Friday Quote: It’s tough to guess what the designer would be like
by MikeGeneToday's quote comes from NYT columnist, John Tierney (HT to stunney). Tierney discusses the ID friendly views of philosopher Nick Bostrom, who argues that our reality is designed and exists as someone's computer simulation. Tierney notes:
Of course, it's tough to guess what the designer would be like. He or she might have a body made of flesh or plastic, but the designer might also be a virtual being living inside the computer of a still more advanced form of intelligence. There could be layer upon layer of simulations until you finally reached the architect of the first simulation "” the Prime Designer, let's call him or her (or it).
Fascinating. Of course, according to most critics of ID, anyone who proposes design MUST be talking about God, MUST have religious and political motivations, and MUST be trying to destroy science by imposing a theocracy. And we should KNOW this because of carefully selected bits of historical and sociological data.
Yeah, right.
August 17th, 2007 at 8:17 am
You need to understand that anyone who advocates ID must be a right wing extremist who worships Jerry Falwell and therefore needs to be attacked with all the weaponry at the disposal of the self-rightous guardians of all that is good. But let's take this a step further and re-float that trial balloon equating religion with child abuse. It did not go over well the first time but try, try again. Did persistence not finally win out for Lenin and other historic visionaries?
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2007 @ 8:17 am
August 17th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I think the critics are right to believe that MOST IDers are talking about God and do have religious "motivations". I only take issue with with the rest of the quote.
Comment by WedgeHead — August 17, 2007 @ 10:01 am
August 17th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Hi WedgeHead,
Most critics don't use qualifiers like "most."
Comment by MikeGene — August 17, 2007 @ 10:06 am
August 17th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I'll bet Bostrom's designer probably has an unnerving resemblance to Colonel Sanders.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 17, 2007 @ 10:47 am
August 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Back in April I made this comment…
"Personally, I am neutral to the idea of God. I think it would be kind of neat if it turned out God was some supernatural kid with a chemistry set with the universe being a new toy. There is nothing to hate about that. There is nothing to worship about it, either."
FYI, Stunney responded with…
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 17, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Rent the sci-fi movie The Thirteenth Floor for an entertaining look at the concept of layers of simulated realities.
Comment by Stuart Harris — August 17, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
LMAO, it wouldn't surprise me if our universe is merely a hello world type of program running on a dual-core processor of a pimply 12 years old
Comment by dimasok — August 17, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 12:55 am
But that doesn't appear to be the God that people worship. People tend to worship a God who has done something significant, like create the universe and provide redemption. That's the sort of God that is worthy of worship.
Comment by Randy — August 18, 2007 @ 12:55 am
August 18th, 2007 at 1:27 am
I think any god worthy of worship wouldn't desire it.
Comment by keiths — August 18, 2007 @ 1:27 am
August 18th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Hi Randy,
You wrote…
There is a saying I think is rather profound…
"Though the boy throws the rock in jest, the frog dies in earnest."
In my scenario, the supernatural kid created the universe. The kid might also want to play with its new toy. Be nice sometimes, be mean other times. It would all be "something significant" to us.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 18, 2007 @ 1:33 am
August 18th, 2007 at 2:27 am
TP,
I appreciate your insight. From our own perspective, having experienced both evil and goodness, I can relate to what you state. However, you know me by now as a committed theist. I sense that there is a being who is above us and transcends us. In my view that being is not like a boy playing with a toy, but more as the essense of rational thought, prodding us on towards His transcendence, not allowing us to be content with the condition in which we find ourselves, where we have to toil for survival, and perhaps exhibit some evil toward that goal. I sense a being who accentuates and represents the ultimate good, that we should wish to emulate.
Comment by Randy — August 18, 2007 @ 2:27 am
August 18th, 2007 at 4:14 am
God is the primary referent of our concepts of reason, goodness, and beauty. Rational beings by nature are oriented toward desiring, loving, contemplating, and enjoying God. When they choose not to, they frustrate their rational nature and intended purpose. When they choose to do so, worship is the connatural attitude, and ecstatic bliss its experiential concomitant.
We often talk about spouses adoring one another, parents and children adoring one another. This reflects by analogy the relation God intends to have with humans.
Comment by stunney — August 18, 2007 @ 4:14 am
August 18th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Hi Randy, Stunney and all the ships at sea,
I am pleased that I might have provoked some thinking and, possibly, recognition; the potential recognition of the different philosophies people, like me, can have even if we all could miraculously agree on the objective science.
Of course the God you worship would be different than the God I perceive even we are talking about the exact same objective being. I find most philosophical things exhibit paradoxical concepts like this. The subject doesn't even have to be about the creator-of-all-things. For an explanatory example, I will use an insignificant object, me. Who am I?
I'm who I think I am.
I'm who others think I am.
I'm the objective me.
These three Truths are contradictory, yet they are all true. However, the objective Truth is probably the least relevant of the three. What difference does it make who I objectively am if everyone, including myself, thinks I am something different?
I feel this basic philosophical observation is probably truer for the creator-of-all-things. I also feel that multiple Truths, even contradictory Truths, can all be "the Truth".
While all this thought provoking stuff about Ultimate Truths is significant and important for maintaining balance, so is having fun when dealing with illusion of reality we face every day. I think Science is fun and often provides us with handy knowledge for interacting with the illusion. The practice of science is also more effective when people recognize the need to separate the search for objective knowledge from the search for philosophical Truth (i.e. embracing NOMA).
But I don't know the Truth, do you?
Meanwhile, let's also have some more fun talking about science stuff.
Let's do science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 18, 2007 @ 9:29 am
August 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I was thinking about this on my way to work this morning (Yes, I work on Saturdays).
What if:
The God who exists objectifies Himself?
What if He doesn't need you or me to objectify Him, because He is completely self-sufficient. You and I need objectivity from outside ourselves in order to know ourselves. God, on the other hand, does not require this, because there is something very peculiar about God that allows Him to know Himself without any other vantage point to objectify Him. The early Jews apparently viewed God in the plural - the writer of Genesis writes "Let us make man in our image," and "So God made man in His image, in the image of God made He them, male and female made He them…." And of course, we have the Christian concept of the Trinity, where God eternally exists as 3 persons. Each person objectifies the other. No need for any other vantage point.
so your:
Translates to God as:
I'm who I (think) I am
I'm He and He is me (other person of Trinity)
I AM (Could be the third person, or any of the other two)
Comment by Randy — August 18, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I've read this from you several times. I envision that perhaps at one time you would state "There is no objective truth," which of course is self contradictory as a statement of truth itself. So now you are content to say that you don't know Truth with a capital "T." Don't know if this scenario is the reality, but let's run with it.
I find the statement "I don't know the truth" to be another less forceful version of "There is no objective truth." So I would have to answer you in the affirmative. I do know truth. I might not know all truth, but I can discern between what is true and what is false in many instances. As far as an ultimate truth, I believe in God. While I don't know for certain with evidential proof, I have a reasonable belief that such a God exists. If it so happens that such a God does in fact exist, then I would say that I know the ultimate truth. There really could not be any truth above God, since God is the creator of all other reality. Therefore, He Himself would be the ultimate truth.
Comment by Randy — August 18, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Hi Randy,
Excuse me for taking my time in answering you
(although your boss might have appreciated it if he knew).
You wrote…
Excellent!
Excuse the pontificating tone, but that this gets to the heart of how I would approach the problem from the theistic side. An Ultimate Observer based on a philosophical premise that nothing exists unless observed. Quantum mechanics provides some scientific support for this.
The problem is two fold. The NOMA issue, which I will get to later, and the religious tendency of trying to deify God.
(go ahead and laugh at me, I did)
All God has to do to exist is observe. He doesn't have to create anything. He doesn't have to throw lightening bolts or require homage. He doesn't even have to be intelligent. Stone tables and sacred writings are meaningless.
"I observe, therefore I am" is good enough.
Applying Occam's razor to God limits him to having only the things he needs. God all of a sudden finds a need for having a lightening bolt to the misfortune of Occam and his razor.
Once God declares himself omnipotent, science is just a game God let's us play so we can amuse ourselves.
Playing the God card in such a game is the equivalent of cheating. Sure you can do it, but why bother? It spoils the game.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 18, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Hi Randy,
I have often said "I don't know the Truth, do you?"
You responded with…
You have to go back a little further than you did. About 2400 years further, maybe more.
Let me start by pointing out a whole lot of very intelligent people have spent a whole lot of time and energy trying to find the answers to this simple-looking question. I think it is safe to presume this question isn't a simple as it looks.
To save time, let me offer that I don't feel science is capable of searching for the Truth much less finding it. Science doesn't have the tools for the job and, even if it did, it handicaps itself by constraining itself with its own set of rules.
Science needs to constrain itself to be of practical use to scientists.
Philosophy is the discipline that has the appropriate tools for searching for the Truth. I consider religion to be a form of philosophy (although historically it has been corrupted for other purposes).
Therefore, the Truth I am talking about is philosophical Truth.
A scientific "truth" is always a conditional statement where the conditions are often not stated. The scientific truth that "The Sun is yellow." Is conditioned on the existence of the Sun and that my "yellow" is everyone's "yellow". It is more than semantics. Each assumed condition is based on other assumed conditions until we start babbling something about turtles all the way down.
I started to try to address the concept of a definition of "objective truth" by copying and pasting other works. It quickly became obvious that that idea alone was going to take all evening and result in a very long post. (Besides, Stunney is practically begging for an Atheist to come and argue with him.) So I will just pose a question.
Can you name an objective Truth?
Something that is independent of any consciousness, including God's (if he exists).
My reference to 2400 years ago was hinting to a time when the Oracle of Delphi declared no one was wiser than Socrates (recognized as the first Western Philosopher). Socrates indicated that the only way that could make any sense is because he knew he didn't know.
Ever since philosophers have tried to establish a foothold on something that had to be inherently true. However, one of the things that makes philosophy equipped to search for the truth, is the very thing that provides no footholds. No presumptions. Everything can be questioned, even the philosophy of logic. Even the Socratic philosophy of questioning can be questioned (as ironic as that is).
It is worse than trying to build a house of cards, it is like trying to build a house of cards in free fall.
I am not suggesting that philosophy is total anarchy. Temporary presumptions are made to provide enough support in the hopes that someday the presumptions will no longer be presumptions but become proven Truths and the whole philosophical house of cards will hold.
Meanwhile, back at the front…
As easy as it was for Gould to suggest there is no reason why science and religion should be at odds because they are Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), it is much easier to ignore this suggestion.
Unfortunately, scientists can act like they are searching for the Truth. But a "scientific truth" is no more relevant than a "legal truth". After all the trials and appeals do we really know a defendant found guilty of a crime actually did it?
No, we do not KNOW it, we presume it.
The philosophers also are looking for all the help they can get in putting this #%$@ house of cards together. While the Ultimate Truth inherently can't be dependent on scientific evidence that might be wrong, philosophers aren't blind to the hints science provides when trying to make presumptions.
I find it interesting how different people treat the NOMA wall. Some want to ignore it totally and claim there is one Truth and everything else is a lie. God created the Earth is six days and any scientific evidence to the contrary is wrong. Alternatively, the universe is over 13 Billion years old and any suggestion to the contrary is wrong. Which gets us into this right and wrong stuff. Becomes real messy, real quick.
Another interesting way the NOMA wall is treated is like a one way door. Scientists don't want priest's directing research any more than priest's want scientists running probability studies on God's existence. However, some people on both sides see nothing wrong with meddling in the other Magisterium.
I think it makes sense both logically and practically, to embrace Gould's NOMA. My philosophical house of cards is incomplete. I have taken the tact of more is better. I haven't discarded any of the philosophical cards just in case they might fit some day. I can do this because I don't need to justify my philosophy scientifically.
Between science and philosophy, I think science is easier. It is even easier if you don't worry about Ultimate Truths, and focus on just what the evidence shows. When I sense someone trying to combine science and philosophy into a single Overlapping Magisteria (OMA) Truth for us all, instead of getting drawn into what I consider inappropriate cross-contamination, I often respond with"¦
I don't know the Truth, do you?
P.S. and to think, this was the short version.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 18, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
August 19th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Funny, but I find myself agreeing with everything you have stated above. However, we have to deal with the reality that things exist other than God. He created. What was the motive for creating? This gets to the crux of the whole issue. Some believe that it was so that He could have something or someone to worship Him, or someone to bother with the toil of living. I don't think any of these are true of Him. I believe that God created because He wanted to; not that he needed to. He joyfully created, which gets us back to Genesis: "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:11)
Whatever you might glean from this about evolution notwithstanding, it suggests that God created out of the pure joy of creating, not out of need for anything. As far as He was concerned, He didn't need to create anything, but it pleased Him to do so.
Now to deal with the observation issue. If you read in the Gospel of John, there is much made about Jesus' own testimony about Himself. Keep in mind the Trinity doctrine, which I think is pretty solid:
"My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me." (John 7:16)
I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, but I know him because I am from him and he sent me." (John 7:28-29)
"Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no on. But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me." (John 8:14-18)
Of course, this particular chapter is where Jesus makes the "I AM" statements about himself. Many translations mistranslate them in order to make them more clear, because of what Jesus states:
When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him." (John 8:28-29)
In this passage Jesus clearly identifies himself as God by stating "I am." The part of the passage in brackets was put there by the NIV translators, but in the Greek it is not there.
There is another passage in the same chapter where Jesus Identifies himself as the "I am," as well as other passages where Jesus states that the Father is the one who justifies his statements about himself.
Now, whether you accept this as the truth is inconsequential. The point here is that Jesus is claiming to be one with God, and for that reason, the Jews attempted to stone him to death. But it is these statements that concern us with God's own view of Himself. He does not require us to know that He is. He did not need to create us in order to objectify Himself. He has the testimony of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
So God does not need a lightning bolt or other catastrophes to objectify Himself. These are clearly some of the consequences for Him creating. The scriptures go beyond this of course, by identifying the cause of creations' "groaning" as directly related to our own choices. But you don't have to believe that to understand the point.
Is that parsimonious enough for you?
Comment by Randy — August 19, 2007 @ 12:44 am
August 19th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Exactly. I think that this is the point that many people in the sciences forget. There are philosophical biases present in coming to terms with the data.
Comment by Randy — August 19, 2007 @ 12:58 am
August 19th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Things exist. But it fails in the "independent of any consciousness" category. However, you have made the rules up here. Objective truth is truth that is observed. We can't escape that. If it is not so, then there is no objective truth. But this could not be true, because "There is no objective truth" is an objective statement of truth. Therefore there has to be objective truth.
However, I think we can agree that truth is truth, whether there is an observer or not. Truth does not require you or me. This might contradict my above statement where there has to be an observer, but as you have stated earlier, it could be just a paradox that we have to live with.
Comment by Randy — August 19, 2007 @ 1:06 am
August 19th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Hi Randy,
Why?
Or more to the point. What makes you think that things exist outside of God's imagination?
Hopefully you won't take offense at the Atheistic sounding things I am about to say.
Logically, if God wants me to believe he exists, I will believe he exists. It isn't something I need to worry about.
If God doesn't want me to believe he exists, I am doing God's bidding. It isn't something I need to worry about.
If this is somehow a contest of wits between us and God, God is going to win. It isn't something I need to worry about.
If God is testing us, I won't pass the test. God knows this. It isn't something I need to worry about.
If my great-great-great-…-great-great-great grandfather and grandmother did something wrong, I don't feel guilty about that. God knows this. It isn't something I need to worry about.
If a group a like-minded individuals believe they know the Truth thus enabling them (even compelling them) to act unethically and illegally, THIS is something I need to worry about.
BTW, I feel the changing of the US Pledge of Allegiance and National Motto fifty years ago was an unethical and illegal act.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 19, 2007 @ 2:44 am
August 19th, 2007 at 3:26 am
Actually, TP, I enjoy discussions with atheists. They are some of the most reasonable people I have encountered online, even though there is much that we disagree on. I don't go into Christian blogs much for the simple reason that there's not much to discuss. We pretty much agree on most things, so it's really not that exciting. I like to have my thinking challenged.
I think that God wants more from us than simply believing that He exists. "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder. (James 2:19)
Correct.
Well I would agree with that to a point. If God wins and there is a consequence to His winning that affects me, then I should think I need to worry.
Correct. Although I don't think God is actually testing us.
Oh my! Heaven forbid that we should aver be judged for something someon so far removed from ourselves did. Maybe they were soothsayers. I don't want to be judged for that.
Unfortunately this happens far too often. It is something that Christians and other religionists really should be worried about. If my unethical actions as a believer should influence the unbelief of others, and God holds me accountable for that as He would, then I definitely have something to worry about.
You know, I actually agree with that too. It is my belief that the gospel of love is better served if Christians keep their own beliefs out of politics. Jesus was offered by Satan to rule the world (Not that it was Satan's to give), and he refused, indicating that Christianity does not offer a political solution to anything. Jesus, in my opinion, wants to save souls, and he does not wish to do so through politics.
I'm also a bit offended when patriotism is equated with faith. Faith transcends patriotism and politics; while there are some good things that come out of patriotism and some politics.
Comment by Randy — August 19, 2007 @ 3:26 am