Agnosticism and Intelligent Design

[Jobar]

Speaking personally, not officially, I don't think it's fair or accurate to accuse excreationist of being a creationist.

For one thing, I can't recall ever seeing a bona-fide creationist who could keep up with a discussion this complex as well as ex-c has.

I agree he's making mistakes, and doesn't appear to understand evolution or abiogenesis as thoroughly as some of us do. But he does seem to be learning- another thing most creationists seem incapable of doing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Speaking personally, not officially, I don't think it's fair or accurate to accuse excreationist of being a creationist.

For one thing, I can't recall ever seeing a bona-fide creationist who could keep up with a discussion this complex as well as ex-c has.

I agree he's making mistakes, and doesn't appear to understand evolution or abiogenesis as thoroughly as some of us do. But he does seem to be learning- another thing most creationists seem incapable of doing.

Good point, but hestill strikes me that way.

 

[steve_bank]

It is easy to believe something simple and satisfying than something difficult.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is easy to believe something simple and satisfying than something difficult.

Or... it is easier to believe than it is to understand.

 

[Underseer]

I don't claim to have proved that Intelligent Design is true, but I am finding it persuasive. I don't believe in anything supernatural though if we are in a simulation it could exist (see my second post). I'm just saying that chance events could be guided - in a way that might promote some religious ideas.

Then you are in the habit of accepting bad arguments.

The question is: why are you so eager to embrace bad arguments? What's your motive for this?

 

[steve_bank]

It is easy to believe something simple and satisfying than something difficult.

Or... it is easier to believe than it is to understand.

What's that mean?

 

[steve_bank]

https://www.discovery.org/
The Discovery Institute has been around for long presenting ID couched in a seeming scientific institution.

It was created by Christians to counter evolution in public schools. In th 90s Christians pushed to require it being taught along side evolution as valid science. Obviously the designer was a segway into a proof of god in the classroom.

There were several court cases where ID was ruled to be religion disguised as science and kept out of public education.

The problem with ID is infinite regression. Where did the designer com from? ID is empty and useless. It is actually worse than creationism.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is easy to believe something simple and satisfying than something difficult.

Or... it is easier to believe than it is to understand.

What's that mean?

Belief only requires accepting as truth what is heard and what "feels good".

Understanding requires gathering facts, analyzing them, weighing conflicting claims and the evidence for them, developing a coherent model that fits the facts, then accepting the conclusion even if it doesn't "feel good".

 

[excreationist]

Highly unlikely things are inevitable anyway.

If you define "highly unlikely" to being "45 million to one" then yes.

But what if I was talking about the odds in cracking 256 bit encyption? That has 2²⁵⁶ or 10⁷⁷ combinations. Would you call that "really really highly unlikely"? If a trilliion computers could check a trillion (10¹²) combinations per second for 20 billion years (10²⁰ seconds) that's 10⁴⁴ combinations. Them cracking one code is far from inevitable (you'd need to repeated the situation 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times for it to crack one encyption, on average). So "highly unlikely" things could be inevitable, but what about "really really highly unlikely" like a single instance of 256 bit encryption?

Someone wins the lottery almost every week. No extra dimensions required.

Well what about encryption? I'm no longer talking about abiogenesis now though. Maybe you'd say that you could use a quantum computer or something to try and not follow my point.

 

[bilby]

Highly unlikely things are inevitable anyway.

If you define "highly unlikely" to being "45 million to one" then yes.

But what if I was talking about the odds in cracking 256 bit encyption? That has 2²⁵⁶ or 10⁷⁷ combinations. Would you call that "really really highly unlikely"? If a trilliion computers could check a trillion (10¹²) combinations per second for 20 billion years (10²⁰ seconds) that's 10⁴⁴ combinations. Them cracking one code is far from inevitable (you'd need to repeated the situation 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times for it to crack one encyption, on average). So "highly unlikely" things could be inevitable, but what about "really really highly unlikely" like a single instance of 256 bit encryption?

Someone wins the lottery almost every week. No extra dimensions required.

Well what about encryption? I'm no longer talking about abiogenesis now though. Maybe you'd say that you could use a quantum computer or something to try and not follow my point.

I understand your point; But there's absolutely no reason to think that abiogenesis is particularly unlikely given liquid water with impurities that include organic compounds.

The only datum we have is an instance in which life arose from those conditions in less than a billion years (perhaps a lot less).

If you draw a random card from a deck, and get a joker, there's no way to tell whether you were incredibly lucky, and got the only joker in the pack; or whether the entire pack is all jokers, and your result was inevitable. Or somewhere in between.

I have good reasons to expect that life is almost always inevitable where liquid water is permanently present.

But really its just an educated guess, until we have a chance to check out other planets or moons where liquid water has existed for at least hundreds of millions of years, and preferably a few billion.

No amount of pulling numbers or half-baked analogies out of our arses will actually help us to decide the answer; Only hard data from isolated systems (most likely extraterrestrial) can do that.

 

[excreationist]

....Then you are in the habit of accepting bad arguments.

The question is: why are you so eager to embrace bad arguments? What's your motive for this?

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/03/us/survey-of-scientists-finds-a-stability-of-faith-in-god.html

about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer.

I'm just saying I see some evidence that an intelligent force may exist (see my story) and based on that, evolution/abiogenesis may be directed.

I think I'm pretty good as far as having bad arguments goes. Though a few times in the past I'd be promoting a particular theory and then after I'd heard the counter-arguments that outweigh my own arguments, I'd change my mind.

I think my past caused me to distrust authority... (i.e. not just accepting whatever the authority says). One example was my math teacher saying that pi was 22/7. I said it was *approximately* 22/7.

When I was in primary school my teacher, who specialises in science, said that he doesn't believe in evolution even though he showed us a cartoon about it where robots evolve. Also in primary school there was a travelling museum and a part of it said that some people believe in the garden of eden. Then there was a travelling "creation bus" and they showed a video about dinosaurs in the Bible. (which makes some sense - about the Behemoth tail, etc [though now I think it is referring to the penis of the creature]). I bought many creationist books and magazines and learnt a lot about some things. I tried to argue with teachers and pastors that YEC is true but they didn't have any real counter-arguments. At the end of high school I looked at pro-evolution and anti-creationist books and I had counter-arguments for what they said. I also read "Telling Lies for God" and found dozens of major problems and made a webpage about it. Anyway a former-YEC deconverted me - mainly to do with the Green River Formation.

I guess I just have a belief that sometimes the mainstream experts are wrong. Maybe in almost every case the mainstream is right but I still have a nagging belief that sometimes they are wrong or misguided.

That 40% of responding experts have a strong belief in an intelligent force. I don't have a strong belief in it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm just saying I see some evidence that an intelligent force may exist (see my story) and based on that, evolution/abiogenesis may be directed.

You really haven't. What you have is evidence of something things that you (or we) don't understand yet. That's all we got. That's not an argument for anything. Litterally nothing.

When I was in primary school my teacher, who specialises in science, said that he doesn't believe in evolution even though he showed us a cartoon about it where robots evolve. Also in primary school there was a travelling museum and a part of it said that some people believe in the garden of eden. Then there was a travelling "creation bus" and they showed a video about dinosaurs in the Bible. (which makes some sense - about the Behemoth tail, etc [though now I think it is referring to the penis of the creature]). I bought many creationist books and magazines and learnt a lot about some things. I tried to argue with teachers and pastors that YEC is true but they didn't have any real counter-arguments. At the end of high school I looked at pro-evolution and anti-creationist books and I had counter-arguments for what they said. I also read "Telling Lies for God" and found dozens of major problems and made a webpage about it. Anyway a former-YEC deconverted me - mainly to do with the Green River Formation.

As soon as a creationists mentions they're religious in the discussion, they've lost the argument. Because the Bible is completely irrelevant to anything in science. Their religious beliefs have no bearing on how scientific evidence should be evaluated. The Bible can only enter into it if the science brings the theory towards the Bible independently. That's yet to happen ever in science. Whenever we enter a new scientific paradigm it turned out that everybody was wrong, even preceding scientists. And certainly the religious.

I guess I just have a belief that sometimes the mainstream experts are wrong. Maybe in almost every case the mainstream is right but I still have a nagging belief that sometimes they are wrong or misguided.

I believe that a lot of the mainstream scientific experts are wrong, about some things or a lot of things. But I also believe that I'm not in a position to evaluate if they are. Whenever a scientist is proven wrong, it's always by other scientist. So far it's never happened that a non-scientist manage to sway the scientific community.

In the case of Evolution we only have non-experts on the side of ID. Michael Behe is the most prominent. He's a mere lecturer at a university. He's not even a professor. In USA lecturers are colloquially referred to as professors. But they're not. He's on the lowest rung in academia. And he's the star of this movement. That shouldn't impress anybody.

That 40% of responding experts have a strong belief in an intelligent force. I don't have a strong belief in it.

Where did this number come from? Experts in what? The highest number I've found is that 15% of top scientists believe in God or any kind of intelligence force in the universe. But they've got some really whacky and weird beliefs. That do not fit the Creationist narrative. So they're hardly available as support for the cause.

 

[excreationist]

.....What you have is evidence of something things that you (or we) don't understand yet. That's all we got. That's not an argument for anything. Litterally nothing.

If it isn't just me finding patterns where no meaningful/significant patterns exist then it is a significant thing - and I'm curious about that to some degree.

As soon as a creationists mentions they're religious in the discussion, they've lost the argument. Because the Bible is completely irrelevant to anything in science. Their religious beliefs have no bearing on how scientific evidence should be evaluated. The Bible can only enter into it if the science brings the theory towards the Bible independently.

Well in primary school I was taught that being against evolution is legitimate though I wasn't much of a Christian. The creation bus show said somethings like that the earth must be less than 10,000 years due to the magnetic field, etc. So I came to believe it based on "scientific" arguments. The creationist books and magazines involved many dozens of "scientific" arguments.

That's yet to happen ever in science.

Well in the case of the universe, the theists are correct in that it seems to have a beginning. (I think in the past many atheists thought the universe was eternal)

...That 40% of responding experts have a strong belief in an intelligent force. I don't have a strong belief in it.

Where did this number come from? Experts in what?

I quoted "nytimes" as having said it (maybe you missed the quote)
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/03/us/survey-of-scientists-finds-a-stability-of-faith-in-god.html
"about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer."

The highest number I've found is that 15% of top scientists believe in God or any kind of intelligence force in the universe. But they've got some really whacky and weird beliefs. That do not fit the Creationist narrative. So they're hardly available as support for the cause.

This appears to be the same study mentioned in the NY Times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Geographic_distribution
"In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly chosen from American Men of Science and 41.8% believed God existed, 41.5% disbelieved, and 16.7% had doubts/did not know; however when the study was replicated 80 years later using American Men and Women of Science in 1996, results were very much the same with 39.3% believing God exists, 45.3% disbelieved, and 14.5% had doubts/did not know."
51: Larson, E. J. & Witham, L., "Scientists are still keeping the faith,", Nature 386, 435-436 (1997).
I haven't been able to get to the content of that Nature article though it is summarised in the NY Times article. This isn't about "top" scientists though they might be as good as a typical person on a message board.

 

[excreationist]

BTW on the topic of levels of belief, this is from a recent talk that Ken Ham gave:
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0083-9

For the past 32 years, we have polled first-year biology students annually at the University of New South Wales concerning their views about evolution and creationism

The options:

1. God created people (Homo sapiens) pretty much in their present form at sometime within the last 10,000 years.

2. People developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but god guided the whole process, including our development.

3. People developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

4. I honestly have no opinion about this matter.

I guess he was worried about how godless we're becoming. He says we're more like the Greeks in the NT than Jews based on our foundational world view.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If it isn't just me finding patterns where no meaningful/significant patterns exist then it is a significant thing - and I'm curious about that to some degree.

We are pattern finding creatures. Humans can find patterns where there are none. It's a psychological quirk in us. A failure of evolution if you will.

We're also suckers for any belief that's re-enforced by others around us. Because we're social creatures. It's more important for a social creature to share beliefs with our groups, than be mavericks.

And then we're suckers for our bias. Whatever we already believe makes us more likely to keep believing something. A person having a faith at all has demonstrated how this works and has fallen for it. That's why faith at all is a thing.

And finally the sunken cost fallacy. The more time and effort we've spent invested in a belief the more likely we are to defend it.

All this means that a lot of people believing something proves nothing. Unless they can prove it scientifically there's no reason to give it any attention.

Well in primary school I was taught that being against evolution is legitimate though I wasn't much of a Christian. The creation bus show said somethings like that the earth must be less than 10,000 years due to the magnetic field, etc. So I came to believe it based on "scientific" arguments. The creationist books and magazines involved many dozens of "scientific" arguments.

Yet more arguments to reject creationism.

That's yet to happen ever in science.

Well in the case of the universe, the theists are correct in that it seems to have a beginning. (I think in the past many atheists thought the universe was eternal)

Those words mean nothing. No, the universe doesn't have to have had a beginning. Nor does it have to have been eternal... whatever that means. It's just profoundity word sallad thrown around as if it proves something. The Big Bang puts a definite limit to how far back in time our inquiry can go. So why bother speculating beyond it? Here's a mind-fucky thing, when the universe was condensed into the singularity (so before the Big Bang) time itself also stood still. If time stood still, how can anything precede it? Our language isn't rich or nuanced to talk about this in a simple and meaningful way.

And most importantly, the theoretical physicists studying this are pretty damn far from in agreement. So that makes it a bit silly for us non-scientists to speculate on it.

...That 40% of responding experts have a strong belief in an intelligent force. I don't have a strong belief in it.

Where did this number come from? Experts in what?

I quoted "nytimes" as having said it (maybe you missed the quote)
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/03/us/survey-of-scientists-finds-a-stability-of-faith-in-god.html
"about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer."

That article says nothing about a belief in an intelligent force. You just projected that onto it. Many scientists are pantheists. They believe in God. But their belief in God is compatible with atheism. A lot of scientists believe in God, but as something unknown and amorphous. A growing trend is secular religiosity. So that's belief in God, but a type of faith that in practice is atheism.

The Pagans saw the gods as anthropomorphised forces of nature. They're unconcerned about humanity. They follow their own logic and have their own motivations to do things. That's a way to see God that's on the rise.

This isn't about "top" scientists though they might be as good as a typical person on a message board.

We have quite a few scientists on this board. People here are often more knowledgeable than just people off the streets. I used to do research in computer science for instance.

 

[excreationist]

....We're also suckers for any belief that's re-enforced by others around us. Because we're social creatures. It's more important for a social creature to share beliefs with our groups, than be mavericks....

I think I am quite a maverick as far the beliefs of people I interact with go. In high school I was virtually the only YEC. Later I became an atheist every though I didn't know many people like that. These days almost everyone I know is a conservative Christian and large numbers are YECs. At work they sometimes call me a devil's advocate.

And then we're suckers for our bias. Whatever we already believe makes us more likely to keep believing something. A person having a faith at all has demonstrated how this works and has fallen for it. That's why faith at all is a thing.

Well in the past I've had a belief in something on a messageboard then changed my mind after I'd heard enough counter-arguments.

And finally the sunken cost fallacy. The more time and effort we've spent invested in a belief the more likely we are to defend it.

Yes because I'd developed a lot of arguments that need to be addressed before I can drop a belief in something.

All this means that a lot of people believing something proves nothing. Unless they can prove it scientifically there's no reason to give it any attention.

I mean that it shows that I'm not particularly bad.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/03/us/survey-of-scientists-finds-a-stability-of-faith-in-god.html
"about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer."

That article says nothing about a belief in an intelligent force. You just projected that onto it. Many scientists are pantheists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pantheists
That list is impressive. Maybe I'll become a pantheist. I've been quite a fan of Alan Watts, etc.

They believe in God. But their belief in God is compatible with atheism.

It says "God" "actively communicates with humankind" and that people can pray to "in expectation of receiving an answer".
Does that also mean that a rock also "actively communicates with humankind" and can be prayed to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pantheists
says "Einstein held a wavering view on pantheism and at times did not endorse it completely.....Einstein also frequently spoke of a more Cosmic Spirituality, a view where religion and science are partnered. Einstein rejected atheism"

In post #47 of my other thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists
my experiences basically involve synchronicity, and the pantheist Jung apparently "used the concept (Synchronicity) in arguing for the existence of the paranormal..."

 

[Keith&Co.]

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/03/us/survey-of-scientists-finds-a-stability-of-faith-in-god.html

about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer.

But, wouldn't that number be kind of meaningless unless you made a survey to find out WHY they believe?
Did they believe before they studied biology, physics, math?
If not, was it their work that made them change or something outside work?
If so, did they have any trouble justifying the claims of their faith with the claims of their discipline?

and, if 40% believe, that means 60% don't, right?
What were the numbers before they started their education?
I mean, did anyone BECOME a believer because of biology, or did anyone lose their belief?

 

[excreationist]

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/03/us/survey-of-scientists-finds-a-stability-of-faith-in-god.html

about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer.

But, wouldn't that number be kind of meaningless unless you made a survey to find out WHY they believe?

Well it shows that despite being biologists, physicists and mathematicians (i.e. fairly intelligent) a significant number still believe in a god.

Did they believe before they studied biology, physics, math?
If not, was it their work that made them change or something outside work?
If so, did they have any trouble justifying the claims of their faith with the claims of their discipline?

Yes it would be good to have a studies about that.

and, if 40% believe, that means 60% don't, right?
What were the numbers before they started their education?
I mean, did anyone BECOME a believer because of biology, or did anyone lose their belief?

Well I've heard that a large number of people lose their faith after they go to university - I did - I initially became an atheist (formerly a YEC)

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think I am quite a maverick as far the beliefs of people I interact with go. In high school I was virtually the only YEC. Later I became an atheist every though I didn't know many people like that. These days almost everyone I know is a conservative Christian and large numbers are YECs. At work they sometimes call me a devil's advocate.

Meh... YEC has to be taught, since it's so bizarre. There's literally nothing in nature that can lead you to the belief that YEC is true. It needs to come from other Christians. That speaks against you being a maverick.

All it means is that you had been suckered into YEC by social pressure prior to getting to high school. Human identity is quite fluid. The group you identified with, ie YEC'ers were just another group than those at your high school.

Well in the past I've had a belief in something on a messageboard then changed my mind after I'd heard enough counter-arguments.

We can change our beliefs either because we're convinced by rational arguments. Or emotional arguments. Or by social pressure. We're all a happy mixture of beliefs we've reached through different ways.

People can believe in YEC while at the same time not being fooled by a used car salesman. Having a foolish belief doesn't mean you're an idiot. These psychological forces are extremely strong.

All this means that a lot of people believing something proves nothing. Unless they can prove it scientifically there's no reason to give it any attention.

I mean that it shows that I'm not particularly bad.

Don't beat yourself up over it. You're cooler than me. I was raised an atheist in an atheist society. Surrounded by atheism growing up and went to school in a system 100% permeated by the scientific method. That's still what I believe. I've never had to question anything I was taught about evolution. I never came into contact with creationists, or anybody religious, until somebody invented the Internet when I was well and truly adult.

That list is impressive. Maybe I'll become a pantheist. I've been quite a fan of Alan Watts, etc.

Spirituality and a spiritual practice is important in my life. I don't call myself a pantheist. But that's the type of religion I belong to. I treat God as a useful psychological tool I can use. To me God is 100% a metaphor. So I see no conflict between religion and science.

To me the function of religion is to help us manage our emotions. It has nothing to say about science IMHO. I also like Alan Watts.

Btw, I've stopped calling myself an atheist. I identify as a post-atheist. Atheism is to reject God. I've never had to do that. Since I grew up in a society where God had been dead for 50 years it's an uninteresting question. Being an atheist in Sweden means nothing.

They believe in God. But their belief in God is compatible with atheism.

It says "God" "actively communicates with humankind" and that people can pray to "in expectation of receiving an answer".
Does that also mean that a rock also "actively communicates with humankind" and can be prayed to?

Because God is the universe. If your house is on fire that's the universe telling you to get a fire extinguisher or get the hell out of the house. Pantheism does not believe in a personal deity that listens to prayers. A pantheist doesn't pray to get things from the universe of get some special favours. A pantheist prays for their own sake. It helps them focus their mind and bring focus to the things that are important to their lives... for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pantheists
says "Einstein held a wavering view on pantheism and at times did not endorse it completely.....Einstein also frequently spoke of a more Cosmic Spirituality, a view where religion and science are partnered. Einstein rejected atheism"

Nope. Einstein was famously an atheist. He said some pithy and clever things that religious people creatively re-interpreted to get him on their team. Einstein became annoyed and wrote a letter to a magazine stating it publicly and clearly. There's no possibility to see him as anything other than just an atheist.

In post #47 of my other thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists
my experiences basically involve synchronicity, and the pantheist Jung apparently "used the concept (Synchronicity) in arguing for the existence of the paranormal..."

Well.... synchronicity is pseudoscientific nonsense. There's a lot of pantheists who are New Age'rs and completely full of shit. That's the main reason I don't call myself a pantheist. I'm a science nerd. If it's pseudoscientific, it's out.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But, wouldn't that number be kind of meaningless unless you made a survey to find out WHY they believe?

Well it shows that despite being biologists, physicists and mathematicians (i.e. fairly intelligent) a significant number still believe in a god.

That really doesn't show anything, though. IFF they believe BECAUSE of what they know about biology (complexity, for example), then that's a significant number. But they may instead believe as an emotional attachment to the religion their family taught, kept completely isolated from their intellectual accomplishments. I now a number of smart people who believe. They just refuse to apply their critical thinking skills to religious claims.

Kind of like the kid who is skeptical of what the teacher says, sneers at the claims of commercials, but believes EVERYTHING his favorite sports athlete says.