From: Mark Steven Heyman (MarkHeyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Apr 24 2005 - 07:34:24 BST
On 23 Apr 2005 at 4:30, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
msh said:
I've asked several times for your answer to Hume's refutation of the
Intelligent Design argument. You give no response, yet continue to
claim that ID is a strong argument for the existence of Essence.
ham:
Hume's so-called "refutation of an intelligent creator" is nothing
more than the empiricist's dismissal of *a posteriori* knowledge.
msh:
A proposition is knowable a posteriori if it is knowable on the
basis of experience, so I have no idea what you're saying when you
claim that empiricists dismiss a posteriori knowledge. Your
statement makes no sense at all, so I won't even try to address it.
ham:
Since nothing like an "intelligent designer" is implanted in our
minds, we cannot infer intelligent design from our sense experience.
Reason has no right to add anything to this experience, or to alter
the information received by imputing meaning to it. Where, then,
does the notion of ID come from, and how do we recognize it? The
analogy he uses is as follows:
"If we see a house,. we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that
it had an architect or builder because this is precisely that species
of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of
cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a
resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a
similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect."
[Dialogues, Part II].
By setting up an inappropriate analogy and claiming that the universe
does not resemble a house, he says we can't conclude that there is a
universal architect. Pardon me, but that argument is really dumber
that it is weak.
msh:
So, let's see, you dusted off your old copy of Dialogues Concerning
Natural Religion, carefully reread all 12 parts, and have now
summarized Hume's criticism of the design argument as "dumb," citing
as evidence a single quote from Part 2, which, BTW, you have
completely misinterpreted. Let's at least give the old Scott a fair
reading, shall we?
For anyone interested in what Hume actually said, as opposed to
simplistic quotes pasted out of context from some ID infatuated web
site, here's a link to the Dialogues:
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm#A1
We need to keep in mind that Hume’s language is at times poetic and
dated, and, of course, not up to snuff regarding our current
understanding of the physical universe. Nevertheless, though the
Dialogues were written more than 200 years ago, they are still among
the most impressive, and unanswered, criticisms of the Design
Argument.
A careful reader of the dialogues will discern no less than six
objections to the Design Argument. Since any one of them is
sufficient to put the Design Argument on ice, I'll spare you an
analyis of all six. Here are the four I find most interesting,
though I will be happy to discuss the other two if you so desire:
1) The analogy between the universe and man-made items is very weak.
This is the point being made in the "dumb" quote Ham has clipped
above. Hume's house analogy isn't dumb; in fact, as is plain from
the surrounding paragraphs, his analogy is intended to show the
weakness of analogies such as "the watch" that offered by Paley more
than 50 years later. For an analogy to be convincing, there must be
substantial similarity between the analogy's object and target. I
know my heart pumps blood through my veins, so I can safely infer
that your's does the same. There is a strong similarity between you
and me in that we are both human animals. But is the same inference
valid between a man and a sunflower? Can we really infer a designed
universe from the the fact that a watch was designed by a man? It
should be clear that the universe does not resemble any made-made
artifact at all. The analogy simply doesn't hold.
2) - Analogies to the the origin of the universe are meaningless,
since the "creation" would be a single, unprecedented, and in fact
unique event.
We have only one universe. Analogies are meaningful only when we can
compare and contrast a variety of objects or ideas. It is both
meaningful and useful to compare the attributes of humans,
sunflowers, tides and watches, but to what do we compare the
universe?
3) Intelligence is not the only active cause in the world.
It's obvious that natural phenomena do not require creative
intelligence to occur. Perfectly symmetrical crystals of quartz,as
well as dozens of other minerals, will form during the cooling of
silicon rich magma, and this process is understood without reference
to intelligent design. The ebb and flow of tides can be explained in
terms of simple well-understoof gravitational interactions. No ID
required. In short, there is no reason to believe that because some
things are intelligently designed, a watch for example, that
everything in nature must be ID as well.
4) Even if signs of intelligence are everywhere, it does not follow
that intelligence created the universe.
This is my personal favorite of Hume's objections. Think of the
rovers NASA has landed on Mars. They send back their data and
eventually "die." Now imagine that intelligent life evolves on Mars,
say several million years down the road, and a smart Martian stumbles
across one of NASA's rovers. To her, the rover is clearly too
complex to be anything other than the result of intelligent design.
Is she logically justified in offering the rover as proof of the
intelligent design and creation of the universe?
ham:
I find Paley's "Watchmaker" argument a far more convincing defense
for ID.
msh:
I'm sure you do. Still, I'll snip the pasting of Paley's watchmaker
argument, as it was made 50 years after Hume had refuted the
formulation in general. I've always thought that if Paley had been
reading philosophy rather than trying to invent arguments for the
existence of God, he would have saved himself considerable
embarrassment.
ham:
That argument, as you probably know, is still effectively used by the
ID proponents.
msh says:
I have no doubt that Paley's argument is effectively used by ID
proponents in convincing ID enthusiasts that their desired belief is
logically sound. Of course, the argument has NO effect on anyone who
has actually read, and is capable of understanding, Hume's
criticisms.
msh said earlier:
In the absence of time, the causality principle is meaningless. Even
in the presence of time, any notion of an uncreated source, primary
cause, unmoved mover is logically indefensible, unless you simply
assume the truth of what you are trying to prove.
ham:
Or, unless one assumes that a primary cause is a primary source, as I
do.
msh says:
Exactly. Your arguments will never fail, if you simply assume what
you are trying to prove.
For now, I'll snip the stuff re the Ontological argument, since it is
off-topic for this thread, and because your reference to Clinton
caught with his pants down made me laugh. However, I do want to
address this point...
ham:
I make the claim that Essence [e.g., God] "is" without the
contingency of either "being" or "existing". From a rational perspective, you'll
tell me that makes no sense. But who says that ultimate reality must
conform to man's reason?
msh says:
You are the one who claims that Paley's analogy, a rational argument,
supports the notion of an intelligent creator of the universe, so you
obviously believe that reality conforms to man's reason. Why then do
you claim otherwise only when reason works against your desired
belief?
Thanks,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
“The world plainly resembles more an animal or a vegetable than it
does a watch or knitting-loom. Its cause, therefore, it is more
probable, resembles the cause of the former. The cause of the former
is generation or vegetation.”
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 24 2005 - 07:54:30 BST