The Divine Watchmaker Theory

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Eben]
So back to the main point of the thread… The arguments seem to come down to two points:

a) There is a real mathematical possibility of everything in the Universe has come into existance through incremental changes.

b) There is an unknown possibility of everything in the Universe being creator by unknown means for unknown reasons.

Since b has so much unknown in it, there is not a clear choice between the two positions. One who is predisposed towards a creator will give b’s unknown chance a higher probability than one who is predisposed towards no creator. The argument from design can not prove creation. Disproving the argument from design doesn’t disprove creation.
[/QUOTE]
There is a clear choice, though, because we know so much about a). We have found a lot of clues as to who the culprit is here, and not one single fingerprint we’ve found is God’s. No, we have a preponderance of evidence, mountains of it, all unanimously pointing to one cuplrit: incremental changes, aka evolution. Ignoring all that and picking God, Odin, Osiris, or the Great Pumpkin to blame for it, that’s about as sensible as accusing Julius Ceasar of the OJ murder.

Have you ever heard of “god of the gaps”? It’s called that because there’s no evidence for creationism, only places where the evidence isn’t overwhelmingly against it yet. That’s how one-sided it is. Without sever ‘predispositions’ preventing you from fairly assessing the evidence, creationism is no choice at all.

It’s a standard trick for theists to try and equate religion and science, for the explicit purpose of dismissing and denying the incredible weight of evidence backing the average scientific position. It’s not really convincing to anyone who hasn’t already backed themeselves into being “predisposed” to deny all evidence, though. So please, don’t bother.

[QUOTE=Eben]
I suppose in the end most people think that they themselves are even-keeled, right-minded people and other people should naturaly believe in the same things they do. I know that I myself feel that way.
[/QUOTE]
This is true. Of course, people disagree about a lot of things, and not all of them are opinions. Therefore, somebody’s gotta be wrong. It takes a smart man to know who, and an even bigger man to admit to it.

62

[QUOTE=Eben]
p.s. It might be worth noting that I’m not a church-going person and not really religious in any sense of the word either. I’m mainly arguing to find the divisive points. If many were arguing that argument from design was right, I’d most likely be arguing that it was wrong.
[/QUOTE]

Since you’re new, you might want to read the rules if you are planning to join this MB. What you say you’re doing is against the rules (or very close to being against the rules), and will get you banned pretty quickly. Just FYI, since you may not know.

63

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Since you’re new, you might want to read the rules if you are planning to join this MB. What you say you’re doing is against the rules (or very close to being against the rules), and will get you banned pretty quickly. Just FYI, since you may not know.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I’d missed the part you were talking about. I’m not intending to pick a fight, per se (ie: incite a flame war). I’m genuinely curious about the division between knowledge and absence of knowledge. Unfortunately that puts me in the position of playing devil’s advocate to some degree.

I’m most certainly intending to fully join the MB, just trying to decide if I can stand to lurk for a while and then put up with ads… :slight_smile:

begbert2, I think you’re missing the point. The point is not that unknown data is comparable to lots of data, the point is that choosing to believe in the possibility of unknown data while acknlowleding the known data should not be a stigma. Refusing to acknowledge the known data, OTOH, can be treated as a failing of intelligence. I hope that makes my position a little clearer.

-Eben

64

[QUOTE=Eben]
begbert2, I think you’re missing the point. The point is not that unknown data is comparable to lots of data, the point is that choosing to believe in the possibility of unknown data while acknlowleding the known data should not be a stigma. Refusing to acknowledge the known data, OTOH, can be treated as a failing of intelligence. I hope that makes my position a little clearer.
[/QUOTE]
Define “choosing to believe in the possibility of unknown data”, please. Virtaully all atheists, even the really virulent ones, would immidiately concede the existence of a god if that god appeared in public in front of everyone and did things that only a god could do, in a way that was observable, recordable, and verifiable. (The ones who wouldn’t so concede will instead quibble about what qualifies something as a ‘god’. :slight_smile: ) Thus, virtually all atheists acknowledge the possibility of unknown data.

What we don’t do, is give unknown data unmerited credence. (Also known as ‘special pleading’.) Also, we recognize that many or most proposed gods or spirits would, if they actually existed and had the properties and mannerisms attributed to them by their believers, would almost certainly have left ‘footprints’ by now. If bigfoots were real, somebody would have brought home a recent corpse of one by now. That nobody has is a strong indicator that there aren’t bigfoots around to turn into corpses. Similarly, the complete lack of clear, obvious objectively observable positive side effects of being in a particular religion is an indicator that their particular guiding, loving, healing god doesn’t exist. (Or, that their vengeful-unless-appeased god doesn’t exist; same difference, practically speaking.)

So, believers in such gods are refusing to acknowledge the known data that their god is highly unlikely to exist. (Heck, the massive number of religions alone proves that any arbitrarily selected religion is extremely likely to be wrong.) So, tell me, should persisting in such beliefs be treated as a failing of intelligence?

65

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
The central (to me) paradox of the Watchmaker illustration: as we are walking along, we spot the Watch and think of a Designer immediately because it stands out from its Natural surroundings. We then invoke the idea of a Designer on those same natural surroundings that the Watch stood out from as a Designed thing. So in the same mental exercise, we are expecting Nature to first be contrasted by, then included in, the category of Designed Things. Somewhere in there is a category error, methinks.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve never come across this observation before, but it’s an astute one.

66

[QUOTE=begbert2]
So, believers in such gods are refusing to acknowledge the known data that their god is highly unlikely to exist. (Heck, the massive number of religions alone proves that any arbitrarily selected religion is extremely likely to be wrong.) So, tell me, should persisting in such beliefs be treated as a failing of intelligence?
[/QUOTE]

The massive number of religions is in fact a deciding factor in my decision that no one of them is likely enough to be correct to bother with. Hence my boiling them all down to essentially wishing us to get along with each other.

Perhaps I’m so culturally used to the idea of Mother Earth as something more than the component of its parts that I find it hard to let go the idea of something more than myself even though I know the preponderance of evidence is on the uncaring universe of randomness. I’ll think upon this.

My only argument at this point for not treating it as a failing of intelligence is that doing so might scare off those who would otherwise come to their senses.

-Eben

67

[QUOTE=Eben]
The massive number of religions is in fact a deciding factor in my decision that no one of them is likely enough to be correct to bother with. Hence my boiling them all down to essentially wishing us to get along with each other.

Perhaps I’m so culturally used to the idea of Mother Earth as something more than the component of its parts that I find it hard to let go the idea of something more than myself even though I know the preponderance of evidence is on the uncaring universe of randomness. I’ll think upon this.

My only argument at this point for not treating it as a failing of intelligence is that doing so might scare off those who would otherwise come to their senses.

-Eben
[/QUOTE]
Well, not all religions promote get-alonging. (Particularly splinter sects off of them.) Though happily it’s gotten less popular to be in an overtly hateful cult. In modernized countries. Nowadays.

It’s hard to shake off old beliefs, certainly. I haven’t fully shaken off every superstitious inclination I have, myself. (A fact which brings me no happiness, I assure you.)

As for not going around openly insulting the faithful :), the sad fact is, if you lean the other way and don’t point out the error of thier ways, they’re still not going to come to their senses. Really, there’s nothing you can do about someone else’s beliefs, unless they approach you with a genuine interest in having a discussion and a willingness to listen (not just to witness); and even then, don’t expect much.

68

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
In fact, I’d argue the exact opposite of your premise - the more complex things are, the more likely it is that they were created incrementally through a process of experimentation and adaptation than to have been created out of whole cloth by one ‘designer’.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never found the watchmaker argument impressive, but this is one insight that I haven’t had before. You’re right; really complex things are never the first-try work of one solitary genius dreaming it all up on his own, they’re always things that have evolved from primitive beginnings.

69

Aren’t watches just fancy sundials with gears and without the reliance upon shadows?

70

[QUOTE=Priceguy]
You’re right; really complex things are never the first-try work of one solitary genius dreaming it all up on his own, they’re always things that have evolved from primitive beginnings.
[/QUOTE]
This is why I find the whole “irreducible complexity” argument to be delightfully ironic. Watches, computers, and all other modern inventions were not invented by a single person – they are the work-in-progress of hundreds of people making improvements over thousands of years.

So the Christians who support this theory are actually putting forth an argument for polytheism. Therefore, it’s more likely that Hinduism is the one true faith – or maybe the Tolkien pantheon.

71

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Since you’re new, you might want to read the rules if you are planning to join this MB. What you say you’re doing is against the rules (or very close to being against the rules), and will get you banned pretty quickly. Just FYI, since you may not know.
[/QUOTE]

If playing Devil’s Advocate were against the rules, mswas would have been banned long ago. I’m guessing the word “divisive” was what stood out for you too, but I don’t think it was meant that way. I think Eben’s a nice new addition, myself, even if I don’t always agree with his posts. He certainly isn’t needlessly inflammatory.