The historical contigency of the Argument from Design

[Mangetout]

@BrainFireBob

Difficult to respond here.

I have a hard time grasping people do not see the bias toward atheism as good in their posts, and it coloring the positions presented. How to point that out is difficult.

So wait. There’s this bias that people have, but they don’t realise it. Also, you can’t point it out.

Where is it again?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@BrainFireBob

And Sophistry, if beliefs are not under one’s voluntary control, then one is no more than a reactive organism lacking in free will

Belief is a dependent variable. “Free Will” (which is a logically incoherent concept anyway) has nothing to do with it. One is either convinced or not convinced. You can’t just force yourself to believe something, you have to be persuaded to it. As an illustration, ask yoiurself this – can you force yourself to believe in the Easter Bunny? Not just say it, but actialy believe it in all sincerity? What if your life depended on it?

For many of us us, asking us to just decide to believe in sky gods by force of will is exactly the same as asking us to believe in the Easter Bunny. I’m not being facetious. We see the two enties as being equally unlikely.

• and then evil does not exist, since all things are merely causal in nature, and incidental. Morality loses any sort of rightness.

Morality is a subjective, biologically evolved aesthetic like beauty. It exists as an emotional response to stimuli. It does not exist outside of subjective human perceptions and thought.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Mangetout

So wait. There’s this bias that people have, but they don’t realise it. Also, you can’t point it out.

Where is it again?

I wonder if he thinks that God/NoGod are equal hypotheses with equal presumptions of truth. A lot of people erroneously think that you’re supposed to assume a 50/50 probability from the outset, which is ridiculous and which tries to cheat the burden of proof.

BrainFireBob, the logical default is to assume that X does not exist until it is proven to exist. What you see as “bias” is just the same assumption that a hypothesis is false that any other hypothesis would receive. The God hypothesis is not entitled to a presumption of equal probability as no God unless and until you can show any necessity for it.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@BrainFireBob

And Sophistry, if beliefs are not under one’s voluntary control, then one is no more than a reactive organism lacking in free will- and then evil does not exist, since all things are merely causal in nature, and incidental. Morality loses any sort of rightness.

Even if beliefs aren’t under one’s voluntary control, one’s actions might be; and so one might still be free.

But setting that point aside, your argument does not provide a good reason for thinking that beliefs are voluntary. The argument you presented is a version of what I call in my classes the “that would suck fallacy”. “If P, that would suck; therefore, not-P”. Obviously, there are many things that suck, and are yet true.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@BrainFireBob

It lies in remarks such as Voyager’s, about a predictive theory failing to predict, should it not be discarded in favor of one that does. Yes, it should- but that is too strong to be an analogy, because predictive models do not apply to God, and using that as a model reveals a flaw in the reasoning set.

Why don’t they apply to God?

Every time I get in a car, I accept I might die. I consider the possibility remote, but if I do have an accident and die due to, say, structural failure in the car, do I declare the structural failure evil, assigning it a false moral value? No, I do not. It is simply an occurence, and no sign of evil. What such occurences due is force accountability and responsibility, at least ideally- there may not be opportunity to change your choice later, so exercise free will and choose good now. I find the existence of such events entirely consistent with the image of an instructive-minded God.

But your buying of that car is something entirely under your control. You accept the risks that will happen; you could just as easily decide not to buy a car, and it’s not something that’forced on you. Where you live, while again not a forced thing, is certainly much less of an optional thing than buying a car. I don’t think that all people affected by the tsunami, for example, had the option to simply move somewhere safer. And certainly the children killed by it didn’t have that option.

In order for something to be good or evil, it must have been set in motion by a being capable of understanding their actions, or not prevented by a being with likewise faculties. Most definitions of gods would include that knowledge; I see no problem with saying “If God exists, he allowed the tsunami to go ahead”.

If, instead of a god, we imagine that there was a big red button somewhere, that automatically stops tsunamis. The warning comes in; a tsunami approaches; and the person at the switch decides not to do anything about it, despite it costing him nothing. I think the rest of us might have some choice words for that person - I don’t see why we’d consider a person failing to do anything about it evil but when it’s a god, hey, it’s an entirely amoral situation.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@Revenant Threshold

I don’t see why we’d consider a person failing to do anything about it evil but when it’s a god, hey, it’s an entirely amoral situation.

This is what gets my goat. If a human releases smallpox back into the world, that person would be universally reviled as a moral monster. But when God does it, it is somehow okay. Like I’ve always said, it’s easy for the theist to win the debate when he gets to set different rules for himself.

[Voyager]

@BrainFireBob

Another minor quibble.

Differentiating between “atheism” and “strong atheism” does carry a certain scent of unwillingness to address agnosticism, which I always thought the most logically sensible, abstractly, position on an unprovable point.

How do you define agnosticism?

(BTW, I responded to your first post, but the Board crashed, again, before I could submit it. I saved it and will post tonight.)

[lekatt]

@Sophistry and Illusion

This is what gets my goat. If a human releases smallpox back into the world, that person would be universally reviled as a moral monster. But when God does it, it is somehow okay. Like I’ve always said, it’s easy for the theist to win the debate when he gets to set different rules for himself.

That’s a first, never heard anyone say God releases smallpox into the world.

Like theists who place all the blame on the Devil, atheists want to place all the blame on God. Neither of them are to blame. The only enemy we humans have are ourselves. Remember “We have found the enemy, and he is us.”

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@lekatt

That’s a first, never heard anyone say God releases smallpox into the world.

Like theists who place all the blame on the Devil, atheists want to place all the blame on God. Neither of them are to blame. The only enemy we humans have are ourselves. Remember “We have found the enemy, and he is us.”

We are to blame for the existence of smallpox?

[Voyager]

@lekatt

That’s a first, never heard anyone say God releases smallpox into the world.

Like theists who place all the blame on the Devil, atheists want to place all the blame on God. Neither of them are to blame. The only enemy we humans have are ourselves. Remember “We have found the enemy, and he is us.”

True, but in a similar light the only one who answers our prayers and does good in the world is us also. Humans are solely responsible for both good and evil, just as if not gods exist.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@lekatt

That’s a first, never heard anyone say God releases smallpox into the world.

I have.

Not specifically, of course. But i’ve heard it said God is responsible for all creation; the only thing he doesn’t himself force is ourselves and our choices, thus why free will is so great.

But have I misunderstood? Is smallpox not a part of nature, and thus under the purview of God? I’ve certainly heard it said that God is responsible for the majesty and magnificience of nature; all the wonders of the universe. Does this not also count for smallpox? I would be entirely interested to know how humans are to blame for it, anyway.

[the_PC_apeman]

…

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

M. Python

[Mangetout]

@Sophistry and Illusion

We are to blame for the existence of smallpox?

I thought I told you to tidy that up.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@Mangetout

I thought I told you to tidy that up.

Yeah, my bad; sorry about that. And the avian flu? Sorry; that was me, too. And…well, never mind. You’ll find out soon enough.

[Voyager]

My missing response - most of which has been said already. (If God were good, he’d feed the hamsters better.)

@BrainFireBob

Difficult to respond here.

I have a hard time grasping people do not see the bias toward atheism as good in their posts, and it coloring the positions presented. How to point that out is difficult.

It lies in remarks such as Voyager’s, about a predictive theory failing to predict, should it not be discarded in favor of one that does. Yes, it should- but that is too strong to be an analogy, because predictive models do not apply to God, and using that as a model reveals a flaw in the reasoning set. The correspondence of picture and simple is not sufficient, to butcher the imagery used in Wittgenstein. See it, yes or no? It was a remark far stronger and containing far more ground than a simple assertion that one should apply rigor- it was about rejecting a given hypothesis.

The theistic hypothesis can’t be that some generic god exists, but it should encompass some specific principles of God. Some might be that prayer works, the Bible describes the natural world well, that Jesus was crucified. If your model of god is the deistic one, where the prediction is that the universe looks just like that with no god, then I have no argument. I see no reason to believe, but no rigorous reason not to. So predictive models may not apply to god directly, since god in itself is not a concept that has obvious predictive value, but it does apply to anything the theist says about god’s interaction with the world.

As to a tangent that promises to be interesting, I would argue that things like tsunamis are neither good nor bad, simply causal phenomena, and that human behavior regarding them falls under assumption of risk. Yes, it is horrible for the people involved that there was the tsunami. However: Peoples living in the area knew there were tsunamis. People travelling to the area could easily have determined such. Does this make the tsunami “evil” for killing them, or was it simply the result in a string of causal events whose possibility was known that happened to come due? Eventually, someone will always win the lottery, even when it is the “crap” lottery.

The children who were killed had very little choice. Most of the people there are descended from people who settled long before they knew of these. I live in California, and I moved here from the civilized world, so if I get clobbered by an earthquake I have no excuse. There is hardly anywhere in the world where you can’t get killed by some natural phenomena.
Natural suffering only counters a benevolent god - if a god doesn’t give a crap, then it is no issue.
As an atheist I agree that tsunamis are neither good nor bad. But if one believes in an omnipotent and omniscient god, you must believe that he is in some sense responsible for them, since he created a world in which they exist.

Every time I get in a car, I accept I might die. I consider the possibility remote, but if I do have an accident and die due to, say, structural failure in the car, do I declare the structural failure evil, assigning it a false moral value? No, I do not. It is simply an occurence, and no sign of evil. What such occurences due is force accountability and responsibility, at least ideally- there may not be opportunity to change your choice later, so exercise free will and choose good now. I find the existence of such events entirely consistent with the image of an instructive-minded God.

Is the structural failure random, or did it get placed there by the designer? I used to drive a Pinto - if I had been killed or injured by the gas tank problem, I might indeed consider the designers and management of Ford who let the cars out with a know fatal problem to be evil. God, knowing what will happen and letting it happen, is more like those designers.