Leaning on Your Own Understanding
by BradfordI was reading a paper authored by Dembski and Marks when I came across a quote taken from Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker. The quote:
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like "God was always there," and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say "DNA has always been there," or "Life was always there, and be done with it.
Dawkins' is expressing a sentiment echoed in the thread PD instead of ID by at least one commenter. But Dawkins is drawing a conclusion supported by an artificial demarcation made in a time/causal pathway depicting the origin of the universe. Specifically, he is drawing our attention to a point in time at which prebiotic earth exists and then posing questions about life's origin. In doing so Dawkins begs some very pertinent questions showing that he, like his theistic counterparts, is unable to present a comprehensive and coherent account running from A to Z. Perhaps this is because human minds are limited both in terms of their capabilities and their knowledge of what preceded them.
Dawkins does not say that God's existence precedes that of our universe. Indeed he thinks this foolishly avoids the question of God's origin. But he does not challenge another assumption inherent to Dawkins' own position namely, that matter and energy have always been there. Of course one might argue that whatever it was, that contained what is called the Big Bang and our resulting universe, was not matter and energy as we know it but that merely moves the causal goalposts back a step and illustrates a dilemna known as infinite regress. Pick your poison. Either matter and energy have always existed and no cause is attributed to this or a trail of infinite causes exists each one preceded by a prior but unidentified cause.
ID critics are fond of utilizing terms like magic to describe causal scenarios involving the action of a deity. Yet magic can be a very subjective term. It seems quite magical to me to assert that the basic components of our universe just exist and always have. Thinking that view is less "magical" than a theistic explanation, positing God at the begining of a causal series of events, is more a matter of personal preference than empirically grounded conceptions is it not? Yet for a theist, whose personal experiences indicate the presence of a deity, the choice between incomprehensible options becomes obvious.
May 30th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I'm particularly surprised he would resort to this:
"God was always there" is not at all a statement on the same order as "DNA or life has always been there." For one thing, it is at least possible that God was always there; that is, God is at least conceptually the kind of being that could have always been there. The statement about God at least stands a chance of being correct, unlike "DNA or life has always been there."
In the larger context he's saying that if you resort to God as an explanation, you're being intellectually lazy, so as long as you're being lazy, why not be lazy anywhere else along the chain of explanation? But this is intellectually lazy on his part. He's letting his massive atheistic bias distort his view of reality, such that he thinks he can pull a theory like this out of the air and poof! make it true.
Surely he knows that a lot of not-too-shabby scientists (Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Brahe, Mendel, Collins, Dobzhansky, Priestley, Faraday, Maxwell, Linnaeus, and von Braun, to name a few he might consider not to be total hacks at the game) have seen God as the ultimate explanation but didn't let that keep them from asking how nature operates.
I keep hearing anti-theists say, "If you let yourself think God did it, that's going to kill all your curiosity about science, and it'll stop progress dead in its tracks." It's really nothing but a textbook example of evidence-free theorizing. It's as unscientific as you can get. Can you think of any other theory in science that gets that kind of acceptance with so little evidence for it, and so much evidence against it?
Comment by TomG — May 30, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
May 30th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Tom G:
Quite true. As a scientist it behooves Dawkins to point out that eternal DNA is as implausible as an eternal earth.
Well said. Atheism does prompt one to biased views the most consequential being a lack of awareness about being biased.
So if a belief in God is compatible with results produced by the above group then why the effort to portray that belief as somehow at odds with science?
Ironic is it not?
Comment by Bradford — May 30, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
May 30th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Tom wrote:
I think there are a couple of points that can be made about this criticism.
First, as Tom points out, historically science has not been stopped by scientists committed to theism. In fact, modern science was started by scientists who were also committed theists. Kepler, for example, described science as thinking God’s thoughts after him.
Second, even if theistic scientists accept the idea that there is an eternally existing transcendent intelligence (EETI) that created the universe, along with life and consciousness that still leaves unanswered the question of how. For example, did the EETI front load the universe so that subsequent to the Big Bang every thing would evolve naturally or does he occasionally intervene and adjust his creation. That leaves an incredible amount of room and freedom for science to explore.
I suspect that what the critics really want is to advance an ideological and metaphysical agenda that is hostile to theism. Ironically, it is this kind of intolerance that will damage and destroy science.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — May 30, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
May 31st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Let's keep in mind that Dawkins isn't saying "DNA was always there" is a good argument, only that "God was always there" is no better. TomG argues there's a difference, but the difference is just in his head. Logically they are equally vacuous defenses for the question, "So where did X come from?"
Comment by don provan — May 31, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 5:57 am
Not for lack of trying. On the other hand, theists committed to science don't try to stop science, nor are they accused of it.
As we've been discussing in another thread, it does, in fact, leave everything for science to explore, just exactly as science is exploring it regardless of any proof of existence for an EETI, at least until you actually define "eternally", "existing", "transcendent", and "intelligence" in a way that relates them to any observations we could make.
Your suspicions are wrong, but you might want to ask yourself who in this picture actually does have an ideological and metaphysical agenda, who it's hostile towards, what it's intolerant of, and why it wants to destroy science. Your comments simply reek of projection.
Comment by don provan — June 1, 2009 @ 5:57 am
June 1st, 2009 at 6:34 am
It leaves everything in nature for science to explore. As for the EETI, that can be explored in other ways. Prayer, Bible, church participation: for in my strong opinion the EETI is the God of the Bible, and he has not left himself unavailable for exploration.
Has Christianity really been trying to undermine science? Read The Myth of Conflict, or Lindberg and Numbers on Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter Between Christianity and Science.
As to your last paragraph, consider which critics he was talking about: Dawkins, primarily, but the list would include others of his sort: Myers, Coyne, Dennett, and etc. Do you really think it's wrong to suspect that they want to advance an agenda that's hostile to theism?
And do you deny that they are promoting evidence-free "science" when they say Christianity leads to a lack of natural (scientific) curiosity? Do you have evidence to point to in support of their claim? And if they are promoting evidence-free "science" in support of this, is this not itself a sign that their using their reputations in science to support an ideology that actually lacks scientific support?
If you think not, then I would have to seriously wonder who's projecting.
Comment by TomG — June 1, 2009 @ 6:34 am
June 1st, 2009 at 6:54 am
dp:
If x is the universe itself there is no convincing answer Dawkins can give. So if God is a vacuous answer so are all the others. That's the point Dawkins' supporters miss.
Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2009 @ 6:54 am
June 1st, 2009 at 7:25 am
Bradford:
The only non-vacuous answer at this point is "we don't know". That's the point you are missing.
Comment by Raevmo — June 1, 2009 @ 7:25 am
June 1st, 2009 at 7:36 am
I've promoted the view that acknowledging boundaries in science is wise but get only arguments when I do so. "I don't know" is fine but we are unlikely to ever know the answer to some questions which makes admissions about limits prudent.
Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2009 @ 7:36 am
June 1st, 2009 at 9:29 am
There, better now.
Comment by Jean — June 1, 2009 @ 9:29 am
June 1st, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I am perfectly willing to agree that all proposals for how the universe began are as vacuous as God. I am singlularly unconcerned about whether Dawkins can give you some other answer that convinces you of anything. Besides, Dawkins doesn't claim to know where the universe came from; only you are doing that.
Comment by don provan — June 1, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
But as theists began to investigate nature, especially geologists late in the 1700s, they increasingly saw things that seemed to be inconsistent with the ancient manuscripts, particularly the failure of a world-wide flood to explain all the diversity of rock layers. Gradually most of them stopped trying to reconcile the two approaches, because investigation of natural regularities produced answers that became much more detailed and comparable to one another. If you're a Popperian, you have to note that a lot of scientific ideas have been discarded because eventually they didn't work. How could you ever show that "God did it" is not a sufficient explanation?
Comment by John Wendt — June 1, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
That's your statement. My comment points out the inability to empirically document a complete causal trail.
Dawkins claims to know that a deity cannot be part of a causal scenario. The reasons he gave however can be used to debunk his own implicit position.
Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
John Wendt:
You cannot in the same way you cannot empirically refute a claim that whatever exists now existed in the eternal past in some form or another. The point is there are limits to what empirical approaches can supply answers to. To behave as if incomplete explanations pertain only to theistic accounts is to engage in intellectual dishonesty.
Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Sure. The limits keep getting extended, though. What can a theistic approach add?
Empirical accounts are incomplete. Theistic accounts are empty.
Comment by John Wendt — June 1, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 4:15 pm
John Wendt:
Theism is focused primarily on other matters like morals and how we live our lives.
To behave as if incomplete explanations pertain only to theistic accounts is to engage in intellectual dishonesty.
They always will be.
Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Yes, we all agree we are unable to empirically document a complete causal trail about the beginning of the universe. No matter what else, doesn't that mean that God is vacuous as an empirically documented complete causal trail?
Anyway, that's just the starting point. OK, we cannot possibly confirm a causal trail for the beginning of the universe. Now what? Dawkins simply thinks that "God did it" is useless, no more interesting that "DNA always existed." You seem entirely focused on proving Dawkins can't do any better. Whether he can or can't would required actually evaluating his arguments instead of dismissing his conclusions, but the fact remains that you can't do any better than you think Dawkins is doing.
Are you changing the subject? The quoted passage says nothing like that. If you quote a passage that says that, then we can discuss it.
Who is doing that? Who anywhere claims science has a complete explanation of origins?
This strikes me as what you're missing about the New Atheists. They reject the religious answer. They don't pretend to have a more complete answer, but they do move on from the initial rejection by coming to conclusions about reality based on the fully admitted and appreciated limits on our knowledge. In contrast, advocates of religion insist they have the one true answer, often using terms like "absolute" to make their opinions seem more concrete. That seems a little closer to intellectual dishonesty to me.
Comment by don provan — June 1, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 4:46 pm
JW
Can you provide evidence that prior to 1700 the majority of theists believed in a world wide flood?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 1, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Then stop talking about biology.
Comment by John Wendt — June 1, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
It means it is vacuous to think science has a bearing on beliefs like theism and atheism. God can't be tested in a lab. Neither can atheism.
Not so. I pointed out that Dawkins' argument can be turned against him.
Dawkins claims to know that a deity cannot be part of a causal scenario.
Right, but Dawkins' atheistic beliefs are well known.
Of course NAs pretend to have answers. I've been exchanging messages with them for years and they are a very opinionated lot.
All one has to do is review messages of NAs here at TT going back into the archives. It's the same as other locations. NAs do promote an agenda that is at variance with theism. This attempt to make it seem as if they disavow true answers is at odds with their behavior. They, of course, eschew the one true answer as that is an obvious reference to a God in which they profess disbelief.
Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Let me know when chemists come up with the formula for cells and I will.
Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Typical non-response. However:
Chemistry:
Ribonucleoproteins. Fairly new idea.
A small amount of phospholipid can be spread over the surface of water to form a monolayer of the molecules. When the phospholipid-water system is agitated, the phospholipid molecules form a configuration known as liposome, a sphere of phospholipid bilayer. Liposome is the skeleton of the cell membrane.
Admittedly incomplete. But a tantalizing start.
Theism:
"God did it." Admittedly empty.
Comment by John Wendt — June 1, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Comment by John Wendt — June 1, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Bradford:
Link please.
Comment by Raevmo — June 1, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
For more on cells, check out a recently-reviewed book.
Comment by John Wendt — June 1, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 6:24 pm
John Wendt
instead of a review of a book that does not even address the time frame in question (before 1700) how about a quote from an actual theist's work known to every educated Christian of the period?
Josephus…
quote
"Now all the writers of barbarian [Greek] histories make mention of this flood and of this ark: among whom is Berosus the Chaldean… Hieronymous the Egyptian…. Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus: 'There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote'."
End quote
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 1, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 7:12 pm
The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning is hardly a vacuous question. Indeed, it was because science was willing to ask such questions that, after following a chain of discovery and evidence, we arrived at the big bang theory. How then, is it vacuous to ask what caused the universe to explode into existence? Is it vacuous to ask what is the cause of life? Is it vacuous to ask what is the cause of mind and consciousness?
Dawkins idea that DNA and biological life is eternal does not fit very well within a big bang cosmology. In other words, if we accept the theory that the universe exploded into existence 14-20 billion years ago, then how can life be eternal? Biological life certainly cannot and does not transcend time and space. It certainly cannot exist in a natural causal sense before the universe exists. So, Dawkins position is really a very weak if not a completely untenable position.
Theists argue that whatever it was that caused the universe ontologically transcends the universe. At very least it must transcend the universe spatially and temporally, as well as transcending the universe in terms of it's overall potential energy. Dawkins simply cannot make that argument about life and DNA.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 1, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Are you implying that Moses became authoritative only after the Restoration?
Comment by John Wendt — June 1, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Wow. What a profound admission JW.
Comment by Bradford — June 1, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
No I'm merely pointing out that many theists in premodern times read Moses to say that the flood was a local event. This reading is in keeping with his single-minded attention to the promise land and it‘s relationship to both Yahweh and his people. I feel it's the best way to read the text regardless of scientific findings.
The Hebrew word for earth is often used in the local sense of land especially the promised land.
YEC in it’s present form is a very recent interpretation of the text. You’ll find no talk of a collapsing water canopy or rapid fossilization in premodern writings.
But I digress
carry on
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 1, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
This is just your opinion, of course. Some believe that the Bible is the best source for input on religious beliefs. Dawkins believes that science is the best source for input on religious beliefs. Religions themselves, of course, claim that only religions are good sources for input on religious beliefs, and they've been ingraining that into people for thousands of years. But it is precisely that "standard" that Dawkins questions.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm guessing that you think it's important and relevant to show that Dawkins himself cannot provide an absolute answer. If that's what you're talking about, then I'm not sure what else I can say since I've already pointed out that Dawkins doesn't claim to provide an absolute answer.
I was just confirming that the comment was irrelelvant to our conversation. I have no intention of debating the statement itself since you're indicating I can ignore it.
Everyone pretends to have answers. Everyone has opinions, and many express their opinions forcefully. What of it? "No fair! You're claiming to have answers. Only religions can have answers!"
And theists don't promote an agenda that is at variance with atheism? You keep acting as if there's something unquestionably wrong about being on the other side.
Apparently it isn't obvious to them. And they notice that you eschew their obvious answer. If you are going to complain about what they're doing, at least try to do something different than what you're complaining about.
It's not an admission, it's just a statement of fact that any scientist would point out for you, just as many of us have pointed it out to you in the past.
Comment by don provan — June 2, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
It's not vacuous to ask. What made you think that? It's the answer that's vacuous. Can you see why, even though we consider the question valid and important, we would still declare "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it" to be a vacuous answer?
Comment by don provan — June 2, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Either there was a supernatural designer or there was not. Dawkins claims the first possibility explains precisely nothing. He could have noted that the absence of a supernatural designer (the one consistent with his atheistic beliefs) explains precisely nothing. Nothing empirical here. Simply philosophical preferences.
Yeah. I'm well aware that the data explaining the origin of life is incomplete to put it kindly. No need to point out this obvious fact.
Comment by Bradford — June 2, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Sure. Just as I would consider vacuous the statement that matter and energy have always existed.
Comment by Bradford — June 2, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
JW proclaimed:
Just curious here, John. Do you believe that science can deduce and explain every phenomenon given enough time, or do you believe this causal regression can come to a point where science just has to admit "this is simply how it is"? If the latter, how is this any better than "god dunnit"? To me – and I might be mistaken – it seems you are argueing there is no methaphysical treshold, empirical science will have all the answers if we just wait long enough.
Comment by Jean — June 2, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
So you do concede that a supernatural designer explains nothing? I'm confused.
Why does it matter that not-X explains nothing? Dawkins doesn't use the absence of a supernatural designer to explain anything.
But really the most revealing thing about your statement is that you are admitting that designer and not-designer are equivalent in that neither explains anything. Being indistringuishable from its negation is the true hallmark of a vacuous explanation.
Then why are you pretending it's "a profound admission" if we're all already aware of it?
And God or supernatural designers of other types besides Flying Spaghetti Monsters, presumably? That's the only admission I'm after, but you keep back peddling.
Comment by don provan — June 2, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Science cannot yet explain many phenomenon, so it says "we don't know yet" all the time. That is much better than "god dunnit" because we don't know that God did it, so any further conclusions we reach based on this supposition are unreliable. "Don't know" tells us we cannot draw conclusions at all, we can only guess.
As long as we understand that "phenomenon" implies a concrete description which science can approach, there's no theoretical or logical limit to what phenomena science can explain, only practical limits known at this time.
Metaphysical thresholds are where we place them. The question many people ask is how important questions are that are beyond what science can answer. Or, to put it another way, whether it makes sense to make decisions based on answers which cannot be confirmed.
Comment by don provan — June 2, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Matthew 7:3.
Comment by John Wendt — June 2, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Every time someone has thought we were at a stopping point, someone else has found a way around it. This is equivalent to saying that every theory we've ever had is incomplete, or maybe looking at nature from the wrong angle. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, for example, held that genes are the variable factor in evolution. This is almost right: It's turning out that genes are much the same in every organism; what changes in evolution is the DNA elements that control when and where a gene is expressed. Physics is currently wrestling with how to combine relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics. Geology is about 40 years into the era of plate tectonics, which was a major reorientation.
Too many people have been much too quick to stop at "god dunnit". What exactly did God do? Create life? Probably not; there's a lot of very evocative research on the ways atoms and small molecules come together to form more complex molecules. Create the earth? We might have expected the solar system to be neater if it had been designed. Design the universe? Then how do you explain the detail in the cosmic background radiation? Create the Big Bang? Don't be too quick to dismiss something like the ekpyrotic model. We're back to deism, which isn't much comfort to people who have a need to believe that they're not just odd-looking chimpanzees.
Biology is the way it is because of chemistry, and chemistry is the way it is because of physics. No one has ever told us how God manages to do things in an a-physical way. That would produce a major change in viewpoint.
Comment by John Wendt — June 2, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 am
It explains quite a bit. You get confused when you define vacuous as anything that cannot be empirically documented. Dawkins' critique is metaphysically grounded. There are no definitive empirical explanations on the turf Dawkins has chosen to make his point.
Comment by Bradford — June 3, 2009 @ 8:33 am
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 am
Accounting for complexity is not the thrust of ID critiques. What needs to form is a system in which molecules are placeholders for, i.e. they actually symbolically represent, not simply distinct molecules, but their sequential order in polymers that confer the functions unique to cells.
A subjective criticism.
Why is that at variance with design?
The ekpyrotic model no more explains the causal origin of energy, quarks, electrons and photons than alternatives. In a causal analysis God is an initial and ultimate cause. There are no corresponding counterparts to any of these explanations. There is only the implicit explanation that some basic physical entities must be described as "just is." They are not causally explained. They just exist. It's the hidden metaphysical component to materialist alternatives.
Comment by Bradford — June 3, 2009 @ 8:54 am
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I thought my use of "vacuous" to reflect Dawkins's position was obvious. When he said, "to explain precisely nothing," he is obviously speaking of a scientific explanation.
As long as we've confirmed that you now agree with Dawkins's statement, and merely want to stress that an intelligent designer is not vacuous in some other sense that you can imagine but is beyond what Dawkins is talking about, I think we're done.
Comment by don provan — June 3, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Interesting point. The observed background radiation is not at odds with design, but only with a design intended for us to conclude that the explanation is something other than design. It's safe to say that any observation is consistent with design that hides itself.
Comment by don provan — June 3, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Likewise I was referring to a scientific explanation when I noted that there is no alternative non-Designer explanation for the origin of life and none for the origin of the universe which is able to side step the uninformative assumption that matter and energy have always existed and had no precausal genesis.
Comment by Bradford — June 3, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
-10 IQ points.
Obviously you have to be pretty dense Don – the sophistication (or lack thereof) of your arguments normally would lead me to conclude you are a troll – to imply that everyone agrees with your notion that the universe shows no signs of design. In fact, the big bang postulate encountered resistance in the scientific community _because_ of its theological implications.
This whole "I see no design" when others do, has more to do with your cherished atheistic presumptions than anything else.
Comment by Jean — June 3, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
We've been over this. No such claim is on the table.
Comment by don provan — June 3, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I haven't heard of anyone claiming the observed background radiation is evidence of design. I'm sorry if you think that makes me stupid. Perhaps informing me would be more useful than insulting me.
I didn't say "the universe shows no signs of design". I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.
Comment by don provan — June 3, 2009 @ 2:38 pm