The Causation Argument

[Lion IRC]

Just thought I'd throw in some random thoughts.

I’ve posted before on different threads that there seems to be an evolutionary drive for people to find patterns in the environment – to figure out cause and effect and be able to predict effects when necessary. This skill has an obvious survival advantage. However this same drive can provide false returns, when patterns are only imagined. It turns out there is a name for this phenomenon: apophenia.

Maybe this is old news to many, but the word is new to me and I’m glad to know it. I discovered it while reading The Art of Statistics by David Spiegelhalter.

He says: “There is even a word for this tendency to construct reasons for a connection between what are actually unrelated events – apophenia – with the most extreme case being when simple misfortune or bad luck is blamed on others’ ill-will or even witchcraft.”

He elaborates:

It is not just scientists who value discoveries – the delight in finding something new is universal. In fact it is so desirable that there is an innate tendency to feel we have found something when we have not. We have previously used the term apophenia to describe the capacity to see patterns where they do not exist, and it has been suggested that this tendency might even confer an evolutionary advantage – those ancestors who ran away from rustling in the bushes without waiting to find out if it was definitely a tiger may have been more likely to survive.

But while this attitude may be fine for hunter-gatherers, it cannot work in science…

I believe this phenomenon, this tendency to see patterns of causality where there are non, has a major significance with relation to the origins of religion, from animism to intelligent design.

Incidentally, and in the context of apophenia, Spiegelhalter throws out this gem: “Causation is a deeply contested subject, which is perhaps surprising as it seems rather simple in real life…” (my emphasis). He elaborates on that, of course.

Seems like these observations have application to a number of discussions on this board.

We can see patterns.
More importantly we can see the absence of patterns - thus verifying and confirming the evidence of our senses that patterns actually DO exist.

If www.seti.org discovered a pattern they wouldnt dismiss it as apophenia.

The pattern of a genome DNA structure isnt apophenia.

Of course there are patterns. I don't see what your point is.

You wrote about "seeing patterns where they do not exist"..."false returns"..."when patterns are only imagined..."

Surely the difference between a sand dune and a sand sculpture is not imaginary.

 

[skepticalbip]

We can see patterns.
More importantly we can see the absence of patterns - thus verifying and confirming the evidence of our senses that patterns actually DO exist.

If www.seti.org discovered a pattern they wouldnt dismiss it as apophenia.

The pattern of a genome DNA structure isnt apophenia.

Of course there are patterns but just because there are patterns in some cases does not mean that there are patterns in all cases.

There being a pattern in a sand sculpture does not mean god created a sand dune.

 

[Wiploc]

https://xkcd.com/552/

 

[rousseau]

Just thought I'd throw in some random thoughts.

I’ve posted before on different threads that there seems to be an evolutionary drive for people to find patterns in the environment – to figure out cause and effect and be able to predict effects when necessary. This skill has an obvious survival advantage. However this same drive can provide false returns, when patterns are only imagined. It turns out there is a name for this phenomenon: apophenia.

Maybe this is old news to many, but the word is new to me and I’m glad to know it. I discovered it while reading The Art of Statistics by David Spiegelhalter.

He says: “There is even a word for this tendency to construct reasons for a connection between what are actually unrelated events – apophenia – with the most extreme case being when simple misfortune or bad luck is blamed on others’ ill-will or even witchcraft.”

He elaborates:

It is not just scientists who value discoveries – the delight in finding something new is universal. In fact it is so desirable that there is an innate tendency to feel we have found something when we have not. We have previously used the term apophenia to describe the capacity to see patterns where they do not exist, and it has been suggested that this tendency might even confer an evolutionary advantage – those ancestors who ran away from rustling in the bushes without waiting to find out if it was definitely a tiger may have been more likely to survive.

But while this attitude may be fine for hunter-gatherers, it cannot work in science…

I believe this phenomenon, this tendency to see patterns of causality where there are non, has a major significance with relation to the origins of religion, from animism to intelligent design.

Incidentally, and in the context of apophenia, Spiegelhalter throws out this gem: “Causation is a deeply contested subject, which is perhaps surprising as it seems rather simple in real life…” (my emphasis). He elaborates on that, of course.

Seems like these observations have application to a number of discussions on this board.

It's a point we keep hitting on as our conversations about religion at this forum become more cyclical.

The other part of apophenia, I think, is that the errant explanation is satisfying. I'd guess that when creation stories took form across the world it wasn't a passive, accidental process, the stories persisted because people found the explanations satisfying. Even the man who runs from rustling in the bushes wants to believe, because it assuages his fear. It is a relief to run away.

When you look at the entire history of world religion we then get a process where belief fits the vessel of the society. Cruft keeps building up on top of the creation story to suit the needs of the believers - new beliefs that are also satisfying. Study the developments of any religion at any point in it's history and you'll see a correlation with material need.

Oddly enough, now with abundance and material affluence many of our religions have become quite sophisticated, and because of this are normalized, rather than being seen as simple folk beliefs like you'd see in Indigenous Africa.

 

[steve_bank]

We can see patterns.
More importantly we can see the absence of patterns - thus verifying and confirming the evidence of our senses that patterns actually DO exist.

If www.seti.org discovered a pattern they wouldnt dismiss it as apophenia.

The pattern of a genome DNA structure isnt apophenia.

Paranoids see patterns everywhere.

Creatiinists see a pttern of god's hand and say it is obvious.

Science sets up an experiment to test a correlation.

I once flipped a light switch on and simultaneously heard a ground shaking thunderclap. Correlation and causation?

The only time I went gambling was a weekend in the 90s at Reno. Habitual gamblers-losers think they see patterns.

I saw a dragon in a cloud yesterday.

 

[Rhea]

6. The Kalām Cosmological Argument
A second type of cosmological argument, contending for a first or beginning cause of the universe, has a venerable history, especially in the Islamic mutakalliman tradition. Although it had numerous defenders through the centuries, it received new life in the recent voluminous writings of William Lane Craig. Craig formulates the kalām cosmological argument this way (in Craig and Smith 1993: chap. 1):
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin (very beginning) of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
This argument has been the subject of much recent debate, only some of which we can summarize here. (For greater bibliographic detail, see Craig and Sinclair 2009.)

Using this logic -

At a moment in time when science could not explain (in terms of physical laws) a causal account of germs, at that moment in time, Goddidit.
Later, when science learned more, God stopped doing it.



There's some history to this.
Until a scientist first made urea, only god could make urea (and all other "organic" chemicals.) God stopped making urea once scientists figured out the principles that obviated the need for a god story.

SINCE science couldn't explain electricity in the early eons, lightning was, at that time, caused by a personal agent, Thor. Once science figured that part out, Thor stopped making lightning and squeezed back into the closet of the gaps, never to be seen in action again.

And science has been squeezing god(s) into a smaller and smaller "gap" ever since.

Perhaps the singularity that is proposed to have produced the Big Bang was, in fact, the sum total of the energy of the last Universe's unneeded gods squeezed in the gaps to the point at which the physical volume of the gap disappeared and it became a singularity which was unstable, sucked in the rest of the real universe and then exploded, scattering smears of belief all over the place while becoming a new physical universe.

 

[atrib]

Just thought I'd throw in some random thoughts.

I’ve posted before on different threads that there seems to be an evolutionary drive for people to find patterns in the environment – to figure out cause and effect and be able to predict effects when necessary. This skill has an obvious survival advantage. However this same drive can provide false returns, when patterns are only imagined. It turns out there is a name for this phenomenon: apophenia.

Maybe this is old news to many, but the word is new to me and I’m glad to know it. I discovered it while reading The Art of Statistics by David Spiegelhalter.

He says: “There is even a word for this tendency to construct reasons for a connection between what are actually unrelated events – apophenia – with the most extreme case being when simple misfortune or bad luck is blamed on others’ ill-will or even witchcraft.”

He elaborates:



I believe this phenomenon, this tendency to see patterns of causality where there are non, has a major significance with relation to the origins of religion, from animism to intelligent design.

Incidentally, and in the context of apophenia, Spiegelhalter throws out this gem: “Causation is a deeply contested subject, which is perhaps surprising as it seems rather simple in real life…” (my emphasis). He elaborates on that, of course.

Seems like these observations have application to a number of discussions on this board.

We can see patterns.
More importantly we can see the absence of patterns - thus verifying and confirming the evidence of our senses that patterns actually DO exist.

If www.seti.org discovered a pattern they wouldnt dismiss it as apophenia.

The pattern of a genome DNA structure isnt apophenia.

Of course there are patterns. I don't see what your point is.

You wrote about "seeing patterns where they do not exist"..."false returns"..."when patterns are only imagined..."

Surely the difference between a sand dune and a sand sculpture is not imaginary.

What is the point you are trying to make? You have contrasted sand dunes with sand sculptures several times in past threads, implying that they are different in some significant way, and that this difference should lead us to some deeper inference about the nature of our universe, but you have never explained what this deeper inference might be, or how the dune/sculpture analogy leads to this inference. Why this need to be coy, to play these guessing games? Why can't you just state your argument instead of constantly hinting at it and then running away when you are asked to clarify your position?

 

[Lion IRC]

If you can find no objection to anything I've written then I'm happy.

 

[abaddon]

Lion IRC is restating the difference between the field where Paley found a watch and the watch. We know the watch is designed and the field can't have done it. Likewise, we know the sculpture's designed and the wind cannot have done it.

He's missed that you have to point back at nature and say "That too is like this watch" or "That too is like this sculpture". Bizarre as the argument is... in finding that nature is distinctly different from things that are intelligently made, we're to understand that this means God made it all.

Yet again, he's argued against a designer/fine tuner/creator while trying to do the opposite.

Probably phrases like "patterns where there are none" confused him. He thinks it's a denial of pattern in the world. To him, the choice is pattern or chaos. So the point about apophenia was lost on him because he focused on the word "none" - as in no patterns. But, like with his elephant and the blind men drawing, even if the blind men get everything wrong, Lion's apophenia results in an actual, real elephant.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Lion IRC is restating the difference between the field where Paley found a watch and the watch. We know the watch is designed and the field can't have done it. Likewise, we know the sculpture's designed and the wind cannot have done it.

He's missed that you have to point back at nature and say "That too is like this watch" or "That too is like this sculpture". Bizarre as the argument is... in finding that nature is distinctly different from things that are intelligently made, we're to understand that this means God made it all.

Yet again, he's argued against a designer/fine tuner/creator while trying to do the opposite.

Probably phrases like "patterns where there are none" confused him. He thinks it's a denial of pattern in the world. To him, the choice is pattern or chaos. So the point about apophenia was lost on him because he focused on the word "none" - as in no patterns. But, like with his elephant and the blind men drawing, even if the blind men get everything wrong, Lion's apophenia results in an actual, real elephant.

Which makes one think about creators. Do these things have patterns? How did they become patterned? Or are they chaotic, in which case how does that square with patterns, patterns everywhere? Patterns coming from chaotic creator beings? Mercy, the obvious conflicts. Do designers possess design? If so how so? Design can't just happen to exist, it must be created by creators, but it's already there. So, so mysterious.

 

[bilby]

Designed objects look very clearly different from the natural world. Therefore the natural world is a designed object.

That's Paley's argument in a nutshell. I wonder why he didn't wake up the next day, realise his error, and drop dead on the spot from embarrassment.

That others, including Lion, continue to regard this as one of the best arguments for their gods, is all the evidence you need that they should be laughed off the stage.

 

[Wiploc]

That others, including Lion, continue to regard this as one of the best arguments for their gods, is all the evidence you need that they should be laughed off the stage.

Reading Paley is what made me content to be an atheist. Until I read Paley, I wanted to be a Christian.

 

[Lion IRC]

Designed objects look very clearly different from the natural world. Therefore the natural world is a designed object.

That's Paley's argument in a nutshell. I wonder why he didn't wake up the next day, realise his error, and drop dead on the spot from embarrassment.

That others, including Lion, continue to regard this as one of the best arguments for their gods, is all the evidence you need that they should be laughed off the stage.

You didnt read what I wrote.

I said its the CONSPICUOUS difference between a pattern and a non-pattern which proves that we arent imagining the existence of a (non-existent) pattern.

Surely the difference between a sand dune and a sand sculpture is not imaginary.
We can see patterns.

More importantly we can see the absence of patterns

The problem with the Paley's Watchmaker metaphor is that it depends on one's ability to distinguish engineered from natural objects

I'm sorry you find that a "problem"
Paley would argue that it's precisely our ability to do so which leads to unavoidable why questions.

There's two stages to the argument from fine tuning.

The first stage is to determine if there actually is any fine tuning (laws of physics, mathematics, etc.) Is fine tuning a mirage, a trompe l'oeil in the mind of pattern-seeking observers. Or is it a fundamental, brute fact aspect of reality.

The second step, upon determining that there is some sort of fine tuning, is to decide whether it is the product of (a) chance, (b) necessity or (c) design/intent.

The red coloured font section indicates the religiously neutral aspects of this question. Atheists can accept that the uni/multi/omni/megaverse is finely tuned, and the explanation of that fine tuning without conceding teleology.

Where the pre-suppositional atheism-of-the-gaps bias gets in the way is when it sees the entire question of fine-tuning in terms of intelligent design.

Here bilby - do yourself a favor. Go and immerse yourself in some 'apophenia'
https://www.assessmentday.co.uk/aptitudetests_diagrammatic.htm

 

[bilby]

You didnt read what I wrote.

I said its the CONSPICUOUS difference between a pattern and a non-pattern which proves that we arent imagining the existence of a (non-existent) pattern.

More importantly we can see the absence of patterns

The problem with the Paley's Watchmaker metaphor is that it depends on one's ability to distinguish engineered from natural objects

I'm sorry you find that a "problem"
Paley would argue that it's precisely our ability to do so which leads to unavoidable why questions.

There's two stages to the argument from fine tuning.

The first stage is to determine if there actually is any fine tuning (laws of physics, mathematics, etc.) Is fine tuning a mirage, a trompe l'oeil in the mind of pattern-seeking observers. Or is it a fundamental, brute fact aspect of reality.

The second step, upon determining that there is some sort of fine tuning, is to decide whether it is the product of (a) chance, (b) necessity or (c) design/intent.

The red coloured font section indicates the religiously neutral aspects of this question. Atheists can accept that the uni/multi/omni/megaverse is finely tuned, and the explanation of that fine tuning without conceding teleology.

Where the pre-suppositional atheism-of-the-gaps bias gets in the way is when it sees the entire question of fine-tuning in terms of intelligent design.

Here bilby - do yourself a favor. Go and immerse yourself in some 'apophenia'
https://www.assessmentday.co.uk/aptitudetests_diagrammatic.htm

So, which parts of the natural world do you hold to be CONSPICUOUSLY not designed?

You've mentioned sand dunes; Are you asserting that no gods or designers are necessary for those to arise?

What about stars? Planets? Crystals? Viruses? Bacteria? Plants? Animals? It's obvious to me that there's a continuum of increasing complexity here, and that if you draw a sharp line and declare that it separates 'designed' from 'natural', you will have some grey areas.

 

[atrib]

I said its the CONSPICUOUS difference between a pattern and a non-pattern which proves that we arent imagining the existence of a (non-existent) pattern.

Who told you sand dunes don't arrange themselves in patterns? Do you understand what the word "pattern" means?

Does the presence of a pattern necessarily imply teleological causation? If you saw a cloud that looked like a duck, would you then have to infer that the cloud is the product of an intelligent mind? Is that what you are trying to say?

Why are you so fucking reluctant to state your argument and explain how it works? Is it because you already know that the argument is flawed and feel ashamed at having to publicly defend a flawed argument?

 

[atrib]

You didnt read what I wrote.

I said its the CONSPICUOUS difference between a pattern and a non-pattern which proves that we arent imagining the existence of a (non-existent) pattern.

The problem with the Paley's Watchmaker metaphor is that it depends on one's ability to distinguish engineered from natural objects

I'm sorry you find that a "problem"
Paley would argue that it's precisely our ability to do so which leads to unavoidable why questions.

There's two stages to the argument from fine tuning.

The first stage is to determine if there actually is any fine tuning (laws of physics, mathematics, etc.) Is fine tuning a mirage, a trompe l'oeil in the mind of pattern-seeking observers. Or is it a fundamental, brute fact aspect of reality.

The second step, upon determining that there is some sort of fine tuning, is to decide whether it is the product of (a) chance, (b) necessity or (c) design/intent.

The red coloured font section indicates the religiously neutral aspects of this question. Atheists can accept that the uni/multi/omni/megaverse is finely tuned, and the explanation of that fine tuning without conceding teleology.

Where the pre-suppositional atheism-of-the-gaps bias gets in the way is when it sees the entire question of fine-tuning in terms of intelligent design.

Here bilby - do yourself a favor. Go and immerse yourself in some 'apophenia'
https://www.assessmentday.co.uk/aptitudetests_diagrammatic.htm

So, which parts of the natural world do you hold to be CONSPICUOUSLY not designed?

You've mentioned sand dunes; Are you asserting that no gods or designers are necessary for those to arise?

What about stars? Planets? Crystals? Viruses? Bacteria? Plants? Animals? It's obvious to me that there's a continuum of increasing complexity here, and that if you draw a sharp line and declare that it separates 'designed' from 'natural', you will have some grey areas.

He's playing coy because he doesn't want to get nailed down. Good luck getting any meaningful responses from him.

 

[atrib]

There's two stages to the argument from fine tuning.

The first stage is to determine if there actually is any fine tuning (laws of physics.) Is fine tuning a mirage, a trompe l'oeil in the mind of pattern-seeking observers. Or is it a fundamental, brute fact aspect of reality.

The second step, upon determining that there is some sort of fine tuning, is to decide whether it is the product of (a) chance, (b) necessity or (c) design/intent.

The red coloured font section indicates the religiously neutral aspects of this question. Atheists can accept that the uni/multi/omni/megaverse is finely tuned, and the explanation of that fine tuning without conceding teleology.

Where the pre-suppositional atheism-of-the-gaps bias gets in the way is when it sees the entire question of fine-tuning in terms of intelligent design.

Your argument is circular. Before we move on to a discussion of the evidence for fine tuning, we have to first establish what this fine tuning is supposed to achieve. So can you answer these questions please:

Why should we assume that the universe is fine tuned for anything?
What is this fine tuning intended to achieve, and how can we verify such an intent?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why should we assume that the universe is fine tuned for anything?
What is this fine tuning intended to achieve, and how can we verify such an intent?

Boiled down to it's most basic elements I think the answer goes as follows:

I have been told a story. The story goes that there is a thing called a god and it is a story that I have come to believe. But lots of people don't believe stories about gods and this makes me uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable, perhaps even afraid and angry, because if there is no god then I feel my life is pointless. This fear drives me to find "proof" that my god is something real, not just another spooky, ghost story.

The fine tuning argument that I have been told is a device I use to prove that my god is real, which keeps my life meaningful. Generally speaking, my god is a super powerful, invisible human man living in the sky that dispenses judgement on human souls after we are dead. The story about a finely tuned universe bolsters my belief that this powerful invisible human can be real.

Please understand that I am convinced that if my god is not real, my life has no meaning, no purpose and no value.

End.

 

[skepticalbip]

There's two stages to the argument from fine tuning.

The first stage is to determine if there actually is any fine tuning (laws of physics.) Is fine tuning a mirage, a trompe l'oeil in the mind of pattern-seeking observers. Or is it a fundamental, brute fact aspect of reality.

The second step, upon determining that there is some sort of fine tuning, is to decide whether it is the product of (a) chance, (b) necessity or (c) design/intent.

The red coloured font section indicates the religiously neutral aspects of this question. Atheists can accept that the uni/multi/omni/megaverse is finely tuned, and the explanation of that fine tuning without conceding teleology.

Where the pre-suppositional atheism-of-the-gaps bias gets in the way is when it sees the entire question of fine-tuning in terms of intelligent design.

Your argument is circular. Before we move on to a discussion of the evidence for fine tuning, we have to first establish what this fine tuning is supposed to achieve. So can you answer these questions please:

Why should we assume that the universe is fine tuned for anything?
What is this fine tuning intended to achieve, and how can we verify such an intent?

It is yet another 'god of the gaps' argument. It is not known how some physical constants are precisely what they are. Science does not know (yet) therefore god.

 

[abaddon]

I'm curious about the claim "life would be impossible" if the physical constants were "too far off". If the basic elements were different, how would know that'd make the evolution of life impossible? Does the claim assume that life must be carbon-based?