeal to the Wheeler multiverse model commit the “Gambler’s Fallacy” has been challenged. See the following comments by P. J. McGrath:
Hacking has misrepresented the sort of reasoning employed by those who appeal to the Wheeler model to explain the delicately balanced nature of the universe we inhabit…
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2255171
Essentially, what this multiverse notion does is remove the basis of science itself. After all, given the “proper†universe any “unlikely†outcome can be explained by pure chance. There would be no scientifically determinable cause and effect, induction or deduction, or predictive value for any hypothesis since all could be explained by the multiverse theory – a theory that is itself not currently testable in a falsifiable manner and is therefore not scientific. In fact, it is anti-science. – Sean Pitman
These remarks are curious given that the situation is perfectly analogous to the your preferred design hypothesis. Any outcome can also be explained by design, the hypothesis does not imply any predictions, and it is “not currently testable in a falsifiable mannerâ€. Anything you say in reply can also be said about the multiverse hypothesis.
You are correct in noting that pretty much any outcome can be explained by intelligent design of one form or another. However, not just any outcome can only be explained by ID. That is why I call my hypothesis the ID-only hypothesis. The ID-only hypothesis is testable and potentially falsifiable. All one has to do is show a mechanism producing the phenomenon in question that cannot be differentiated from a mindless process and the ID-only hypothesis is neatly falsified.
For example, all one would have to do to falsify the SETI hypothesis is to show that the particular types of radio signals that they would deem artificial could easily be produced by non-deliberate natural mechanisms. If this happened, the basis of SETI would be out the window…
The same thing is true of all sciences that are based on the invocation of ID to explain various phenomena.
This is fundamentally different from the multiverse notion where everything can be explained by random chance or other mindless processes with no way to differentiate or detect anything else as a likely mechanism. Intelligence cannot be detected, not even human-level intelligence, given such multiverse ideas – to include Hacking’s definition of the multiverse as containing all possible universes.
While this is true, science doesn’t go with what is merely possible, but what is probable given the available evidence at hand. This is the reason why nobody reading a Shakespearean sonnet would think that it was the product of any kind of mindless random production. The same would be true if you were to walk out of your house and see that the pansies in your front yard had spelled out the phrase, “Good Morning. We hope you have a great day!†Given such a situation you would never think that such a situation occurred by any non-deliberate mindless process of nature. You would automatically assume deliberate design. Why? Do you know? – Sean Pitman
Well yes, I think it’s for the reason Sober goes on to give in the paper—reasons which do not translate to the context of the biological design argument. But before I explain, I want to make sure we’re on the same page on these earlier points.
Please do explain, whenever you’re ready, why the above examples do not translate into biological design? After all, it seems to me like I could use the multiverse hypothesis against all of the above arguments for design outside biology – even Hacking’s version. I could use such arguments against the otherwise obvious need for ID of computer systems. I could use it to undermine SETI or the whole field of anthropology. So, upon what basis are such arguments justified when talking about biosystems, but not when talking about radio signals? – or highly symmetrical granite cubes?
I’ve asked you this same question over and over again. I’m very curious as to your eventual reply…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God”
@Professor Kent:
My understanding is that, historically, Adventist fundamental beliefs have shifted in ways that individuals holding one particular position, including Ellen White herself at times, could have been expelled from the Church by those holding another particular position. There was a time when those of the Church held different views on what 24-hour period of the day should be kept as Sabbath (it wasn’t always sunset to sunset); the Godhead (we once rejected the trinity); and righteousness by faith (we once believed in righteousness by works).
These disagreements occurred before certain agreed positions were so settled in the minds of the founding fathers and mothers of the SDA Church that they became “fundamental” pillars of the SDA faith. The current list of fundamentals was not always as it currently stands. It grew and developed over time. It is only expected that as more information comes clearly to light that the list of important “fundamental” beliefs would also expand over time.
And, as the early Church founders soon discovered, without the maintenance of internal order, discipline, and government within the Church, as based on the concept of “present truth”, as understood by the organized body of believers, the organization soon begins to fragment towards chaos and irrelevance…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God”
@Professor Kent:
Sean, while I could agree with your statement on a prima facie basis, I think one needs to dig a bit deeper here. This statement basically says that we don’t need the Bible or any type of falsifiable evidence or even beliefs to gain admission to heaven, which seems to contradict what you often state (not to mention the purpose of this website). I could be wrong, but I believe that God is able to claim souls who lack knowledge in Him because he can judge whether they would accept Him and Christ’s sacrifice if they had representative knowledge of Him.
Exactly…
It just goes to show that it is motive, not current knowledge or beliefs, that is important when it comes to judging if a person is or is not savable.
This idea does not contradict my efforts to uphold truth as I see it. Just because knowledge is not the basis of salvation does not mean that it isn’t important. Knowledge is the basis of the solid conscious hope of the Gospel message. While one can be saved without ever having a conscious knowledge of this future glory while here on Earth, it sure would be nice to have known while here – right?
I’m not convinced that God saves them because they have “love;†after all, many animals give well-documented evidence of having love, which is an instinct written in the genes of many life forms, including most humans (I’ve met a few who could be exceptions). I suspect that He who knows us in the womb can discern much more than our love, and recognizes what our choice would be given an opportunity to know Him and serve Him.
Our moral choices are based on motive, not knowledge. While animals do express love and devotion to their masters, they cannot appreciate moral freedom as we humans can. They have not been given moral responsibility or choice as we have been given it. Free moral choices are based on the motive of love – of doing unto others as you would like to be treated because of your love for your neighbor.
Remember, it was Jesus who pointed out that all the Law and the Prophets were built on the single “Royal Law”, and James put it, of Love – love to both God and toward our neighbors. Matthew 22:39-40 NIV.
And, as Paul points out, those who love their neighbors as themselves fulfill the Law and are therefore savable – regardless of their knowledge or lack thereof regarding the particulars of God’s existence, the life and death of Jesus, His true character, or any other doctrinal truths while in this life. Romans 13:8-10 NIV.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Elliot Sober: Just Don’t Call the Designer “God”
@Professor Kent:
Like the vast majority of readers here, I don’t need a scientific basis for my faith, and I believe I can be saved by it however “blind†it may be.
Salvation is based on love, not blind faith – or faith of any kind for that matter. It is for this reason that even those who have never heard the name of Jesus or had any real concept of God can be saved according to how they expressed the Royal Law of Love toward their neighbors – a law which has been written on the hearts of all. This is why I believe that there will be a number of very surprised atheists in Heaven someday…
Faith or belief is the basis of conscious hope, but not of salvation. If you have faith that can move mountains, but have not love, you have gained nothing… 1 Corinthians 13:2 NIV.
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.
