Posted on 06/20/2009 6:18:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions
--snip--
That theists and open-minded agnostics and atheists on the pro-Darwinist side of this debate are finally engaging the same fundamentalist atheist dogma that intelligent design proponents have engaged for several decades is a good sign. Fundamentalist atheists are of course fighting back ferociously, because they understand, as perhaps the accomodationists don’t, the profound implications of an understanding of the natural world that is not causally closed.
Teleology is obvious in nature. Atheists and materialists intrinsically deny the reality of teleology-- Aristotelian final causation-- in nature, yet nothing in the natural world can be understood without reference to teleology. Science is saturated with reference to purpose and goals of natural things. Atheists deny teleology, because acceptance of teleology in nature raises devastating questions about their atheist faith.
Fundamentalist atheists-- secular priests-- fight ferociously to extinguish challenges to their faith, because they understand that to raise the question of teleology in nature is to answer it. Atheism, for good reason, fears questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
I posit no such thing and if someone else did please point it out to me.
“While those conditions certainly apply in the case of ordinary finite designers and designs, appealing to them in this instance doesn’t save your argument, since you are positing a designer who designed everything that exists.”.
Regarding the age of the universe, science is now telling us that it’s 13.7 billion years. Ref ... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2271183/posts
As to how old the Earth is, age dating on Earth’s rocks is inconclusive because conditions on Earth (erosion, tectonic shifts, mountain ranges thrusting up, volcanic eruptions, ice ages, meteroid hits, etc.) change Earth’s surface over time.
Nonetheless, scientists tell us that the Moon and Earth were once one, and that some moon rocks collected on Apollo missions are 4.7 billion years old. The scientific estimate as to Earth’s age is therefore 4.7 billion years.
Everything in the universe evolves.
I fear no question. Not one.
Like:
If all the dinosaurs were alive at the time of the Flood, why did not ONE pair of dinosaurs from the fossil record show up to be put on the Ark?
If you think that the Bible is fake, a story, a allegory, or anything but the truth, they you’re calling God a liar.
_______
This is the leap that I’ve not yet figured out. If the Genesis account of creation is allegory then God is a liar. One simply does not follow from the other, at least from where I sit.
Jesus did say, “Your word is truth”, in prayer to God so what did he mean if not what he said?
Jesus did say, “Your word is truth”, in prayer to God so what did he mean if not what he said?
___________
I’m not trying to be dense, but I don’t read those words as saying “The Genesis creation account is 100 percent literally true”.
Frequently when the Genesis account is discussed it is called allegorical. Rather in the same vein the story of the ant and the grasshopper story.
No one would say that tale was true or truth whatever the underlying meaning, in fact, like the three little pigs story, it was deliberately fantastic since the teller would not want anyone to take it as a truth but pay attention to its meaning.
Jesus frequently did use parables as a teaching device but when he did so it clearly that by the wording. Hence both Peter and Paul spoke of the Genesis account not as a parable but as a historical example, of truth, of God's actions.
For example Paul compares and contrasts Christ and Adam. And points to Adam's error as the source of human death. Rather difficult for an allegorical chracter to bear such blame.
Jesus himself said of the Genesis account, “Have you not read that He who created them in the beginning...?” and
then quotes Genesis 2:24 as the reason a man and woman should remain married.
The Genesis account was part of that “word” that Jesus quoted and called “truth”.
If it is an allegory with some underlying story then what would that story be? Who do the characters represent and what do their actions represent? Who is God, Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. an allegory of? If a mix of literalness and parable or allegory what part is which and how? If part is outrightly false, what part is that and how?
Somehow when the throw away statement is made that, “it's an allegorical story” such questions are not addressed.
And quite frankly, how we read it is of far less importance than how Christ took it if we claim to be one of his followers.
We do? So now you're saying that nature is teleological? Saying that "things in nature at least sometimes don't work as the[y] should, and in fact often go horribly wrong" assumes that there is a purpose to the way that things work, i.e. it assumes teleology.
In post 92 you wrote:
You can't just glibly speak about "cancer causing chemicals" and "disease" as if those are neutral things.But without a teleological framework, that's exactly what they are: They're just things that happen, and there is no question of anything "going wrong".
To be clear, I am not trying to prove to you that nature is teleological. However, it seems that you already (tacitly) believe that it is.
“We all admit that things in nature at least sometimes don’t work as the should, and in fact often go horribly wrong, as in the case of infant cancer.”
Indeed this comment points to purpose in useing terms like should and wrong. Atheistic philosophy admits of no purpose, no direction, no right and wrong, just that the universe is.
Of corse I can talk about cancer causing cheicals and disease in a neutral way since those chemicals are only cancer causing under a given circumstance and likewise organisims that cause disease.
Note to self: at 6:00 am use spellcheck.
NEVER!
Go back and read my last few posts, and you'll see that I've allowed for the possibility that one could conclude the existence of an inept or insane (or evil) designer(s) based upon purely naturalistic evidence.
see post # 112
The only way one can posit an insane designer is to point to evidence of that insanity in the design. Quite the opposite is the case.
The insanity (or ineptitude) in the design has been the topic of all of my posts on this thread.
More like variations of #52:
“The existence of cancer pretty much destroys any argument for teleology in nature.”
How that is so you make no argument. In post #100 you claim misuse of something is evidence of an “inept or insane designer” since the user is part of the design.
But that argument fails on the point that the decision of the user to choose a certain use is not part of the design.
Or do you ascribe to the notion that a certain design should be impossible to misuse?
OK, but I was pointing out the problem with your argument against teleology. Your proposed trichotomy (either no designer or inept designer or insane designer) is also fallacious, but before we get to that perhaps you should come to terms with your own apparent belief in teleolgy. Perhaps teleology might not necessarily be obvious in nature... but then why do you believe in it? Why do you believe that infant cancer is the result of something gone "horribly wrong"?
Again, I am not trying to prove to you that nature is teleological, but if you wish to discuss the matter logically then you need to understand why your attemped proof of the contrary is self-defeating. Is infant cancer an example of something not working the way that it should, or isn't it? If infant cancer is an example of something not working the way that it should (as you presume) then this implies that nature (at least so far as human life is concerned) is teleological, which is the opposite of what you claimed it showed. If, on the other hand, infant cancer is NOT an example of something not working the way that it should, then you have no argument to begin with.
Now, regarding the false trichotomy you proposed regarding the possibilities of a designer (or lack thereof): What do you mean by "evil", and by what "purely naturalistic" standard would you accuse the designer of nature of being "insane"? Or perhaps you have some standard in mind that is not "purely naturalistic"? Do you see the problem here?
No, the logical trichotomy is not nearly as loaded: Either 1) There is no designer; 2) There is an inept designer; or 3) There is a perfectly skilled designer.
Good, your last sentence there acknowledges the point I've been trying to make. But just because I propose a trichotomy and at some point make a statement based upon the presuppositions of one of them (as I've done with each of the others as well) it doesn't mean that I actually accept that view.
Temporarily adopting the presuppositions of a particular argument in order to follow them to their conclusions is long-stand rhetorical method, and ignorance of that method or pretense otherwise isn't going to get you guys any mileage.
The problem is you haven’t followed anything to a logical conclusion. You point off in the distance and say its possible to find (a,b,c) there.
No, the problem is that you attempted to go much farther. This is what you claimed in post 73:
The fact that infants die of cancer is extremely relevant however, as compelling evidence that nature is not teleological in character.Do you understand yet that the very assumption (i.e. that infant cancer is an example of something gone "horribly wrong") required in order to give this claim an air of plausibility in the first place (which it only achieves by eliciting an emotional response) would in fact imply the opposite? You have yet to address this problem. Why did you ignore the rest of my post?
Again, I'm not trying to prove to you that nature is teleological. Why should I? You already believe that it is.
But just because I propose a trichotomy...
A false trichotomy. This is another problem that you have yet to address (again, see my previous post).
...and at some point make a statement based upon the presuppositions of one of them (as I've done with each of the others as well) it doesn't mean that I actually accept that view.
Except that's not what you did. You said (post 95):
We all admit that things in nature at least sometimes don't work as the should, and in fact often go horribly wrong, as in the case of infant cancer.This was presented not as a logical consequence of any of your three proposed possibilities, but as an overarching assumption. According to you, this is something on which we all agree. Obviously, you believe it.
Temporarily adopting the presuppositions of a particular argument in order to follow them to their conclusions is long-stand rhetorical method, and ignorance of that method or pretense otherwise isn't going to get you guys any mileage.
See above. It is obvious that you did not merely adopt the assumption for the sake of argument. Either way, you still need to deal with the fact that you were wrong about the implications. From post 79:
That "failure of some system" (especially in the context of a young life) is direct evidence that nature is non-teleological.On the contrary: If cancer is the "failure of some system" then this means that the system has a purpose. So instead of concluding that infant cancer implies that nature is not teleological, you must logically conclude that infant cancer implies that nature IS teleological.
Again, is infant cancer the result of something not working as it should, or isn't it? If the former, then nature is teleogical; if the latter, then it cannot be used as an argument against teleology. Either way, infant cancer does not demonstrate that nature is not teleological. You have no argument, and you never did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.