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 ...
The author is capable if seeing nature for what it is...a subset of our expeiences, not the overall picture.
No; the evidence itself is what makes the case. The fact that I have to present the evidence here in order to establish the point is necessary, but incidental to the argument.
Have at it. I’ll wait.
The author stated that nature is obviously teleological. If that's the case, then why are all of his defenders here attempting to make his case by appealing to things which (assuming they exist at all) exist outside of nature?
If his statement is correct, why can't it be defended on the grounds he puts forward?
Forget the critics; his argument can't even stand up to his own apologists!
Wait for what? I've already presented the evidence (the case of infant cancer).
No, actually I see design in nature around me all the time every day. In fact I’d say it’s rather nonsensical to assert virtually everything we experience is just because...
That's simply the result of your presuppositions
It’s a statement you made, an assertion but evidence of nothing. You have yet to make a logical argument why that would be so.
,
Well, based on naturalistic evidence such as infant cancer, I suppose one could conclude that there is a horribly inept or insane designer (or designers), but I personally see no reason to believe that.
One could conclude that the infant was exposed to cancer causing chemicals or radiation or disease but conclusions are not the same as proof and so the infant cancer thing is pretty much a nonstarter for evidence of anything.
Other than perhaps that the young can get cancer too.
Just as your cancer presuppositions are evidence of no design.
Are you kidding? You can't just glibly speak about "cancer causing chemicals" and "disease" as if those are neutral things. That is hardly the case; those things are themselves evidence of either no designer, or an inept/insane designer (or designers).
If that's true, it nevertheless disproves the author's assertion that nature is "obviously teleological".
What logic would lead you to that conclusion? Repeating an assertion is not a logical argument nor evidence nor proof.
Since we're interpreting things solely upon naturalistic grounds here (based upon the author's statement about the obvious character of nature), there aren't many possible conclusions that can be made
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. On purely naturalistic grounds, logic thus presents us with the following possibilities:
a. There is no designer(s)
b. There is an inept designer(s)
c. There is an insane designer(s)
Remember, the author is arguing that nature is obvious, so you can't appeal here to anything outside of nature.
I said, "I'll bet." Are you wanting to take me up on this bet? If so, what is your wager?
Insane designer? No, unless one would assume a sane design would never allow an infant to get cancer.
Inept designer? Logically no. Unless one can assume an ept design would never allow cancer in an infant.
No designer? If we accept that an infant getting cancer is evidence of no designer then what would we term the vast majority that do not get cancer evidence of?
No matter what view we take cancer in an infant doesn't logically lead to any of the possibilities you offer.
If that's true, it nevertheless disproves the author's assertion that nature is "obviously teleological".
Not at all, because there are many paths to understanding teleology in nature, not just the cancer angle.
That is such a beautiful example of a circular argument. Do you mind if I use it in my class?
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.
Thus, "misuse" logically indicates and inept designer, since those who "misuse" the design are themselves part of that design.
And there can be no external assault, if you are claiming that everything that exists was designed by said entity.
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.