The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion.
(David Hume )
This is the third sentence of his “The Natural History of Religion” 1751
15 comments:
Given that Hume was writing before the time of Lamark (who would have been about seven at the time this was written), let alone Darwin, it is hardly surprising that his worldview was distinctly pre-evolutionary. If his views had been otherwise, it is likely that he'd have been hailed as an early evolutionary thinker, not merely as a philosopher.
I posted this because I thought it was an interesting balance to those who seem to think of Hume as an atheistic thinker. It is often suggested that Hume destroyed the design argument.
Allygally,
This is Dawkins supposed demolition of the design argument. However it amounts to a metaphysical claim that an undesigned designer is simply impossible. It is equivalent to asserting that a naturalistic worldview is the only rational approach to scientific investigation. This is to settle the ID debate based upon an untested philosophical rule.
It is equivalent to saying ID is rubbish because I don't believe in God. It is not a scientific argument. It is religion.
Allygally,
In the sense that a civilisation increases the complexity of a designer group then a non-divine designer can be thought of as of equal in complexity to human intelligence but at a higher level of civilisation.
In other words we are no very different in complexity terms as individuals from our great gradnparents but our civilisation is strikingly different.
Allygally,
1. Do you think that "directed panspermia" is a scientific hypothesis?
2. Obviously no-one knows the probabilities of the origin or existence of other intelligent agents. The issue is whether we can detect intelligent activity reliably or not. It is the issue of reliably being able to distinguish between different causes.
Let us imagine that the answer was...half as likely as the origin of human intelligence....where does that get us?
It seems to me that we either say that intelligence arose by chance once, by chance more than once or that it pre-exists as a necessary reality. I cannot see how you can rule out any of those three possibilities before you start.
"In the sense that a civilisation increases the complexity of a designer group then a non-divine designer can be thought of as of equal in complexity to human intelligence but at a higher level of civilisation."
In that case the probability would be:
P(A sufficiently large and complex biosphere develops that is capable of sustaining life)
x P(that this intelligent lifeform develops)
x P(this intelligent lifeform develops a sufficiently advanced civilisation that it can synthesis and/or radically alter lifeforms)
x P(this civilisation decides to synthesis/alter these lifeforms and then disappear from the scene, leaving no evidence of their existence, other than this synthesis/alteration)
As you can see, this probability is lower than that of life on Earth simply developing on its own. Which I believe was allygally's point.
Allygally,
I said:"It is equivalent to asserting that a naturalistic worldview is the only rational approach to scientific investigation."
You said "Your wording would seem to imply that it is possible and desirable to have supernatural irrational science."
Not at all.
I merely assert that other worldviews are at least as rational as naturalism as an approach to the scientific endeavour. Many great scientists have been and are theists. Ken Miller for example is a theist as is Francis Collins.
I happen also to be of the view that the New Scientist took a very cheap shot with the astrology line on Behe. It was a history of science argument that Behe was involved in not an argument for including astrology in science now.
"Obviously no-one knows the probabilities of the origin or existence of other intelligent agents."
Yet ID-Creationists continually claim to know the probability that evolution occurred, in spite of the fact that the experts claim that this is impossible to calculate in a meaningful way.
IDers are happy to claim, without any legitimate statistical foundation, that evolution is impossibly improbable, but balk when it is pointed out to them that a designer having done it would have to be even more improbable.
"I merely assert that other worldviews are at least as rational as naturalism as an approach to the scientific endeavour. Many great scientists have been and are theists. Ken Miller for example is a theist as is Francis Collins."
To the best of my knowledge, both Miller and Collins apply strict Methodological Naturalism in their "scientific endeavour."
Would you like to provide evidence to the contrary, Andrew?
"I happen also to be of the view that the New Scientist took a very cheap shot with the astrology line on Behe. It was a history of science argument that Behe was involved in not an argument for including astrology in science now."
The question that Behe was asked was:
"Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?"
"Is" means that the question was asked in the present tense, about the present. This was not a "history of science" question! Behe attempted to drag history of science into his answer in an attempt to disguise how vacuous his definition of science was.
So the lawyer asked again:
"But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?"
To which Behe answered:
"Yes, that s correct."
The question was asked in the present tense, and Behe answered in the current tense.
Behe was asked, and admitted, that under his definition, Astrology would CURRENTLY be considered 'science.'
Hrafn,
So do you understand from this quotation that Behe considers the various aspects of currently practised astrology as legitimate science? Is that a fair reading?
Andrew:
I don't know what Behe thinks.
Under oath, Behe presented his favoured definition of science.
Again under oath, he admitted that this definition would include Astrology.
Whether that means that Behe thinks that Astrology is Science, that his definition is flawed or doesn't know what he thinks, I don't know.
However, given that he presented this definition and made this admission under oath, it is not unreasonable to infer (lacking a repudiation of either definition or admission) that he believes that Astrology is Science.
Another, probably more accurate, inference would be that Behe was foolish enough to testify about a number of issues well outside his field of expertise and, because of this, got repeatedly demolished on cross-examination, and got trapped into making this admission.
This is why we allow cross-examination of expert witnesses - to test whether their testimony is sufficiently knowledgeable, credible and consistent to be relied upon.
I again point you to the SCOTUS Daubert Standard.
"...by the way Darwin repented of Evolution before he died."
Guy Barry:
Would you be prepared to substantiate this absurd assertion, or should I just start laughing at you now?
Darwin's statements in latter life at times express a certain wistfulness for the simplicity of the Creationism of his youth, but as far as I know he never rejected Evolution by Natural Selection intellectually.
I have never seen any evidence that Darwin changed his views on his deathbed or anywhere else.
I have heard that he was impressed with missionary work and supported missionary organisations.
Francis Collins believes (I think) that cosmological fine tuning is evidence for theism.
"Francis Collins believes (I think) that cosmological fine tuning is evidence for theism."
This belief is not a "scientific endeavour" however. For one thing, Collins is not an astrophysicist - so is speaking as an educated layman, not as a scientist, on cosmological matters.
Post a Comment